'1 . The Union of lndia v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEt'lI::RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondents No.l & 2: SRI K. RAVINDEII REDDY, s.c. FoR GH[/1C SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S;.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI JAGAN MADHAVT\ RAO, S.C. FOR MUNICIPA]LITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRt MADAS BHARATI{ TCHANDRA WRIT PETITION NO:18780 OF 2021J Between:

1. The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to th-' '3ovt. of lndia, tvlinistry of Defence, New Delhi - 1 10 105

2. Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad 7

3. Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. Greater Hyderabad [\ilunicipal Corporation, (GHIVC) Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad- 500004

3. The Asst. City Planner, Circle '13 Greater Hyderabad [Vlunicipal Corporation (GHIVC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad -500004

4. IVIrs Ghousia Banu, Wo fvlohd Hameed Khan, H.No 9-8-158lNl Quila Mohd Nagar, Near Shiv [Vlandir, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad - 500008 ,.RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction made by respondent No 4 in Ground floor at House No. 9-8- 158/41 7, Quila Mohd Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Golconda Fort, H ydera bad -500008 as contrary to the recent guidelines of the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 110261212011|D (Lands) dated 1B May 2011 and HQ Southern Command letter No 1001o4/NOC/Q (L) dt.01 May 2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 direct the respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4th respondent in Ground floor of house No. No 9-8-158/fu7, Quila Mohd Nagar, Near Shiv lvlandir, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad-500008 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 8 Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL frt)MINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVE'L.OPMENT Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHAR-IFI RAO, S.C. FOR GIIIlflC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - WRIT PETITION NO: 18781 OF 202:J Between: -l . The Union of lndia represented by its Secretary to thr'r t3ov4. of India, tvlinistry of Defence New Delhi 11O 105

2. Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad. 3. Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artill,:n7 Centre PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO ...PETITIONERS AND 1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. S,roretary Department of t\,4unicipal Administration and Urban Development, Se.)rr:tariat, Hyderabad. 2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMt;) Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500C{.)4

3. The Asst. City Planner, Circle 13 Greater Hyderabal lvlunicipal Corporation (GHN,4C) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

4. tr/r Gulam Habeeb Hussin S/o. Gulam Mahoob Hussrr H. No.9 -10-26-1lA 18 ...RES'.NDENTS Steps, Gorconda Hyderabad - 500008 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrCia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue arr order or direction more particularly onr:, in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 1: and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction made by respondent No 4 in G plus 1st floor at House No. 9-10-26-1lAl, 1B Slteps, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad-500008 as contrary to the recent guideline,; of the Ministry of Defence, Nerrv Delhi bearing No. 11026121201 1/D (Lands) riated 18 May 20'1 1 and HQ Southern Command letter No 100104/NOC/Q (L) dt. 01 May 2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent author ties to demolish the unauthorized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 9 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 direct the respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4rh respondent in G+1't floor of house No. No 9-'10-26-1/A, 1B Steps, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad-500008 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -- WRIT PETITION NO: 20587 OF 2023 Between: The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, tt/inistry of Defence New Delhi 1 '10 105 Station Commander Station, HQ, Secunderabad Sub Sector Commander, 3 Training and Mechanical Transport Regiment, Aftiltery Centre, Hyderabad PIN 900398, e/o 56 APO 2 3 ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary Department of tVlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Represented by its Commissioner Gandipet Mandal, Himayat Sagar, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy Dist, Telanagana-500084

3. The Asst City Planner, Malkajgiri Circle-28 [Vlalkajgiri (GHMC), Secunderabad-500047 (Respondent No.3 not necessary party in this petition)

4. The Municipal Commissioner, Bandlaguda Jagir Municipality Corporation Rajendranagar Manda[, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana

5. Smt. P. Vanaja W/o. Shri P. Ram Gopal, age not known petitioners, major, Occ: Businesi, Flat No 1004, PVR Poulomi 90, Gandipet, Hyderabad, Pin - sooooT ...RESP.NDENTS t0 (, Petitiorr under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnc ia praying that in the circumstancer; slated in the affidavit filed therewith, tf- = High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly on,: n the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.2 ;r.rd 4 in not cancelling the construction permission of respondent No.5 for conslrrcting of the House in Plot No 152, Svy No.24 in Pan17, Peeranchervu \.i rllage, Snehita Hills, Bandlaguda Jagir lVunicipality Corporation, Gandipet N4an..lrl, Ranga Reddy Dist., (Telangana) to as contrary to the guidelines of the Ministry r.,f Defence, New Delhi bearing No.1 - 02612/20 1 1/D (Lands) dated 1 8 lt/ay 201 1 a ,; ille gal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to derr:r sh the unauthorized construction. IA NO:1 OF 2023 Petition unCer Section 151 CPC praying that in thr: ;r'cuntstances stated in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High C,)rrt may be pleased to direct the responCent No 3 and 4 to stop the unathoriser: r'onstruction of the 5th respondent construction of the House in Plot Nol52, I)\,y No 24 in Part-17, Peeranchervu Village, Snehita Bandlagudajagir Murrr;ipalrty Corporation, Gandipet l\,4andal. Rang Reddy Dist , (Telangana), pendinrr ,iisposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEfIE:RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL A D MINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K. RAVINDER REtlt)Y, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI S. ABHAY KUMAR IiAGAR, S.C. FOR BANDLAGUDA JAGIR MUNICIPALITY CCIFIPORATION Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 4175 OF 2024 Between: 1 . The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to Govl. of lndia, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi 110 105. 1t

2. The Station Commander, Headqua(ers Telangana and Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad-500010 ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of IMunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Hyderabad l/etropolitan Development Authority, Planning Department, District Commercial Complex, Administrative 'L' Block, Tarnaka, Hyderabad - 500 007

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad l\4unicipal Corporation, lVlalkajgiri Town Planning Section, Medchal-fVlalkajgiri District, Hyderabad- 500062.

4. t\rlr. Uppuluri Srinivas, S/o- not Known to Petitioner, House No.38-15-1 1'1, Shivasai Nagar Vayupuri, Beside Sumangal Function Hall, Vayupuri, Tirumalagiri, Ramakrishna Puram, Hyderabad - 500087. ..RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to issue writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 1 to 3 in stopping the illegal construction raised by respondent No 4 in Plot No 40 (Part), Saptagiri Enclave, Kapra (Village and mandal), lt/alkajgiri, Telangana, near Cantonment boundary pillar No 75, adjacent to GLR survey No 186 as illegal in law and violation of Guidelines No 11026121201 1/D (Lands) dated 18105t2O11 and consequently direct the respondent No 4 to apply for Security Clearance (NOC) in the interest of National Security, Justice lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct respondent No 4 to stop unauthorized construction being carried out in Plot No a0 (Part), Saptagiri Enclave, Kapra (Village and Mandat), Malkajgiri, Telangana forth with, and to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Defence Authorities, in the interest of National Security, Justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA t2 Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL l\DMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVEL.OPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD, S.C. FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. RAVINDER REt)l)Y, S.C. FOR GHMC SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO. $.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - WRIT PETITION NO: 4222 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to Go,( of lndia, l/inistry of Defence, New Delhi 1 10 105.

2. The Station Commander, Headquarters Telangana and Andhra Sub Area, Secu nd,3rabad-50001 0 ...PETITIONERS AND -t . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Se c'etary, Department of lvlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Sr,:cretariat, Hyderabad, Telanga na.

2. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Developrn,lnt Authority, Planning Department, Dist. Commercial Complex, Administri;t've L-Block, Tarnaka, Hyderabad - 500 007, Telangana.

3. The Deputy Commrssioner, Greater Hyderabad \,lunicipal Corporation, It/alkajgin Town P{anning Sectiol, tVledchat-l\4alkajg iri District, Hyderabad- 500062, Telangana. 4, Ir/r Ch Nivedita Krishna Rao, Vill. Bowramspet, Shanrircet IVlandal, Medchal- I\/alkajgiri District, Telangana.

5. SSN Holdings Private Limited, Plot Nos. 21 and 24, Pr atrhakar Reddy Colony, Rampally Vil{age, Keesara [r,4andal, Medchal - I\rlalka.lrliri District rep. by its Director Sri. Kadakanchi Srinivas Respondent No.S is impleaded as per Court Order caled 01.04.2024 in l.A. No.2of 2024. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnJiir praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, thr: High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of Direction. p;rrticuiarly one in the nature of Writ o{ Mandamus declaring the action of Respc,n,Jents No. 2 and 3 in not initiating acpropriate steps against 4th respondent in r,--s;pect of unauthorised construction being carried out by 4th respondent without obtaining necessary permission and No Objection Certificate from the [t/ilitary authorities as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and the provisions of Rules and regulations issued by the Ministry of Defence. Consequently direct the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to cancel the layout permission and stop unauthorised construction carried out by 4th respondent in Survey No.345/P and 347lP, situated at Bowramspet village, Shamirpet mandal, lVledchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana forthwith in the interest of National Security. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 . Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct 4tl' respondent to stop unauthortzed construction being carried out in Survey No.345lP and 347lP, situated at Bowramspet village, Shamirpet mandal, [\/edcha l-lVlalkajgiri District, Telangana forthwith, and to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from the Defence Authorities, in the interest of National Security, Justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: SSN Holdings Private Limited, Plot Nos. 21 and 24, Prabhakar Reddy Colony, Rampally Village, Keesara fi/landal, Medchal - lValkajgiri District rep. by its Director Sri. Kadakanchi Srinivas ...PETITIONERYPROPOSED RESPONDENT No.5 AND

1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt. of lndia, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi - 1 10 1 05.

