Mohammed Amer Ansari v. The State tf Telangana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing 3'd respondent to take action against 5th respondent pursuant to show cause notice dated 08.10.2024 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under Greater Hyderabad Municipal / i I i ( 1t J KL, .J…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, ttre High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT MANDAMUS, declaring the action of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 as illegal and directing them to take immediate action to demolish the unauthorized construction by Respondent No. 5 at H.No. 12-11-1149, Budha Nagar, Warasiguda, Hyderabad. Consequently direct the Respondents to ensure compliance with the GHIvIC Act, 1955 and G.O.Ms. No. 168 MA dafed
07.04.2012, enforce municipal regulations to prevent further unlawful construction, granl compensation to the Petitioner for the damage and distress caused a I.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Consideration Representation dated 30-09-2024, 04-10-2024' Q8-11-2024 and 1g-11-2024, by directing the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4lo immediately stop further constructiorr activities being carried out by Respondenl No, 5 at H,No. 12- 11-1149, Budha Nagar, Warasiguda, Hyderabad, pending the disposal of the wri! petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s AYESHA IRAM &.'-* Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.S : - The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.4498 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel llor Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Petitioner is a resident of Kishan Bagh, Hyderabad. :- :, He is clai4ring that he is the absolute owner and possessor of propefty bearing H.No.12-l l-1150, on plot No.Ci32, admeasuring 55.5 Sq. Yards, situated at Budha Nagar, Warasigutla, Hyderabad. 5'h respondent is his immediate neighbour. 5tr' respondent has obtained permission for construction of Ground Floor, but, constructed Stilt + 5 Floors. The same is an unauthorized construction.. Therefore, petitioner has submitted online representation dated
30.09.2024 to 3'd respondent with a request to take action against 5'h respondent. On receipt of the said representation, 3'd respondent has issued show cause notice dated 08.10.2024 i I I 2 KL, J w.P.No.a498 of 2025 to 5th respondent. Thereafter, 3'd respondent is not proceeding further. 5'l' respondent is proceeding with the construction l unauthorizedly. Aggrieved by the said inaction of 3'd respondent, petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 3'd respondent has produced written instructions wherein it is stated that 3'd respondent will proceed furlher pursuant to show cause notice dated 08.10.2024 and take action against 5'r' respondent *r, ':* strictly-in accordance with the procedure laid down under Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, by putting petitioner and 5tr'respondent on notice and affording them an opportunity ofhearing.
In the light of the above, notice to 5'h respondent is dispensed with.
Operative part
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing 3'd respondent to take action against 5th respondent pursuant to show cause notice dated 08.10.2024 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under Greater Hyderabad Municipal / i I i ( 1t J KL, .J W.P.No..1498 of 2O2s Corporation Act, 1955, by putting petitioner and 5'h respondent on notice and affording them an opportunity of l.rearing. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this oriler. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. \ To //TRUE COPY// SD/-L. LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER 'l . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Telangana, Secreiariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad' 2. The commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corpolation, Hyderabad. O. ffre Oeputy Commissioner, Ciicle No 2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal 4. Th; Greater Hyderabad tt/lunicipal Corpor:ation, Town Planning Sectign Circle Corporation. HYderabad No 18, HYderabad. S. fwo Cq. to Op FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPIi/ENT' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderab-ad'.[OUf]
One CC to M/s AYESHA IRAM, Advocate [OPUC] i. On" CC to SRI G MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) B. Two CD CoPies SA BS -+\ \ \\* -.-& I HIGH COURT DATED:1710212025 r" - -;i ORDER WP.No.4498 of 2025 q -) I yrE SIAr€ 1 o., ( I 21 ilAn 2025 t I -s" gO A.I ^,\\ DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. I I I
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; GHIvIC Act, 1955; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955; Corporation Act, 1955.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.