The High Court · 2025

Counsel for lhe Petitioner : SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : AGP FOts MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY,SC The Coqrt made the following ORDER rd|. I i I I i I i I i t I I i t i I t*{F' /) I I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.49O7 of 2O25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.1-60/4/A l4 (ml No.1119979065) old No.7-6O/4lA/4, Northern Part, admeasr.rring l2O Sq.yds, situated at Gachibowli, Hyderabad, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.17223 of 2021, dated 01.lO-2O21. She has obtained building permission order, dated O3.O1.2O24 for construction of Stilt for Parking + 2 upper floors. According to the petitioner, she is proceeding with the construction strictly in accordance with the said building permit order. Even then, respondent No.3 has issued show cause notice, dated 13.11.2024 stating that KT-,J W.P-No 4907 of 2025 2 the petitioner is making construction in deviation to the said building permit order. The setbacks .are specifically mentioned in the said show cause notice. Seven (7) days time r,r.,as granted to the petitioner to submit explanation. She has not submitted any explanation vrithin the said seven (7) days period. Therefore, responclent No.3 has passed speaking order, dated 06.12.2024 directing the petitioner to remove the said unauthorized constmction. Challenging the same, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. In paragraph No.7 of the writ afhdavit, petitioner has specifically contended that respondents have already demolished the road portion construction ancl cellar portion construction on 23.1 1.2024, subsequently after demolition, the cel1ar portion was closed down by the petitioner herself. Even then, respondent No.3 has not referrt:d the said aspects in the speaking order, dated 06.12.2024. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted reply to the show cause notice, dated 7 | .12.2024 narrating tne said facts. KL,J W.P.No.49O7 of2025 J Even then, respondent No.3 is not considering the said aspects. On the other hand, respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to stop the construction and insisting to remove the unauthorized construction. Challenging the said speaking order, dated 06.12.2024, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Whereas, Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on i' instructions, would submit that the petitioner herein failed to submit the explanation to the notice, dated 13.1I.2O24. Even seven (7) days time was granted to the petitioner herein. On consideration of the said aspects, respondent No.3 has passed speaking order, dated 06.12.2024 directing the petitioner to remove the construction made by the petitioner in deviation to the building permit. The setbacks, floor wise setbacks are specifically mentioned in the tabular form. It is a reasoned order. There is no error in it. l r I , i KL,J W P.No.4907 ot 2025 4

5. As discussed supra in paragraph No.7 of the writ affidavit, petitioner has specihcally contended that the respondents have already demolished the road portion and cellar portion of the construction on 23.11.2024 by the respondents. The said fact was not mentioned in the speaking order, dated 06. 12.2024. The setbacks were specifically rnentioned by the petitioner in the reply, dated

11.12.2024 submitted by her to the shou. cause notice, dated 13. 11.2021

6. In the iight of the said discussion, this Writ petition is disposed of r:lirecting respondent No.3 to inspect the subject property, consider the aforesaid aspects mc,re particularly reply, date<l 11.12.2024 to the show cause. notice, dated

13.11.2024 :rnd if the contentions made by the petitioner are found to be incorrect, he shall take action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. If the petitioner is aggrieved b1' the speaking order, she has to prefer an appeal in tr:rms of Section 655 of the Greater Hyderabad MunicYpal Corporation Act, 1955. On inspecting site, if I Y KL,J W.P.No.49O7 of 2025 ) respondent No.3 comes to a conclusion that petitioner has not removed the setbacks as specilically mentioned in the speaking order, dated 06.12.2024, liberty 1S granted to respondent No.3 to take action against the petitioner pursuant to the said speaking order. He shall complete the l said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, petitioner shall proceed with the construction strictly in accordance with the building permit order, failing which, liberty is granted to respondent No.3 to take action against the petitioner. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shal1 stand closed. I To /TTRUE COPY// SD/.L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSI TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFF ICER \

1. The Principal Secretary, State of Telangana' rep by its Principal Secretary' Municipal Aoministration lril"uio"n ot-u"top*tnt bepartment' Secretariat' , ?il!%3f'i,ssioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation' Tank Bund' Hyderabad, Telangana State 3. The Deputy co..,r,'on'"i,"Creat"r Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Circle No.20, sLpZ, Oacnioowil'ieririnlarirrry, Hyd.erabad. Telangana State' 4. The Assistant city Planneie i"'i* iivotii'oad Municipal Corporation' circle No.20. SLPZ, ercnioowii beiitingamdartv, uvo":lalad Telangana StEle' 5 iffc;J" Gpiori r',r'ii'i aor'ir nir,o'u5s1119EVELoPMENr' Hieh " ;;rif;;tLbtrt .ir"tanganaat HvderabalL9l]Tl o. 6;" Ui't.i qiiM.A,r.MurHeeo' nqry,9i19 [oPUo] i 5'i";c i; diii c.rtaAoi'usuoHAN REpDY' Advocate (oPUq) B Two CQ CoPies SA BS I I HIGH COURT DATED:1910212025 ,{-' ORDER WP.No.4907 oI 2025 E S14 re ( //.i , .:9 t IJ 21 ilAfl 2S25 ?o, * ,a' * 'rleO DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1(( > z o