2. The Station Commander, Headquarters Telangana and Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad - 500010 ...RESPONDENTSMRIT PETITIONERS

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

4. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Planning Department, Dist. Commercial Complex, Administrative 'L' Block, Tarnaka, Hyderabad - 500 007, Telangana. l4

5. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad l\rlunicipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Town Planning Section, Medchal-Malkaioiri District, Hyderabad- 500062, Telangana.

6. tt/ r Ch lr,livedita Krishna Rao, Vill: Bowramspet, Sharrirpet Mandal, lr/edchal- Malka.igiri District, Telangana. ...RESPONTIEi NTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C.rurt may be pleased to vacate the interim direction dt.19.02.2024 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2O24 in WP.No.4222 ttf 2024 and dismiss the writ petition with exenrplary costs. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENt:RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL I,tIMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVE L'CPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s. D. MADHAVI, S.C. I::OR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. RAVINDER REtlt)Y, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI KOKA SAWANAF:IiYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M. DHANANJAY REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 4230 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Union of lndia, Reo. by its Secretary to Gori. of lndra, lvlinistrv of Defencer, New Delhi 1 10 1 05.

2. The Station Commander, Headquarters Telangana arrd Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad-50001 0 ...PETITIONERS AND -1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Se:;r',:tary, Department of Itrlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, llocretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana

2. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Developrrr:nt Authority, Planning Department, Dist. Commercial Complex, Administrati,,'e L Block, Tamaka, Hyderabad 500 0O7

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lv,lunicipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Town Planning Section, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad- 500062 15

4. Mr Devarajan, S/o. Not Know to Petitioner, Plot No 108, JJ Nagar Colony Yapral, Secunderabad-500087 Telangana .,.RESPONDENTS 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 writ of mandamus declaring inaction of the respondent No 1 to 3 in stopping the illegal construction raised by respondent No 4 in PIot No 108, JJ Nagar Colony, Yapral, near Cantonment boundary pillar No 77, adjacent to GLR survey No 186 as illegal in law and violation of Guidelines No 11026121201 1lD (Lands) dated 18/05/201 1 and consequently direct the respondent No 4 to apply for Security Clearance (NOC) in the interest of National Security, Justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct respondent No 4 to stop unauthorized construction being carried out in plot No 108, JJ Nagar Colony, Yapral, Secunderabad forthwith, and to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from the Defence Authorities, in the interest of National Security, justice. Counge! for the Petitionqrs: QRI GApl PRAVEEN KUIUAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD, S.G. FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. RAVINDER REDDY, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - WRIT PETITION NO: 4277 OF 2024 Between: 1- The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt. of lndia, tVinistry of Defence New Delhi - 'l 10105. 2- The Station Commander, Station Head Quarter, Secunderabad. t6

3. The Sub Sector Commander, 1 Training Regime"ri Artillery Center, Pin- 900398, C/o. 56 APO. ...PETITIONERS AND 1, The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal S(]c:retary, Department of {\,4unicipra{ Administration, and Urban Development, S':c;retariat, Hyderabad. 2. Greater. Hyderabad [\4unicipal Corporation (C l-lMC), Rep. by its Commi'ssioner, GHlt4C, Khiratabad, Hyderabad - 5000Cr4.

3. The Asst City Planner, Khairatabad Circle - 13. Khiratabad, Hyderabad.

4. Smt. lVlanjula, Aged about Major, Occ: Not Known io Petitioner, H.No. 9-5- 1 19i D, Ramdevguda Village, Golconda Mandal Flanga Reddy District_ Hydera:ad- 500031 . ...RESPONDENTS Petitior under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrroLa praying that tn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tl e High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or Writ specially o,re: in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in permitting the respondent no 4 for unauthorised construction, as conl:rary to the guidelines of the ministt/ of defence, New Delhi bearing no 110261?.l..LOl'1lD(Lands), dt.18- 05-2O11, threat to national security besides unautrr.,rised arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorrties to demo rs h the building of the respondent Nlo.4, Sy.No.58. H.No.9-5 119. situated at I:lamdevguda Vitlage, Golconda lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad forth ry [h. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th': :ircumstances stated in the affidavil. filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 4 to not to proceed with any frrrther construction and further direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to take a1:rpropriate action on unauthorized lonstructions carried out permission by respr:rndent No:4, Sy. No. 58, in H.No.9-5-1 19, situated at Ramdevguda Village, Golc rnda lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENIE.RAL OF INDIA l1 Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -- WRIT PETITION NO: 4326 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary to Govt. of lndia, [\llinistry of Defence New Delhi-110105.

2. The Station Commander, Station Head Quarter, Secunderabad. 3 The Sub Sector Commander, 1 Training Regiment Artillery Centre, Pin- 900398, C/o. 56 APO .,PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of lr,ilunicipal Administration, and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHIMC), Rep. by its Commissioner, GHMC, Khiratabad, Hyderabad - 500004.

3. The Asst. City Planner, Khairatabad Circle-13, Khiratabad, Hyderabad.-

4. It4r. Srihari, S/o. Sri Satyanarayana, Aged about: 30 years, Occ: Bank Employee, H.No. 9-5-'l 12lD, Rqmdevguda Village, Golconda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Hyderabad-50003 1 . ...RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to issue an order or direction or Writ specially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondent No 2 and 3 in permitting the respondent no 4 for unauthorised construction, as contrary to the guidelines of the ministry of defence, New Delhi bearing no 110261212011|D(Lands), dt.18- O5-2O11, threat to national security besides unauthorised arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the building of the respondent no 4, H.No 9-5-1121D, situated at Ramdevguda Village, Golconda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 l8 Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in tl,.] circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co.rrt may be pleased to direct the respondent no.4 to not to proceed with any f.rlher construction and further direct respondent no 2 and 3 to take appropriate a,ltion on unauthorized constructions carried out without permission by respon,rent No.4 in H.No.9-5- 'l 12lD, Ramdt:v qLrda village Golconda Mandal Ranga R,:::,ly District Hyderabad, pend ing dispcsal of WP. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAF:, DEPUry SOLICITOR GEI',lt::RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL i\DMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVT:L.OPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTJ RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - WRIT PETITION NO: 4342 OF 2024 Betwee n:

1. The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary to Govt. of rrr: a, ft/linistry of Defence New Delhi-'l 10105-

2. The Station Commander, Staiion HQ, Secunderabarl. 3, The Sub Sector Commander, 1 training Regirneri Artillery Centre, Pin- 900398 C/o 56 APO. ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Sec.etary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Ser;r':rtariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad ftilunicipal ()orporation (GHMC), Khiratabad, Hyderabad. 500004.

3. The Asst City Planner, Khairatabad Circle-13, h hiratabad, Hyderabad- 500004

4. Mrs. Nagamani, W/o. Late M. Ravi, Aged about: Maj Petitioner, H.No. 9-5-1 15/12lA, Ramdevguda Vil Ranga Reddy District. Hyderabad-50OO31 or . Q66 Not known to the la 1r;, Golconda Mandal, ..RESPONDENTS t9 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or Writ specially one in the nature of Writ of lVandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondent No 2 and 3 in permitting the respondent no 4 for unauthorised construction, as contrary to the guidelines of the ministry of defence, New Delhi bearing no 11026121201 1/D(Lands), dt.1 B- 05-2011, threat to national security besides unauthorised arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the building of the respondent no 4, H.No 9-5-1121121A, situated at Ramdevguda Village, Golconda f\Iandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad forthwith. lA NO: .f OF 2024 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 direct the respondent no.4 to not to proceed with any further construction and further direct respondent no 2 and 3 to take appropriate action on unauthorized constructions carried out without permission by respondent no 4 in H.No.9-5- 1121121A, Ramdev guda village, Golconda ltrlandal, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUM4R, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - Between: WRIT PETITION NO:6801 OF 2024 '1 . The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, t\tlinistry of Defence, New Delhi-1 10105.

2. Station Commander, Station Headquarter, Secunderabad. 3. Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre, PIN 900398, c/o s6 APo ...PET.a'NERS ).., AND ZO 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Sr:c -etary, Department of Iilunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secr :tariat, Hyderabad. 2. Greater Hyderabad tvlunicipal Corporation (GHlvlC ) Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner. Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

3. The Assistant City Planner, Circle-13 Greater -lyderabad t\rlunicipal Corporation(GHMC), Khairatabad, Hyderabad-50000.i

4. Omar Wasif Syed, S/o. Late Syed Abdul Ahmed, l.!t,;d about: Major, Occ: business, H.No 9-4-137lB/, Jamali Kunta, 7-Tombs (:jolconda, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lrrd a praying that in the circumstances; stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tl-: Hiqh Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly :n,: in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent l.irr 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate ar;tion and stopping unauthorised constructic'r made by respondent No 4 in Ground floor at H-No.9-4-13718, Jamali Kuntzr, 7-Tombs, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008, as contrary to the guidelines of the i\4 n stry of Defence, New Delhi bearrng No. 110261212011/D (Lands) dated. 18-5-20'1, and HQ Southern Command letler No 100'1 O4/NOC/Q (L), dated 01-05-201l3 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to delolish the unauthorized construction. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th ,, rircumstances stated in the affidavil filed rn support of the petition, the High Cor rt may be pleased to direct the respondent No- 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorise,r ()onstruction made by 4th respondent in Ground floor of house No. 9-4-137tF z Tombs, Tolichowki Hyderabad - 500008 pending disposal of the above writ p€1ilion. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEI'lE:RAL OF INDTA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTI{ ltAO, S.C- FOR GHI/iC 2l Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -- WRIT PETITION NO: 6841 OF 2024 Between: '1 . The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi - 1 -10 105

2. Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad. 3. Sub Sector Commander, 3 Training & Mechanical Transport Regiment, Artiilery Centre, Hyderabad PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO ...PETITIONERS AND '1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary Department of [/unicipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Greater Hyderabad lt,4unicipal Corporation (GHIVC), Represented by its Commissioner Gandipet [/andal, Himayat Sagar, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy Dist , Telangana - 500084.

