M.Bhlkshapathi v. The State of Telangana

Sri Golla Srisailam, S/o G.Narsimulu, Aged Major, Occ. Pvt Employee, Rl/o 3- 68, Bandlaguda Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy Dist., Under GHMC Circle-21 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order to issue any appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents interfering and demolish with the petitioner possession over property bearing H.No. 3-64, Bandlaguda Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy Dist. as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently restrain the respondents from interfering and demolishing the House bearing No. 3-64, Bandlaguda Village, amchandrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy Dist under GHMC the Rules and Regulations of the Greater Hyderabad Municipality Act, Rules and also violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under sr:,:tron 15i cpc praying that in the circumstarrces st.irted in the affidavit filed in suprport of the petition, the High court may b,e pleased to direct the respondents to restrain from interfering and demolishirg the House bearing No. 3-64, Bancl,aguda Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, lsanga Reddy Dist under GHMC Cjrckr..21 in pending disposal of the Writ petition. CounSel for the Petitioner : SRI NAMBI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respon,Cent No.1 : Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the ResponrJent No.2&3 , ::'r"#t_llrr"rUDHAN REDDy, Counsel for the ResponrJent No.4 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN IVRIT PETITION No.5O64 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

2. 4fr respondent has submitted representations dated

12.12.2024 and 18.I2.2O24 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 alleging that petitioner herein has made construction unauthorizedly without leaving setbacks. He has requested respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take action against 4e respondent, same were not considered. Therefore, he has filed vnit petition No.37035 of 2024- Vide order dated O2.O1.2O25 this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the said representations and if the altegations made by the 4n respondent are found to be true on inspection of the site, they shall take steps and take action against the 4?- ) L KL,J \l .P Lo.5061 of 2025 2 petitioner ar(l another. However, this Court rlirected respondent Nc,s.2 and 3 to complete the said ':xercise within a peric,d of (0a) weeks. Perusal of the record would reveal that petitioner and another filr:d writ petition No.1't447 of 2024 seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representations dated 1O.O5.2O24 and grievance application through online dated .L 1.O5.2O24 submitted by them a-lleging that 4th responder:Lt. made construction unauthorizedly. The said writ Pet'Ltion was disposed of vide orde:r dated

26.07.2024.

3. 2nd ls5pondent has issued show cause notic:e dated

23.11.2024 atleging that petitioner made construction of Ground + 2 lrpper floors and pent house in 3'd floor at H.No.3-64, Bandlaguda village, Patancheru Mandal. (07) days trme \vas gralted to petitioner to submit explanation. He has submitted explanatior:' dated 29.11.2024. [iven then, 3'd respondent did not take any action. , KL,J w.P.No.5O6a of2O25 3

4. Thereafter, 3.d respondent has issued intimation letter dated 2S.OL.2O2S ln compliance with the order dated 02.01 .2025 in W.p.No.370 35 of 2Cl24 directed the petitioner to appea-r for enquiry on 2T.O|.2O2S. According to the petitioner, he has appeared on the said date and submitted his explanation on 27.OI.2O25. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said explanation, 2'd respondent did not consider the same. In the mealwhile, 3.d respondent is tryrng to demolish the subject properer. Challenging the said action of 3.d respondent, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. Perusal of the record would revea-l that t]le petitioner has obtained building. permit order dated 76.04.2018 from the then Gram palchayat, Bandlaguda for construction of Ground + 2 upper floors. He has constructed pent house in the 3.d floor. The same was unauthorized construction. KL,J w P.i\o 5064 of 2025 4

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitionr:.r has raised tin shed and it is' not a construction. Section 2 (3) of the'Greater Hylerabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 deals with the d.efinition of truilding. It includes a house, out-house' stable, latrine. godown, shed, hut, wall, fencing, platform arrd any other structure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, oretal or of any other material wheLtsoever' Admittedly, the construction made by the petitioner in 3'd floor is unamt horized construction.

7. As dis'<:ussed supra, despite receiving and acknowledgir4; the representations submitted by 4tr, respondent, is;suing show cause notice dated 23'll'2024 arrd petitionr:r submitted explanation dated 29'll'2o24 to the said show cause notice, 3'd respondent did not pass any 61dr:r. Therefore, 4th respondent has frled the aforesaid W.P.No.37035 of 2024 and this Court 'lisposed of the said rvrit petition directing the 3'd respo:edent to V KL,J w.P.No.5O64 of 2O2S 5 take action against the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 23.II.2024.

8. In the light of the same, this writ petition is rtisposed of directing the 3.d respondent to consider the explanation dated 2T.OI.2O2S submitted to the intimation letter dated 2S.OL.2O2S and take action against the petitioner herein strictly in accordance w.ith the procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 within (02) weeks from today, failing which matter will be viewed seriously.

9. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII sD/- K. MAJI ASSISTANT RE STRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Urban Development,State of Telangana, Secretariat,'Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3. The_Deputy Commissioner, Gqeale1 Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle- 21 , Patancheru, Patancheru, GHMC.

4. One CC to SRI NAMBI KRISHNA, Advocate. [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI

6. One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC. tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 ORDER WP.No.5064 of 2025 z-r,;-=;-.5 11 l'?fl u6 ?'1 l-l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSiTS lK I\