The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pteased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 interfering into the peaceful possession of petitioner in respect of the all that the Plot bearing No.365,366,367,368(each plot admeasuring 222.OO Sq.yds) total admeasuring 888.0 Sq.yds or 742.36 Sq.lVltrs in sanctioned layout plan by HUDA File No.5424/MP/HUDA/91, in Sy.No.92,93,94,95,978598, situated at Miyapur village, Serilingampalty mandal, Under GHMC, Serilingampally circle, Ranga Reddy dist with out issuing any notice is wholely illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently this Honourable Court direct the Respondent No.2 not to interfere into peaceful possession of the petitioner i.e. All that the Plot bearing No.365,366,367,368(each plot admeasuring 222.00 Sq.yds) total admeasuring 888.00 Sq.yds or 742.36 Sq.Mtrs in sanctioned layout plan by HUDA File No.5424lMP/HUDA/g1, in Sy.No.92,93,94,95,978598, situated at Miyapur village, Serilingampally mandal, Under GHMC, Serilingampally circle, Ranga Reddy dist without following due process of law in the interest of justice. t.. - lA 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 todirect the Respondents not to interfere into peaceful possession of the petitioner property i.e. all that the Plot bearing No.365,366,367,368(each plot admeasuring 222.00 Sq.yds) total admeasuring 888.00 Sq.yds or 742.36 Sq.Mtrs in sanctioned layout Plan by HUDA File No.5424/MP/HUDA/91, in Sy.No.92,93,94,95'97&'98, sifuated at Miyapur village, Serilingampally mandal, Under GHMC Serilingampally circle, Ranga Reddy dist pending writ petition without-following due process of law in the interest of justi,ie. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA The Court made the following: ORDER t , ''\ n HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.462O OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr.V.S.R.M.V.Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner herein has entered into a registered development agreement-cum-irrevocable general power of attorney with regard to the plot bearing Nos.365, 366, 367 and 368, admeasuring 222 square yards each, in total admeasuring B8B square yards, in sanctioned layout plan by HUDA vide File No.5424 /MP/HUDA|91 in Sy.Nos.92, 93, 94, 95, 97 and 98, situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, within GHMC limits.

3. The petitioner has obtained building permit order dated

29.O3.2O22 for construction of 1 stilt + 5 upper floors over the subject property. According to the petitioner, it has commenced the construction and it is at the footing stage. I ) \ The petitioner is proceeding with the construction, strictly in accordance with the said building permit orrler dated

29.03.2022. Even then respondent No.2 is interfering with the construction r.r,ithout following the due procedure laid down under the lau'. Challenging the said action of respondent No.2, the petitioner liled the present writ petition.

4. Whereas, Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, learned Starrding Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that there is a dispute with regard to the land in S_v.No. lO0 of Hafeezpet and Sy.No.lOl of Miyapur Village of the same Mandal. In compliance \^rith the order of this Court, respondent No.2 has already requested the survey authorities to conduct survey for the purpose of demarcation of the aforesaid land to fix the boundaries. Survey was almost complete, however, respondent No.2 will be requested to serve notice on the owners of the plots and afford them an opportunity of hearing.

5. Similar issue fell for consideration in W.p.No.139gg of 2024. Yide order dated 06.06.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.2 to get the land I I .l /^ surveyed and demarcate the same by fixing the boundarieS through the ofhcials of Survey, Settlement and Land Records after putting the petitioner and all other concerned parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing' This Court also directed respondent No'2 not to dispossess the petitioner therein from the subject property and that both parties shall maintain Status quo'

6. Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, would further submit that except conducting survey, respondent No'2 never interfered with the possession of the subject property' On completion of survey, if the construction is within the aforesaid four plots' respondent No.2 will not interfere with the construction activity being carried out by the petitioner and the possession of the petitioner and the owners of the plots' Otherwise' respondent No.2 will take action against the owners of the plots and the petitioner herein, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the law'

7. As per the said building permit order dated 29'03'2022' the petitioner has to commence the construction on or before 1

29.09.2022 ard complete the construction on or before

29.03.2025. The petitioner is contending that it has already commenced the construction on or before 29.O9.2022, but the construction is at footing stage and the petitioner has to complete the construction on or belbre 29.03.2025, failing which it will be treated as illegal construction. The petitioner has to necessarily approach the GH MC authorities seeking extension of time lor completing the construction.

8. In the light of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to request the Surve5'or to serve notice on the petitioner and the owners of the plots on the addresses mentioned in the cause title and registered development agreement-cum-irrevocable general power of attorney bearing document No.7682 of 2021, dated

09.O4.2021. The petitioner shall proceed with the construction, strictly in accordance with the said building permit order dated 29.03.2022. Till the said exercise is completed, respondent No.2 shall not interfere with the construction activity being carried out by the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid building permit order dated I -- 5

29.03.2022. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ petition shatl stand closed. ,TRUE COPY' SDI T. JAYASREE ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To, 1 , J 4 5 6 The Prl. Secretary Municipal Administration Department' The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. f n" C"o*niitsioner, The Hyderabad Metropolitian Development Authority, Swarna Jayanthi Complex, Maitrivanam' A199rqe!' Hyderabad' on" cc to'snt v.s.R.M.v. PRASAD SANAKA, Advocate LoPU-ql One CC to SRI V. NARASIIVHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA IOP-UCI ' iwo CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN OfVelOptr,leruT, High Court for the State of Telangana lOUTl Two CD CoPies BN GJP HIGH COURT DATED:18102,t2025 ORDER WP.No.4620 ,cf 2025 tJ O E ST4r e rk. 2 5 AFn 2025 o.- S f-'/1i CYt9O \? c).\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q )