3. The Asst City Planner, Malkajgiri Circle - 28 Malkajgiri (GHMC), Secu nderabad-500047

4. The Municipal Commissioner, Bandlaguda Jagir Municipality Corporation Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

5. tVl/s. Elite lnfra rep. by partners Sri Venkata Balakrishna Arekapudi & Others and age not known petitioners, I\,4ajor Flat No.203, Srinivasam Apartment, Madinaguda Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy Dist. Telangana PIN-50001 ..RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 3 and 4 in not cancelling the construction permission of respondent No 5 for constructing of the House in PIot No 155,157 and 'l 58, Svy No 24 ln Parl No 16 and '17 situated at Snehit Hills, Peeranchervu Village. Bandlaguda Jagir lt,'lun icipality Corporation, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., Telangana to as contrary to the guidelines of the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No 11026121201 1/D (Lands) dated 18 May 2O11, and recent guidelines HQ southern command letter No. 1OO1o4/NOC/Q(L) 01 MAY 2023 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 12 Petitior under Section 151 CPC praying that in ti,.: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High (l(, rrt may be pleased to direct the resyronclent No 3 and 4 to stop the unauthorise I lonstruction of the 5th respondent construction of the House in Plot No.1 55, 1i,7 & 1 58, Svy No.24 ln Part No 16 & 'l Tsituated at Snehit Hills, Peeranchervu \ri i:rge, Bandlaguda Jagir Municipality (lorporation, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Rt:,:: Jy Dist., Telangana, pending dispcsal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAFI, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEr'll::RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL r\t)MINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVT:T.OPMENT Counsel for tlre Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI S. ABHAY KL I1,lAR SAGAR, S.C. FOR MUNICIP t\LlTlES Counsel for the Respondent No.5: -- WRIT PETITION NO: 6967 OF 2o2t Between: Defencr:, New Delhi-1 101 05. 1 . The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary to the Cjr r ' of lndia, tt4inistry of 2. Station Oommander, Station Headquarter, Secunderirl), d. 3. Sub Se:tor Commander,2 Training Regiment, Artilrt'r, Centre, PIN 900398, c/o. s6 APo AND .PETITIONERS

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal S€ 3'etary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Se lrr)tariat, Hyderabad. 2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004. 3, The Assistant City Planner, Circle-13 Greater lyderabad l\ilunicipal Corporation(GHMC), Khairatabad, Hyderabad-50000r

4. Mr.s. Husna Azimunnisa Begum, W/o. Syed lrlohanrn red Abdul Bari, Aged about. h4ajor, Occ. business, H.No. 9-4-137, Plot f lo .90, Jamali Kunta, 7- Tombs, Toli Chowki, Golconda, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS 23 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the atfidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of fvlandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction made by respondent No 4 in Ground + 3 floor at H.No. 9-4-137, Plot No-90, Jamali Kunta, 7-Tombs, Toli Chowki, Golconda, Hydera bad- 500008, as contrary to the guidelines of the l\/inistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 11026121201 'llD (Lands) dated: 18-5- 2011 , as well on recent guidelines HQ Southern Command letter No 1O01O4/NOC/Q (L), dated 01-05-2023, and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4th respondent in Ground plus 3 floor of House No. 9-4-137, Plot No 90, Jamali Kunta, 7 Tombs, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad-500008 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. RAMACHANDRA WRIT PETITTON NO: 7014 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, tMinistry of Defence, New Delhi-1 10105.

2. Station Commander, Station Headquarter, Secunderabad. 24

3. Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artill,rrv Centre, PIN 900398, c/o 56 APO. ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Srrc'etary, Department of [\/unicipal Administration and Urban Development, Se,.:, etariat, Hyderabad. 2. Greater Hyderabad [Vunicipal Corporation (GHN/( ) Rep. by its Deputy Commis;sioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

3. The Assistalt City Planner, Circle-'13 Greater ,lyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHlt/C), Khairatabad, Hyderabad-5000C,1

4. Mr. Itrlohammad lmran, S/o. not known to Petitioner, r\r,red about: [/ajor, Occ. Business, H.No. 9-10-26/4/1 , 18-Steps, Golconda, Hydr, rabad. ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lr dia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tl-.: High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly :n,, ip the nature of writ of [t4andamus declaring the inaction of the respondent N:).2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised constructicn made by respondent No 4 in Ground floor at H. No.9-10-261411 , 18-Steps. Golconda, Hyderabad- 500008, as contrary to the guidelines of the Ministry c 1. Defence, New Delhi bearing No.11o261212o1 1/D (Lands,) dated: 18-5-201 I and HQ Southern Command letter No 1001O4/NOC/Q (L), dated: 01-O5-2O2 3, and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to der-c lish the unauthorized construction. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15.1 CPC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to stop the unauthoriserl .;onstruction made by 4th respondent in Ground floor in House No. 9-'10-26/4/1 18 Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad-50{)008 pending disposal of the above Writ Pelit:n. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENEIRAL OF INDIA 25 Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMTNISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - WRIT PETITION NO: 7065 OF 2024 Between: '1 . The Union of India, represented by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, l\4inistry of Defence, New Delhi - 1 l0 'l 05

2. Statron Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad. 3. Sub Sector Commander 2 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of IMunicipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Greater Hyderabad lVlunicipal Corporation (GHI\4C), Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

3. The Asst. City Planner, Circle No.13 Greater Hyderabad lVlunicipal Corporation (GHMC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004.

4. Md Omer S/o. tvlohd. Omer, H.No.9-105-48-'1 , 18 Step Golconda, Hyderabad - 500008 (TS). ...RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorized construction made by respondent No.4 in G+'l at House No.9-105-48/1, 18 Step Golconda, Hyderabad-500008 (TS) as contrary to the guidelines of the l\,4inistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 11O261212011iD (Lands) dated: 18 \Aay 2011 and HQ Southern Command letter No..t00104/NOC/O (L) dt.01 May 2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 26 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the : rcumstances stated in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High Cot-'t may be pleased to direct the respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthoriserl construction made by 4th respondent in G+1 of House No. H. No-9-105-48'1 1B Step Golconda, Hyderabad-5C00OB (TS) pending disposal of the above writ !)etition and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAFI, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GE!l;:RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL r\t)tMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVI:I.OPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, s.c. FoR Gl{ndc Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -- WRIT PETITION NO: 7070 OF 2O2t Between:

1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to the G rvt. of lndia, I\rlinistry of Defence, New Delhi-1 10105.

2. Station'lommander, Station Headquarter, Secunderab;'rd. 3. Sub Se,:tor Commander,2 Training Regiment, Artillcr-, Centre, PIN 9003S8, c/o. 56 APO. ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Principal Sccretary, Department of l\4unicipal Administration and Urban Development, Se.;rr:tariat, Hyderabad. 2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHtVC), Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

3. The Assistant City Planner, Circle-13 Greater ilyderabad tVlunicipal Corporation(GHMC), Khairatabad, Hyderabad-50000r .

4. Mr. Khursad Ahmed Khan, S/o. Gulam Hussain KharL, Aged about: Major, Occ: Business, H.No.9-4-137lA,/2, Jamali Kunta 7-Tombs, Golconda, Hyderabad ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lnd a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, th: High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly ont: -r the nature of writ of hrlandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 2 and 3 in not taking 21 appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction made by respondent No 4 in Ground floor at H. No.9-4-137lA 12, Jamali Kunta, 7-Tombs, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008, as contrary to the guidelines of the t\,4inistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 11026/2120l .1/D (Lands) dated: 18-5-2011, and HQ Southern Command letter No 1001O4/NOC/Q (L), dated 01-O5-2O23, and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4tr' respondent in Ground ftoor in House No.9-4'1371A12, Jamali Kunta, 7 Tombs, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. RAMACHANDRA WRIT PETITION NO: 7083 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, tVinistry of Defence, NewDelhi-1 1 0'1 05.

2. Station Commander, Station Headquarter, Secunderabad. 3. Sub Sector Commander, 3-Training & lVlechanical Transport Regiment, Artillery Centre Hyderabad, PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO. ...PETITIONERS AND 1- The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Band{aguda Jagir, Ir4unicipal Corporation, Bandlaguda Jagir, Himayath Sagar [Vlandal Dist: Ranga Reddy (TS)-500091.

3. Town Planning Officer, Bandlaguda Jagir, Municipal (lorporation, Himayath Sagar lr4andal, Dist: Ranga Reddy (TS)-500091.

