1. N. Srinivas Rao v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any order, direction or Writ, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents more particularly Respondent No. 2 in passing an order vide No. 144lMCMl2O24 dt. 29.01 .2024 directing the Petitioners to remove the Compound Nall over the Subject Property as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution as well as the Rules formulated under the Telangana Gram Panchayat Land Development Rules, 2022 and consequently set-aside the order vide No. 144lMCMl2o24 dt. 29.01 .2024 to the extent of it dir icting the petitioners to remove the Compound Wall over the Subject property. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 15'l cpc praying that in the cir(;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order vide No. 144|MCM/2024; dt. 29.01 .2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.PRAVEEN GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.l : Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV counser ror the Respondent No'2 '35'I&tmr[[irltt Tu'o"' Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: Gp FOR PANCHAYATH IIAJ Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAI$HMAN WRIT PETITION No.4698 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2

2. The petitioners herein are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of Plot No. I (Western side Portion) and Plot No. I (Eastem Side Portion), admeasuring 252 sqtare yards each in Survey No.6 19, situated at Pudoor Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, on the strength of two (02) registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.876 arld 877 of 2022, both dated 24.01.2022, respectively. According to them, they have constructed a shed. The said Gram Panchayat, Pudoor was merged into respondent No.2 Municipality 02.09.2024. For construction of compound wall, there is no need to obtain permission from the Gram Panchayat in terms of Rule 14 (2) (b) of the Telangana Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 (for short 'Rules, 2002') Therefore, they have constructed compound wall, which is not illegal. However, the petitioners havc already removed the shed which they have constnrcted. 2 KL.J w P No 4698 of2025

3. Respondent No.4 has filed a writ peti,ion vide W.P No.27464 of 2023 alleging non-consideration of representations submitted by it complaining that the petitioners h rve constructed compound wall and shed without obtaining prior p ermission from respondent No.2 Municipality and the then Gram Panchayat, Pudoor Vide order dated 20.10.2023, this Court directed res;'ondent No.2 to consider the representation submitted by respondent N r.4. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notice datcd 15.10.2024 and the petitioners have submitted their reply on 21.10.2024 and,

22.10.2024. Without considering the same, respordent No.2 has issued impugncd speaking order dated 29.01.202: directing the petitioners to remove unauthorized construction of ,:ompound wall and sheds within fifteen (15) days from the date ofrereipt ofcopy of the said order. Challenging the said order, the petit oners filed the present wnt petltlon

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would ,.;ubmit that the impugned speaking order is in violation of the proccrlure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act,2019 (for sho t 'Act, 2019,) Respondent No.2 has not considered the explanation dated 22.10.2024 to the show-cause notice dated 15.10.2024 and the corrtentions of the 3 KI,J W P. No 4698 of2025 petitioners that for construction of compound wal[, there is no need of obtaining permission in terms of Rules, 2002. Though they have specifically contended the same, respondent No.2 did not consider the same. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 is not a reasoned order. Though an alternative remedy of appeal is available, the present writ petition is maintainable.

5. Whereas, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, would contend that respondent No.2 has considered the replies dated, 21. 10.2024 and, 22.10.2024 submitted by the petitioners and passed the impugned orders. There is also mention about the suit vide O.S. No.23 of 2022 filed by respondent No.4 and others against Mr. Vennam Vivekanand & others for declaration, recovery ofpossession, mandatory and perpetual injunction . There is Lo interim injunction. Respondent No.4 has also filed another suit vide O.S.No.66 of 2021 against the owners of the land abutting to the subject land. The said suits are pending.

6. In the impugned order dated 29.01.2025, respondent No.2 has specifically referred all the contentions and also the order dated

20.10.2023 in W.P. No.27464 of 2023 and order in W.p. Nos.3599 of 2024 and,47170 of 2022. Therc is also reference to the show-cause 4 KI-,J W.t'] No.4698 ot:015 notice and the explanations submitted by the petition,:rs. Respondent No'2 directed the petitioners to remove the unauthori; ed construction. The impugned order is an appearable order in terms ()f Section _ 252 (l) of the Act, 2019. It is not the case of the petitioncr; that irnpugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice an,l the procedurc laid down under the Act,2019 to maintain present wnt petition despite availabiliry of altemative remedy. The only con tention of the petitioners is that the impugned order is not a reasoncd trder.

7. As discussed above, respondent No.2 has corLsidcrcd all the aforesaid Rules and the orders passed by this Cour. Ultimarely. respondent No.2 held that the petitioners made unauthorized construction and he directed them to remove the same. In the tight ol the samc, the aforesaid contentions of leamed corrnsel lor the petitioners that the impugaed order is not a reasc,ned order is unsustainable.

8. At this stage, leamed counsel for the pr:titioners, on rnstructions, would submit that the petitioners have alrcady removcd the tin-shed and there is no need of removal of compouno wall.

9. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of granting libefty to the petitioners herein to prefer an appeal in terms ofSection - 252 (l) L- '-l 5 KI.J w.P. No 4698 of2025 of the Act, 2019 before the Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, within two (02) weeks from today, challenging the impugned order dated 29.01 .2025. Liberty is also granted to the petitioners to raise all the contentions and grounds which they have raised in the present writ petition before the Appellate Authoriry, and it IS for the Appellate Authoriry to consider the same. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners fail to prefer the appeal within the aforesaid timelines, liberty is granted to respondent No.2 to take action against the petitioners in accordance with the procedure laid down under law pursuant to the impugned order dated 29.01.2025. Till then, impugned speaking order dated

29.01 .2025 of respondent No.2 shall not be given effect. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// To, 'l . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration State of Telangana, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2. The Medchal Municipality, Medchal - Malkajgiri District. Rep by its Commissioner. SD/. T, JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR ASS SECTION OFFICER Urban Development

3. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Pudur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

4. One CC to SRI S.PRAVEEN GOUD, Advocate. [OpUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, SC FOR MUNl]tpALtTy/MC. loPUCl

7. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYATH RAJ, Hiqh Court for tre State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] I B. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP w HIGH COURT DATED:1810212025 I \ ORDER WP.No.4698 of 2025 q o k lid- Sf4 r{: c f- * 12 JUl\l 2U5 n.. T..ti.-1 'iiI l,il DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Y*