4. Bharat Reddy Naravetla, S/o.'Not known to petitio rerr, Aged about: It4ajor, Occ: not known, R/o. Bandlaguda Jagir Village, Ga rdipet lVandal, Ranga Reddy District 500008 ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrri a praying that in the circumstances, stated in the affidavit filed therewith, ti e High Court may be pleased to issJe an order or direction more particularly on: in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.2 a rd 3 in not cancelling the construction permission of respondent No.4 for const-u,;ting G + 5 in Sy No. 96/10/B on Flot No-265, Padmasri Hills, Village Bandlaluda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy (Dist), Hyd e ra bad -500008 as contr,3ry to the guidelines of the Ministry o' Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 11126/21',al'11lD (Lands), dated- 181512011 as 'ruell on ) recent guidelines Head Quarter Sr uthern Command letter No, '100104/NCC/QL), 01-l\4ay-2023 and illegal, arbitrary irrrC consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized c(,nr;truction. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the -;i'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl rnay be pleased direct the respondent No, 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorized ( lnstruction made by respondent nc'.4 in G + 5 in Svy no 96/10/GHA on Plot itlo.2G5 Padmasri Hills Village Bandlaguda Jagir, Gandipet lvlandal, Ranga Re,lcly (Dist), Hyderabad- 500008 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENE:RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL I,DTMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELI)PMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI S. ABHAY KUIVIAR SAGAR, S.C. FOR MUNICII]/\LITIES Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: -- 29 WRIT PETITION NO:7090 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Union of lndia, represents its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, It4inistry of Defence New Delhi 1 10 105

2. Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad 3. Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary Department of tr,4un icipal Adm inistration & Urban Development, Secreta riat, Hyderabad 2. Greater Hyderabad It/unicipal Corporafion (GHMC), Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad- 500004

3. The Asst. City Planner, Circle 13 Greater Hyderabad [,4unicipal Corporation (GHMC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

4. tt/r Sayeed Ali Khan, S/o Subhan Ali Khan, H.No-9-10-457/1 , Golconda Fort, 1B Step, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008 (Telangana) ...RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction made by respondent No 4 in G plus 1 at H. No-9-10-2616 18 Step, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008 (TS) as contrary to the guidelines of the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 110261212011iD (Lands) dated: '18 May 2011 and HQ Southern Command letter No 100104/NOC/O (L) dt:01 May 2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction- tA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the respondent No- 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4th respondent in G+1 of H.No.9-10-26/6, 18 Step, Golconda, Hyderabad -500008 (TS) pending disposal of the above writ petition. i0 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GAOI PRAVEEN KUMAF:, DEPUW SOLICITOR GEI{I]RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL l\DMtNISTRATION AND URBAN DEVtJt.OPMENT Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDOHARTH RAO, s.c. FoR Gt{tnc Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -- WRIT PETITION NO: 7099 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to the Gr:,i'i. of lndia, tVlinistry of Defence, New Delhi-1 1 01 05.

2. Station,lommander, Station Headquarter, Secunderairi,d 3. Sub Sector Commander, 3-Training & N/echaniczr Transport Regiment, Artillery Centre Hyderabad, PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO AND 2 3 4 ...PETITIONERS The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Sec.retary, Depa(ment of It/lunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Se,_;r:>tariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner Bandlaguda Jagir, l\4unicipal Ccrcoration, Bandlaguda Jagir, Himayath Sagar Mandal Dist. Ranga Reddy (TS ) I1000S1. Town Planning Officer Bandlaguda Jagir, It4unicipal ( )orporation, Himayath Sagar Mandal, Dist: Ranga Reddy (TS)-500091. Smt. Korpolu Vijaysri, Wo. Not known to petittoner, Ag:d about: Major, Occ: Household, Rl/o.H.No.8-2-32129, Champapet Opp. Sf\i l,leddy Garden, Sikara Enclave Saroornagar' Ranga Reddy District ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnJia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, th,r High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus de,:laring the inaction of the respondent No.2 and 3 in not cance ing the construction permission of respondent No 4 for constrLrcting G+5 in Sy No. 9d1AlB on PIot No.266, Padmasri Hills, Village Bandtag.lda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy (Dist), Hyderabad- 500008 as contrrry' to the guidetines of the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 1102612f;.01 1/e (Lands), dated: 1a152O11 as r,vell on) recent guidelines Head Quarter Soufl-rern Command letter 31 No. 100104/NOC/QL), 01-[/ay-2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorized construction made by respondent no. 4 in G + 5 in Svy No.96/1O/GHA on Ptot No.265 Padmasri Hills Village Bandlaguda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy (Dist.), Hyderabad- 500008 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMtNISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI S. ABHAY KUMAR SAGAR, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - WRIT PETITION NO:7101 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, l\4inistry of Defence New Delhi 1 10 105

2. Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad. 3. Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre PIN 900398, ...PET'r.NERS c/o 56 APo AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary Department of Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat Hyderabad

2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, (GHMC) Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

3. The Asst. City Planner, Circle 13 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (cHlVC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

4. IVId Mohammed Samsaddin S/o Allowdin, H.No.9-'10-22lA, 18 Step Golconda, Hvderabad-500008 (TS) ...RES'.NDENTS 32 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnc ia praying that in the circumstances; stated in the affidavit filed therewith, ti e High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly on:: n the nature of writ of mandamus dr-'claring the inaction of the respondent Nc.11 and 3 in not taking appropriate a:tion and stopping unauthorised constructi( n made by respondent No 4 in G+.1 .rt House No.9-'1 0-22lA, '18 Step Golconda, llvd e rab ad-50000 8 (TS) as contrary tc the guidelines of the Ministry of Defence. N ew Delhi bearing No. 110261212011tD (Lands) dated: 18 May 2011 and HQ Sor:thern Command letter No 1001 04/NOC/O (L) dt: 01 t\,4ay 2023 and illegal, arb rrary and consequentty direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthori,.r,rd construction. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ;rrcumstances stated in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High Cc!.r,t may be pleased to direct the respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorise,_l :onstruction made by 4th respondent in G+1 of House No.9-10 -221A, 18 Step Ciolconda, Hyderabad- 500008 (TS) pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENE:RAL oF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL I,tTMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVEL,fPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTI1 RAO, s.c. FoR GF,rlrc Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -- WRIT PETITION NO:7107 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Union_ of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to the Gc vt. of lndia, tvlinistry of Defence, New Delhi-1 10105

2. Station Commander, Station Headqua(er, Secunderaf>e.C. 3. Sub Sedor Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre, PIN 900398, c/o. 56 APO. ...PETITIONERS AND J)

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004

3. The Assistant City Planner, Circle-13 Greater Hyderabad l\rlunicipal Corporation(GHl\/C), Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

4. [\/ohammed Siraj, S/o. not known to petitioner, Aged about: major, Occ: business, H.No. 9-10-23/8, 1B-Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction made by respondent No 4 in Ground + 'l , floor at H.No.9-10-23/8, '1 B Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad- 500008, as contrary to the guidelines of the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 1102612120'1 1/D (Lands,) dated 18-5-2011, and HQ Southern Command letter No 100104/NOC/Q (L), dated 01-O5-2O23, and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4th respondent in Ground + 1 floor of House No. 9-10-23/8, -t B Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL AOMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -- 36 No.4 in Gror.rnd+3 at House No.8-1-405 Shaikpet Vill.rge, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad-500008 (TS) as contrary to the guidelines of 'hr: lvlinistry of Defence, New Delhi brearing No.1'10261212011/D (Lands) dated 18-05-2011 and HQ Southern Command letter No.100104/NOC/Q (L) dt: (t1 -05-2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent auth lr ties to demolish the unauthorized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the Ci'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc u 1 may be pleased to direct the reslrondent No 2 and 3 -to stop the unauthorise.j construction made by 4th respondent rn G+3 of House No 8-1-405 Shaikpet Vil a 1e, Golconda Mandal, H yderabad -5C,0008 (TS) pending disposal of the above V/rit Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAF., DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEl,llr:RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL l\DMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVE:L,OPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHART{ RAO, S.C. FOR GFIl\flC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V. VENKATA MAYUR WRIT PETITION NO: 7122 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary trt the Govt. of lndia, It/inistry of Defence New Delhi 1 1 0 105 2, Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad 3. Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artillr;ry Centre PIN 900398, C/o 56 r\PO ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. S::r;retary Department of tvlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secr,::tariat, Hyderabad Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500002 37 e II,.g.4l:!_City Planner, Circle '13 qfqater Hyderabad Municipat Corporation (GHfMC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

4. Mr Mazhar Uddin Khan, S/o Khasim Khan, H. No.9-B-193/5/1A, euiladar Devidi, Bada Bazar Golconda Fort, Hyderabad- 500008 (TS). ...RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to issue an order or direction more partrcularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No_ 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorized construction made by respondent No 4 in Ground Floor at House No. 9-8-193/5/1A Quiladar Devidi., Bada Bazar Golconda Fort, Hyderabad- 500008 (TS). as contrary to the guidelines of the IVlinistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 110261212011lD (Lands) dated. 1B- 05- 2O11, and HQ Southern Command letter No1001O4/NOC/Q (L) dt. 01-0S- 2023 and tllegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4th respondent in Ground Floor of House No.9-B-1g3t5l1A Quiladar Devidi, Bada Bazar Golconda Fort, Hyderabad-500008 (TS), pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPA,L ADMINISTRAT|ON AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRt K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -- WRIT PETITION NO:7126 OF 202,1 Between: 1 . The Ur-'ion of India, represented by its Secretary to tl- e Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence New Delhi 1 1 0 105

2. Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad 3. Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artil ery Centre PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. []€rcretary Department of lvlunici6ral Administration and Urban Development, Se cretariat, Hyderabad 2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHf\4(l) Represented by its Deputy Corrmissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad- 500 )(.4

3. The Asst. City Planner, Circle '13 Greater Hyderabe C Ii,4unicipal Corporation (GHtMC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

4. Smt Sajida Begum D/o [t/D Osman, H.No.18-7-42 ii 123 Quila [/ohd Nagar Golconda' Hvd e rabad-500008 (TS) ...RES''NDENTS Petitiorr under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrrcia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tl e High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly on: n the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No ,l and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised constructic n made by respondent No 4 in Ground Floor at House No.18-7-425123, Quila [t4<;hd Nagar, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008 (TS) as contrary to the guidelines of th:: h/inistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No.110261212011|D (Lands) dated. .1 r: llay 2O11 and HQ Southern Command letter No 100104/NOC/Q (L) dt: 01 |4ay 2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent autho rities to demolish the unauthorized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the -:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou't may be pleased to direct the respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthoriserl ,:onstruction made by 4th respondent in Ground Floor of House No. 1\-7-425/:aai, Quila Mohd Nagar, Golconda, Hydera ba d-500008 (TS) pending disposal of thr, i,rbove writ petition. 39 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: cP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counselfor the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - WRIT PETITION NO: 7148 OF 2024 Between: '1 . The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, lVinistry of Defence New Delhi 1 '10 1 05

2. Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad. 3. Sub Sector Commander, 3 Training and Mechanical Transport Regiment, Artillery Centre, Hyderabad PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary Department of lVlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. Greater Hyderabad lVlunicipal Corporation (GHfVlC), Represented by its Commissioner Gandipet Mandal, Himayat Sagar, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy Dist-, Tela naga na-500084

3. The Alst eity plqnner, {Valkajgln Ciple 2S Malkajgiri (cHlVlC), Secunderabad-50OO47

4. The Municipal Commissioner, Bandlaguda Jagir [\rlunicipality Corporation Rajendranagar lrlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana-

5. Sri Zohair Hasan Lateef S/o. Wasif Hasan Lateef And Sri Ashar Hasan Lateef S/o Sri Adul Hasan Lateef, age not known petitioners, Major, Plot No. N421564, Road No.12, Near Federal Bank, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Telangana PIN-500034 ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 3 and 4 in not cancelling the construction permission of respondent No 5 for constructing of House in Plot No 24, 25lP WlP,25ElP,26,27,28,29, 30 Svy No.134 & 134lA situated at Kismatpur Village, Gandipet l\rlandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., Telangana to as 40 contrary to tl-re guidelines of the Ministry of Defence, frlr;w Delhi bearing No. 110261212011/D (Lands) dated '18 t\4ay 2011, and recenl r.]uidelines HQ southern command letter no.100'104/NOC/O(L) 01 May 2023 a:; illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to den r:iish the unauthorized construction. lA NO:'t OF 2024 Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ,: TCumstances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High C('L rt may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 and 4 to stop the unauthorise,:i construction of the 5rh respondent construction of the House in Plot No.24, 25lP \At lP , 25ElP , 26, 27 , 28, 29, 30 Svy No.134 & 134/A situated at Kismatpur Viilarre, Gandipet It4andal, Ranga Reddy Dist , Telangana, pending disposal of the at o re vrrit petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAFI, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEhlI::RAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL l\DMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVE I..OPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI S. ABHAY KLll\tAR SAGAR, S,C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M. SAI CHANDRA FIAAS WRIT PETITION NO:7581 OF 2024 Between:

1. The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to th-. Gov,t. of lndia, Ministry of Deferce, New Delhi 1 1 0 105

2. Station Comnander. Station HQ, Secunderabad. 3. Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artill(-.rll Centre PIN 900398, Cio 56 APO ...PETITIONERS AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Se:;retary Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Se lretariat, Hyderabad 2. Greater Hyderabad l/lunicipal Corporation (GHMC ), Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 l(14 4t

3. The Asst. City Planner, Circle 13 Greater Hyderabad lVlunicipal Corporation (GHMC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

4. Mr l\ilohammed Hameed, H.No.9-10-23/C 18 Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad - 500008 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndra praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more parttcularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inactron of the respondent No.2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction made by respondent No.4 in G+1 at House No.9-10-23/C 18 Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad 500008 as contrary to the guidelines of the Ministry of Dt:fence, New Delhi bearing No. 11O2612t2011/D (Lands) dated. .1 B-05 2011, and HQ Southcrn Command letter No. 1O0104/NOCIO (L) dt.01-05-2023 arrd rllegal, arbrtrary and conscquently dtrect the respondent authoritres to demolistl the unautltotized construction. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the rcspondent No_2 and 3 to stop t[]e unauthorised construction madc by 4th respondent in G+1 of House No.9-10 -231C 18 Stcps, Golconda, Hyderabad - 500008 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR writ Petition Nos.5357, 16252, 16875. 18780, 18781 and 20587 of 2023 and 4L75, 4222. 4230. 4277,4326, 4342, 6801,5841.6967 7014. 7065. 7070. 70A3.7090. 709_9,. 7LOt, 7LO7. 7flL 7L21.7L 2, 7L26. 714A & 7s 87. ot 2024 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in all these Writ pci,tic-rs is one and the same, they ar-e being disposed of by this common ordr.. 2. Heard learned Deputy Solicrtor General of Inclia appearing for the petitioners ir all these Writ petitions; learned Govirlment pleader for Munrcipal Administrataon and Urban Developmenl; learned Standing Counsel appi:ar-ing for Hyderabad Metropolitan Der,,,rr.rpmenl Authority; lear ned Staa,l ng Counsel for Greater Hyderabad lulurr :rpal Corporation; Sri Abhay liumar Sagar, learned Standing Coun:ri,, for Municipalily; Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel appeitr nq on behatf of respondent No.5- in W.p.Nos.5357 and 20587 o 2023; Sri Koda Satyanarayan3 Rao lcamed counsel appearing for t.:,,ltcndent 1.,,1o.4 and Sri ltl.Dlrananjay Reddy, learned counsel appearing tbr on behalf of respond(rnt No.5 in W.p.No .4222 of 2OZ4; and Sri K.R;rnchandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial responrlen. in \/.p.Nos.6967 and 707(t of 2024 and perused the record. 2A. Thouqh notice is ordered to the unofficial resporrrlents in this batch cf Writ Petitions some of the notice s are returned un:nlr \/ed. However, in vier,v of the manner of disposal and the nature of lisin,,c: ved, this Court is of the view that the mafters can be disposed of rvit.hout having the audience of the said respondents. 2

3. For ease of reference, the tacts as stated in W.p.No.4222 of 2024 are taken as basis for disposal of all these Writ Petitions.

4. This batch of Writ Petitions are filed by the Union of India assailing the action of the respondents-Municipal Corporation in not initiating appropriate action against the constructions being made by the unofficial respondents without obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the defence authorities in the.land adjacent to such defence establishments.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that originally G.O.Ms.No.168 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dt.07.04.2012 provided for obtaining NOC from the concerned defence authorities mandatory, while applying and obtaining bullding permission from the concerned municipal authorities; that the said condition has been deleted/amended by the respondent-authorities under G.O.Ms.No.7 Municipal Adminiskation and Urban Development ([41) Department dt.05.01.2016 without the consent or concurrence of the concerned defence authorities; that removal of condition of requirement of obtaining NOC from the concerned defence authorities is contrary to the Guidelines dt.18.05.2011 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi; and that allowing such constructions immediately adjacent to the defence establishments, is contrary to the provisions of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (for short, 'the WODA').

6. it is the further case of the petitioners that on account of the respondent-municipal authorities granting building permission without insistinq on obtaining NOC from the concerned Lor:a Military Authority (LMA)/defence authorities, and the unofficial responGents are undertaking constru:tions on the basis of such permissions grantei by the respondent- authorities in the vicinity of defence establishments v,,ithout maintaining the minimum distance from the boundary of defenr:: establishments as prescribed Guidelines dt.18.05.2011, call for initiation o' actron against the said constructions by the respondent-authorities, as r.htl same is contrary to the prescription of requirement to maintain the clisl_.rnce of 100 meters from thr: boundary wall of defence establishment, U- r,r:;, in contravention of WODA.

7. it is also contended on behalf of the petii.ioners that as per Guidelin3s dt.18.05.2011, NOC is required to br: obtained, if any construction is coming up within 100 meters radius of defence establishment (for multistoried building of more tharr four storeys, the distance shail be 500 meters) and only upon issuance cl,such NOC by the LMA/defence authorities, the respondent_authorities a-e required to grant permissi()ns/building approvals. B. Petitioners further contend that though Guidellrres dt.18.05.2011 were su oerscded/amended by proceedings dt.21.10.2016, as the same are not in accordance with the provisions of the WO)i\, the same were not given effect to. Therefore, the authorities were di'er:ted to follow the Guidelines dt. 18.05.201 1 only. _).& 4

9. Petitioners fufther contend that, on the LMA noticing the respondent - authorities have deletedlomitted the condition of requiring to obtain NOC for grant of building permission by amending G.O.MS.No.168 dt.07.O4.2072, vide G.O.Ms.No.7 dt.05.01.2016, the petitioners have addressed letters to the respondent-authorities by brjnging to their notice regarding the security threat to military establishments/installations and requested to make necessary amendments to G.O.MS.No.7 dt.05.01.2016 by ensuring that the condition of obtaining prior NOC for grant of building permission is restored. It is contended that in spite of numerous communications addressed by the LIYA to respondenL-authorities to issue necessary instructions to the municipal authorities directing them to not approve the building plans for four floors and above, which are within 500 meters distance from the defence boundary wall without obtaining NOC/securiV clearance from the LMA as per the guidelines dt.18.05.2011 as amended from time to time, no action has Seen taken thereon and on the other hand, permissions are being granted thereby exposing the defence establishment to security threat.

10. On behalf of the petitioners, it is also contended that the Guidelines dt.18.05.2011, which prescribe the requirement of maintaining minimum 100i 500 meters distance from the defence establishment boundary wall at any point of time were not under challenge and therefore, the unofficial respondents also cannot claim that either their fundamental right is being affected on acgunt of such restriction or that the same is in violation of 5 Afticle 300-A of the Constitution of India as the guideline s only require the owner of the land to obtain NOC from the LMA befoier approaching the respondent-a uthorities to obtain a building permission whereupon the LMA could assess the security threat/perception by car:;ing inspection of the site for issuing NOC.

11. it is also contended on behalf of the petitioner; :hat the unofficial respondents are undertaking development/construction irnmediately within the vicinity of defence establishment and if such ,..onstructions are permittecl by the respondent-authorities, the same ,^,ould expose the activities of defence personnel to security risk; ar d that since, the guidelines dt.18.05.2011 are issued in exercise of pot/ei-,; conferred under Section 44 of ihe WODA, the same are binding on t:le respondent - authorities for granting permissions.

12. Orr behalf of the petitioners, it is also contended :1at the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence would have to be gr'''err importance and are required to be enforced as they are directly t,r(rportional to the Nation's -.;ecunty, as held by the the Hon'ble Supreme (-ourt in the case of Gorakhnath Shankar Nakhwa v/s. the Municipal Commissioner oF Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and othed and the Bombay High Court in the case of Vikram Delite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., a Co-operative Housing Society, through its 1 Special Leave to\rtpp:l (C) Nos.3 112l2023 dt.20.02. 2023 6 Treasurer Vithal D. patet and Ors, v/s. Union of India, through its Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and other?.

13. Per contra, learned Government pleader for MA&UD appearing on behalf of the respective respondents in the writ petitions wourd submit that, in the meeting herd by the representatives of CREDAI with officiar of State Government, Chaired by Chief Secretary on 28.08.201S, a request was made to relax the condition of insisting oF obtaining NOC from the derence authorities for granting of buirding permission for ease of doing business in the state; and that based on the aforesaid request received from the CREDAI representatives, the State Government prepared a note proposing to dispense with the condiiion of requiring to obtain NOC from the defence authorities for apprying to buirding permission, vide Note File dt.18.12.2015 and had circurated the same for approvar oF the cabinet of the State Government and on being approval by the Cabinet on

02.01.2016, G.O.Ms.No.7 was issued on 05.01.2016 amending the condition in G.O.Ms.No.168 dt.18.04.2012. 1,4. Learned Government pleader would further submit that the condition to obtain NOC for applying for building permission was incorporated under G.O.Ms.No.168 by the said authorities themselves, and in view of the request received from the representatives of CREDAI, the said condition was deleted. Learned Government pleader, however, would 12022 scc ontineldmhay 6700 1- 7 submit that though the condition of obtaining Noc frr; r'r LMA was omitted in the Building Rules, it has been made ctr:,r- while granting permissions/approva ls that it would be the responsibrlrty of the applicant to follor.ar the applicable rules as prescribed by the d,:f .rnce authorities in their rules.

15. Learned Government preader further submits t.,,rt insorar as grant of buildirrg permrssion is concerned, the petitioners cir rot insist that the conditior to insist for obtaining NOC from LM/r i,, required to be incorpor;rted in the Buirding Rures of the state and iL. i; br the petitioners to take s-eps to enforce the provisions of WODA by tlrt r selves.

16. Learned Government pleader further submits th t if only there is inconsistency behveen the provisions of the central /.r: with that of the State Act, the Central Act would prevail, and inasmucir the provisions of the GHMt3/Municipa rities Act are not inconsistent witl rrr: woDA and the power to enact laws with regard to the municipalitie:; Ir,, ng State subject, the petitioners cannot rnsist that the respondent - sl.re is required to make/enact laws in accordance with the requirement cf r. )e petitioners.

17. Learned Government pleader further submits .tlt either as per WODA or the Rules and Guidelines issued thereunder, if any restriction is imposed for allowing or not allowing construction ir ;ites abutting to defence establishments, it is for the said authorit,v r I take steps for enforcing the same and it is for the said reason, llte respondents_ 8 authorities, while granting building permission, have amply made it clear that the building permission is being granted subject to the applicant taking up the responsibility to follow the applicable rules as prescribed by the defence authorities in their rules, and the petitioners cannot seek for implementation/enForcement of rules framed by th-e petitioners through the respondents-authorities.

18. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the respondenls-authorities by the Building Rules notified by it, vide G.O.Ms.No.168 dt.07.04.2012, had prescribed the distance from boundary of Defence Area/tvlilitary establishment as 500 meters for seeking clearance of Defence Authority, nohvithstanding that the Guidelines dt.18.05.2011 issued by the petitioners prescribe, 100 meters from the radius of defence establishment (For multistoried building of more than four storeys the distance shall be 500 meters) which guidelines were amended by the petitioners themselves by guidelines dt.21.10.2016, whereby the requirement of maintaining distance ot 100 meters (500 meters for multistoried of more than four storeys) of the boundary of defence establishments has been reduced to 10 meter in respect of defence establishmenLs mentioned in Annexures A and 100 meters for defence establishment mentioned in Annexure B of the said guidelines.

19. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that merely on account of amendmeni issued to Building Rules, 2012, in pa(icular to Rule 3 vide G.O.Ms.No.7 MA&UD dt.05.01.2016 for not insisting to obtain NOC / '/' -/ i 9 from thr: defence authorities for grant of building p:rrnission would not obliviate the responsibility of the person obtaining builling permission to comply with the rules prescribed brr the defe;rcr: authorities for undertaking construction in any site abutting to defenr r: establishments.

20. Learned Government pleader thus submits tha ,.he petitioners are required to take action on their own for implementari.n/enforcement of the WODA and the Rules made thereunder and as sur:h, the action of the respondents-state in amending its building Rules canr,r, be said as either being inconsistent with the provisions of the centrar rrct. for the said Act to prevail over the State Act or the petitioners tc ieel aggrieved to approach this Court by filing the present Writ petition.

27. Sr K.Siddharth Rao, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing on behali' of the respective respondents in all these \\/r t petitions states that the cases of the petitioners can be divided into i,, r categories viz., pre-2016 and post-2016; that prior to issuancr, of G.O.lvls.No.7 dt.05.01.;2016. since, the building permissions that,r,:.e to be granted were governed by the building rules rssued rrli, G,O.Ms.No.168 dt.O7.04.,r-O12, which contained condition relating to . :r:: requirement of obtaining prior clearance of defence authority in case 01, sites within 500 meter drstance from the boundary of the dei:n,:e area/military estabrishment the respondents-a uthorities were dury insisting for obtaining such NOC. 10

22. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that subsequent to the amendment of Building Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.7 dt.05.01.2016, building permissions were granted without insisting for obtaining of NOC from defence authorities. However, the responsibility was fastened on the applicants to follow the applicable rules as prescribed by the defence authorities in their rules, For undertaking construction in sites abutting to defence establishments, and granting of permission by the municipal authorities would not automatically entiUe the applicant to undertake construction without complying with the conditions stipulated under the other laws, be it State or Central-

23. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that in most oF the cases being complained by the petitioners oF not taking any action by the respondent corporation, the constructions are made by private individuals without obtaining any permission or sanction from the respondent corporation; that in respect of such constructions made unauthorizedly on being brought to their notice, the respondents-authorities have initiated action by issuing show cause notice d1.29.11.2021 and also passing Speaking Order thereafter, holding the said constructions to be unauthorized and illegal constructions; and that the authorities would take steps for enforcing the said Speaking Order.

24. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that amendment made to the building rules is only in relation to obtaining building permission from the respondent - corporation as per the building rules in .., 11 force to ensure that the construction complies with tie conditions/rules as prescribed thereunder; and that in some of the cases br:ing compiained of by the petitioners, the identification of such construcLir_)ns is pending and once such unauthorized constructions are identified b,, the respondents_ authorities, the authorities would take further acti.;ir in terms of the provisions of the GHMC Act. 25" It is also contended by the learned Standing C rrrnsel appearing for the respective respondents that the term 'defence es:al)lishment,has not been defined, and the respondents-authorities were (1,:rnting permissions bv consi,lering the distance from the location or the d( tirnce establishment within the defence area, as vast extent of land abutng to the defence establishment is under occupation of defence authoritirts

26. Lerarned Standing Counsel iurther submits tri)t post-2O16, the guidelin€s issued by the petitioners themselves menrion the required distance to be only 10 meters from the outer v,i; ii of such defence establishnrent/ installation for the restriction of requirirrg to obtain NOC, the petitioners cannot clairn of the respondents qranting building permission in violation of guidelines dt.18.05.2011; an( that the guidelines issued by the petitioners do not have any binding effec: {_rn the respondent corporation of the State, much less the same havinq l_.r:en issued under any statutory provision for it to be implemented by tte respondent _ corporation. 12 27, Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.S in W.P.N0.4222 of 2024 would contend that it had obtained layout sanction in respect of land admeasuring Acs.63.39 guntas in Sy.No.345 from H['4DA authorities on 18.03.2020 and is only selling open plots in the layout to intending buyers and is not undertaking any construction therein.

28. Learned counsel would further submit that while the 5h respondent is taking development activities in respect of the layout permission granted to it, (putting on hold the permission granted to it), it has received notice dt.15.12.2021 from the petitioners addressed to the HMDA and municipal authorities with a copy marked to the 5rh respondent herein pursuant to which, the HMDA authorities have issued letter dt.21.02.2022 informing the petitioners that the layout permission granted to it, vide proceedings dt.08.03.2020 is kept on hold and directed the respondents to obtain NOC from the defence authoritiei.

29. Learned counsel further submits that upon the 5th respondent submitting its explanation, the HMDA authorities had revoked the letter d1.21.02.2022; and that the aforesaid proceeding issued by the HMDA authorities revoking the withhold letter dt.21.02.2022 and restoring the layout permission dt.08.03.2020 granted in its favour, was not challenged by the petitioners even though a copy of the same was marked to the learned counsel, Who had initially issued the notice to HMDA authority with a copy of the same being marked to the petitioners. J ./ 13

30. L,:arned counsel further submits that the petitir:r:rs by suppredsing the pror:eedings dt.04.04.2022 and the guidelines is;ued vide circular dt.21.10.2016 have filed the Writ petition in the,,ear 2024; that the provisions of WODA on the basis of which petitioners tr,: claiming that the respondent-a uthority is required to insist for cbtai ri,rg NOC from the defence authorities/LMA while granting permission r,; similar to Land Acquisiti,ln Act and the petitioners without initiating p.cl_-eeding by issuing notification under Section 3 of the WODA can.rcri claim that no developrnent/construction can be made in lands adjaci:.t to the boundary of the defence establishment/installation and such cl;rrnr is in vioiation of Article 300-4 of the Constitution of India. 31 . On behalf of the 5h respondentr it is further ,:r.,ntend€d that the guidelines dt.18.05.2011, or for that matter, guideline :; 1t.21.10.2016, do not spec fl/ that NOC is required in respect of all prop:.ties adjoining the boundaries of the defence area and since, the defenc,,r ,rrea incrudes vast extent ol' land within which such defence establishm::r:t is situated, the petitioners cannot insist that no development/co-t:.iruction can be undeftak,:n adjacent to the boundary of the defence larcls.

32. It is further contended on behalf of the 5h resporrdent that as per the guidelines dt,21.10.2016 issued by the Governme,rt of India, rvlinistry of Defen.e for issuing Noc for buirding construction,; :n the vicinity of defence esta blishments/installations, such establish !--ients/insta:rations have been divided into tvvo parts, namely palt A and pi:rt B; that as per { 74 Part A of Annexure to the aforesaid guidelines, in respect 0f 193 stations as listed therein, security restrictions shall apply up to 10 meters from the outer wall of such defence esta blishments/installations in order to maintain clear line of sight for effective surveillance and any construction or repair activity within such restricted zone of 10 meters will only require prior NOC from LMA/defence authority; that insofar as 149 stations as listed in Paft B of Annexure to the aforesaid guidelines, security restrictions, in respect of defence establishments/installations shall apply up to 100 meters from the outer wall of such defence establishments/installations to maintain clear line of sight for effective surveillance and no construction or repair activity shall be permitted within 50 meters and height restriction of 03 meters (one storey) shall be applicable for the distance from 50 meters to 100 meters and any constructions or repair activity within such restricted zone between 50 to 100 meters will require prior NOC from the LMA/defence authorities.

33. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners' property does not fallllocated under any of the station/establishment mentioned at serial N0.32 of Annexure A of the guidelines issued under the said circular and as such, the petitioners cannot insist for approaching the defence authorities for obtaining NOC to undertake development activity, having obtained layout permission for making plots from the concerned authorities; that the guidelines be it dt.18.05.2011 or dt.21.10.2016, cannot be given the status of a statute or Rules having been framed in 15 accordance with Section 44 of the WODA for them :o have any binding efFect

34. Irr support of the aforesaid submissions, reliar c,.: has been placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court dt.11.01..10i9.. Bombay High Court, Madras High Court dt.02.09.2023 and that ol. .he Apex Court in Babaji Kondaji Garad and others v/s. il,tsik Merchants Cooperative Bank Limitee Nasik and otherf.

35. Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel appe,aring on behalf of responde.nt No.5 in W.p.No.5357 ot ZO23 would ,:jntend that the respondent had made construction of the building cc ir, isting of cellar + stilt + flve upper floors in plot No.75 Northern part ,:r C 76 in Sy.No.24 situated at Peerancheruvu by obtaining permission f-otn the concerned municipa' authorities on 19.06.2021; that the afol.e:;aid construction undertaken by the 5tr' respondent is 150 meters away from the military establishrnent; that the aforesaid construction made by the 5fl, respondent is governed by 2016 guidelines, which prescribes, secur.ty restrictions of 10 meter:; from outer wall of such defence establishment/insta llation; that it has not been issued with any notice mentioning violation, for the petitioners to Rre the writ petition against it nor any rLctice is received from the r:oncerned municiparity which had granted buirding permission in AIR 1984 5C 192 16 his/its favour alleging any violation while proceeding with the construction for the petitioners to approach this Court.

36. Learned counsel would further submit that since the WODA being a special enactment, the said Act is required to be implemented in terms of provisions contained thereunder and the petitioners cannot seek the assistance of the respondents-authorities for alleged violation, if any under the said Act; that if there is any alleged violation under the Act, the petitioners are required to take iltion in terms of Section 37 of the Act and for the said reason also, the Writ Petition as filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.

37. Insofar as W.P.No.205B7 of 2023 is concerned, learned counsel would contend that the unofficial respondent therein had obtained building permission dt.16.05.2022 for construction of cellar + stilt + four upper floors in PIot No.152 and had made construction in accordance with the sanction plan and that the distance between the construction and the defence establishment is 250 meters and as such, the petitioners cannot maintain the present Writ Petition on the basis of the notice dt.29.08.2022 and thus, seeks for dismissal of the same.

38. Sri K.Ramchandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents in W.P.N0.6967 and 7070 of 2024 would submit that the unofficial respondents' houses in both the Writ Petitions were in existence since4ong, while unofficial respondent in W.P.No.6967 of 2024 -.) 1,7 had conitructed house consisting of four floors in .l-,: year 2010, the house of the unofficial respondent in W.p.No.707 1 of ZO24 is only consistin,l of ground floor and in both the cases, ro defence land is involved and as such, the petitioners cannot mainta c the present Writ Petitions against unofficial respondent in both the Writ t)i,titions.

39. I lravc taken note of the respective contentions rrrqed.

40. Beforer proceeding to consider as to whether il-: petitionei.s can raise an :bjcction tc the i-espondent State amendir,; its building rules notified vidc G.O.Ms.No,i68 dt.07.O4.2012 ur C:rr G.O.[4s.No.Z dt.21.10,1016 taking away the i-equrrement of obtairrrrg NOC from the defence authorities/LMA ror grant of bullding permissio.r is concerned. it is pertinent to examine the effect of guidelines issued by thr petitioners.

41. Mi,istry of Defence, Government of India, has is:;ried guidelines for issuance of NOC for building construction vide communication dt.18.05.rt01l addressed to Chief of Army Staff, Chie f of Air Staff and Chief of tJavai Staff, In the said communication, it is noted that WODA imposes restrictions upon use and enjoyment of rano ir.r the vicinity of defence estabrishments and in view of two recent cas,:s viz., sukna and Adarsh, tf e same needs to be comprehensively amencel, for which it is noted that. process is put in motion and in the meantirn.:, the guidelines are to be lollowed while issuing NOC for construction. 18

42. Though by the aforesaid communication, it is stated as amendment to WODA is put in motion to address security concern, admittedly, no amendment has been notified. ln the meantime, Government of India, MoD has issued another circular/com munication specifying the guidelines for issue of NOC for building constructions.

43. Both the guidelines issued vide circular dt.18.05.2011 and

21.10.2016, were subject matter of consideration before Division Bench oF Delhi High Court in the case of Union of fndia v/s. Government of NCT Delhf , wherein the Dlvision Bench of Delhi Hrgh Court had noted that the "guldelines dt.21.10.2016 mentions that large nuntber of representations have been received from elected representatives to review the guidelines issued in 2011 as difficulties are being faced by public in constructing buildings on their own lands, review of the guidelines dt.18.C5.2011 r,vas undeftaken and the Government has decided to amend the guidelines issued vide guidelines dt.18.05.2011, 18.03.2015 and

17.11.2015." (underlining supplied by this Court)

44. The Delhi High Court by noting as above, considered clause 2(a) of the guidelines dt.2I.t0.2016, as under: "2(a) Security restrictions in respect of Defence establishments/ installations located at 193 stations as listed in Part A of Annexure to this circular shall apply upto 10 meters from the outer wall of such Defence establishments/ installations to maintain clear line of sight o r.tnwlotlltozlzozz J 19 for effcctive surveillance. Any construction or repa r activity within such restricted zone of 10 meters will requirc prior No Objection Certificate (NoC) from the Local Military Authoriby ,'Li\4A)/DeFence estdblish ments. "

45. Since, the Division Bench of Delhi High Cor-.t had held that Guidelines issued, vide circular dt.21.10.2016 to be , n amendment to Guidelinr:s dt.i8.05.2011, the submission made o,r behalf of the petitioners that the same were not given efFect to and tl .3 authorities were directed to follow the guidelines dt.18.05.2011 in absr:i ce of any further circular t.r the said eFfect. does not merit consideration

46. Furthr:r-, the issue of permission for constructio r ,^iithin the vicinity of defen(:e establishment has been subject matter of crtl5ilsr-6116n before the Kerala High Court in W.C.No.9799 dt.08.02.2018; Madhya pradesh High Court n Munna @ Ramesh yadav v/s. llnion of Indif; Bombay High Court in Vikram Delite Cooperating Housing S:ociety Limiteds case (1 supra); and High Court oF Calcutta in the case c. Commandant, Ordnance Depot v/s. the Kolkata Municipal Corporatiorf .

47. In the above decisions rendered, the respectivrr .1igh Courts have analfzed the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defr:r:e dt.18.05.2011 and guidelines dt.21.10.2016. The Calcutta High Corrrt in the case of Commandant, Ordnance Depot (6 supra), had an o.t(.asion to consider 5 w.p.No.16!,46 0EiO16 dt 02.09.2023 5 MANU/wB,'1001;,/202 2 20 the effect of guidelines issued on 2l.lO.2016, over the guidelines dt.18.05.2011 which decision of the learned single Judge of the calcutta High Court was also affirmed by a Division Bench of the said High Court.

48. Without burdening this order with the findings recorded in the aforesaid decistons by the respective High Courts, it would suffice it to state that in all the aforesaid decisions, it has been consistenUy held that the guidelines issued vide circular dt.18.05.2011 specifying the restricted area from the defence establishment/inslallation stood amended, by guidelines issued vide circular dt.21.10.2016 and the said guidelines would apply rn respect of building permissions obtained subsequent thereto.

49. The only case wherein a different view was taken is by the High Court of lharkhand at Ranchi in the case of ltnion of fndia v/s. Ranchi Municipal Corporation and other{ wherein the Division Bench, by applying the principle of purposive construction of the statute and also taking into consideration the militant attacks in Sukna and Adarsh, had held that the guidelines dt.18.05.2011 need to be given emphasis over the guidelines dt.21.10.2016.

50. The aforesaid divergent views expressed by High Cou(s in some cases, are subject matter of consideration before the Hon,ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) appeals. ' Mat'tu/tHloqoqlDu .,, 21

51. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in a n:c,:nt judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Goya Resorts' Private Limited v/s. Union of Indif, had an occasion to consicl€i the scope of the WODA.

52. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid dels on by consldering the provisions of the WODA, had held that: "14... the 1903 Act is in the interest of the natiora security and defence but at the same time, undei- its guise the cltiz.rns cannot be deprived of or denied the use of their property ili::qally and in ic i)e a balance viol,ltion of the statutory provisions. There has beh{een [he DUrDose and obiect of the 1903 Act an(l he eqal riqht oF the citizens to use and eniov their roDeav The 1()03 Act in its scheme does provide that balancing factor to be carri,:rd out by the authoritles to take appropriate steps by giving sho.ar cause notice considering the claims, making an enquiry, making a'r award, and determining the compensation for the loss sulferer j. ' (underlining supplied by this Court)

53. The Apex Court by observing as above, u,hrle quashing the declaration and the notices impugned in the aforesaid c vil appeals issued under Section 3 of the Act, however kept the afore:;aid proceedings in abeyance till 31 .05.2025 by granting liberty to the Cer tr.al Government to publish a fresh declaration under Section 3 of the A(t within the above time as stipulated. 3 Civil Appeal No.6079 of 2017 22

54. Having regard to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is to be noted that in the facts of the present case, though on behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the Guidelines dt.18.05.2011, continue to operate requiring to obtain NOC in respect of constructions in sites adjacent to defence establishments, notwithstanding the issuance guidelines dt.21.10.2016, as noted hereinabove, since, both the aforesaid guidelines, were subject matter of consideration before various High Courts and in particular before the Delhi High Court and Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, this Cout is in agreement with the view taken therein and holds that by Guidelines issued vide Circular dt.21.10.2016, the guidelines issued earlier on 18.05.2011 stood amended.

55. Another aspect of the guidelines issued is that the same are issued in the form of circulars addressed to the Chiefs of Army, Air and Naval Staff. It is not notifieci for general public to be aware or bound by the same. The effect of the said circulars issued is that, in case any construction is made within the vicinity or adjacent to defence establishmenvinstallation, the authorities are required to take action as per WODA by acquiring the land/site or paying compensation to the owner for not allowing him to enjoy his property absolutely. Further, it is settled position oF law that circulars issued do not have any statutory force and binds only authorities.

56. Though oh behalf of the petitioners, it is vehemently contended J that the respondent - State by doing away with the condition of requiring 25 Rules made thereunder, it is only the authorities uncjt r the said Act can initiate action and it is not For the authority under othcr enactment to take any action ior alleged violation.

61. Tlough on behalf of the petitioners, it is co ri ended of building permissicn being granted in the vicin 1._r, of defence establish ments/installations and construction made br:ing contrary to the provisions oi WODA, it is not shown to this Court of lr.)titioners initiating any action against such constructions, by exerctsing po..vers under WODA or having taken steps by issuing nottfication/declar.r,. r.It under Section 3 and furtrer action culminating in passing of Award -rt:ler Section i2 by paying compensation.

62. Though on behalf of unofficial respondents wfo have undertaken construction/development, it is contended that since qrrir_lelines issued vide circular dt.21.10.2016 have categorized the defencc r. tablishments into Part A and Part B specifying that in respect of the est. blishments Iisted in Paft A, the security restriction being only 10 meters irnd since all their construct.ions are beyond 10 meters. neither the 1;r:titioners nor the respondents can insist for- obtaining NOC by approachirrc the LMA/defence authorities; and that at Serial No.32 in part A c,f the guidelines dt.21.10.2016 issued by the Union of India whereir.r it mentions the defence establishment of secunderabad in Ranga fleddy District of Telangana State consists of areas oi Maredpalii, .:rl Bazaar, Alwal, Amuguda, l4ehdipatnam, Langar House, Kanchan llagh. GolconCa, 26 Ibrahim Bagh and Makaidarwaja, the security restriction up to 10 meters from outer wall can only be made applicable to those establishments mentioned therein and not other establishments, it cannot be said that defence establishment/installations mentioned therein part A numbering to 193 stations and Part B are t49 stations only defence establishments/ installations, and there exists no other establishment, to which these security restrictions would apply and there is no other defence establishment/installation to which no restrictions are applicable.

63. On the other hand, if there is any other defence establishment/ installation which does not find mention either in part A or part B of Annexure to the guidelines to which the restriction of 10 meter or up to 100 meter, as the case may be applicable, in such cases, the restriction as may be notifled by a specific notification or as specified in Section 7 of WODA would continue to apply.

64. Though On behalf of the unofficial respondents in W.p.N0.4222 of 2024, it is further contended that since, the distance from the wall ol the defence establishment is more or that the development being undertaken does not include construction and is only making a layout, Rrstly, it is to be seen as per the provisions of WODA, the same is applicable to any land adjacent or in the vicinity of defence establishment/installation from being put to use by the owner, the authorities are required to take action by issuing declaration/notification preventing such use by paying compensation. Thus, the claim of the unofficial respondents that it is only ) ) =- .i --tl:i;tt 27 making a layout of plots and selling them to intending purchasers would mean the unofficial respondent using the land, which tirr_: authorities under the WODA can restrict by following the procedure pr<:sl:ribed thereunder. Thus, the claim of the unofficial respondents in thrs rei;ard does not merit conslderation.

65. Even though on behalf of the petitioners and rerspondents, it is not shown to this Court of the areas covered by the prr_,s ent Writ petitions being covered either by air force or under the arn y establishrnent at Secunde-abad, however, judicial notice can be taken oi ihe iaci that tnere have be<:n notifications issued from time to time concr:ining the Air Force Station, Hakimpet, Air Force Station Dindigal, in the ljtate of Telangana, vide SRO No.12 dt.14.02.2007 which notification has )een renewed on

13.01.2010.

66. Similarly, this Court has also come across notif :atto:rs vide SRO N0s.136, 137 dt.19.05.1976 in respect oF area in th.,r vlcinity of DRDL, Chandral,6n3gutta, and DMRL, Kanchanbagh, SRO No..,lg dt.07.04.2006, in respect of the area in the vicinity of RCI, Vignyana .(,:ncha post Office, iiyderabad, SRO No.74 dI.Z2.1C.ZOO7 in respect ot .Advance system, laboratory, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, and SRO No.58 1t.04.06.2008, in respect of area in the vicinlty of DLRL security restri(.ttions have been notifled. Thus, the claim of the unofficial respondents t lat it is only the 193 stations of defence establishments/installations wl- ic:h are required to 2a have security restrictions and not other, does not appeal to this Court for being accepted.

67. On the other hand, if any station is not mentioned either in part A or Part B of Annexure to guidelines dt.21.10.2016, in respect of such stations, the restriction as specified rn Section 7 of WODA would continue to apply subject to publication of notice under Section 3 of the WODA. Further, in respect of the stations which find mention in part A of the Annexures to the guidelines dt.21.10.2016 are concerned, though the same mentions the army establishment as'secunderabad, under whtch various stations are mentioned, the area of coverage of the respective stations would be as per the operation jurisdictional activities of the defence authorities and is not based on local municipal jurisdiction.

68. The same can be explained by way of illustration - Ibrahimbagh Station of Secunderabad defence establishment is spread over the areas of Ibrahimbagh and also in the neighbourhood like the area of Bandlaguda Jagir and other areas, under the administrative control of the said station, would have to be considered as unit of the said station. Similar. such situation may also exist in case of Maredpalli/Alwal stations, if there exist separate unit in such locations under the respective stations. Thus, the contention of the unofficial respondents that the places whereat the constructions/developments have been undertaken by them are not mentioned in Serial No.32 of Part A of annexure to the guidelines dt.21.10.2016. the ruthorities cannot enforce guidelines oF even security / 29 restriction of 10 meter, in the considered view of tri:; Cout cannot be accepterJ as valid claim.

69. Further, it is to be noted that though variocs notilications have been issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government oi india, notifying the areas wrthin the vicinity of defence establishments.for arhich the security restrictic)ns would apply, no material is placed before l.his court to show that the authorities having issued a declaration under ir:ction 3 of the Act, and hav ng taken further actron, as contemplated the-eunder, in order to claim that they beinq entitled tc enforce restrictions i-i Dosed in terms of notificaticn rssued.

70. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Goya Resorts private Limiteds case (B supra) had held that post issuance of notification under Seclion .j of the Act further steps in terms of the A(t including causing enquiry and passing of award in terms of Section 12 be ng required to be undertaken within the time prescribed under the Act lailinq which, the notification issued woulci stand lapsed, the Union cannot claim to continue with ihe declaration under section 3 of the Act perpetr aily which not onry is impermissibie in law but arbikary. unjust and unreasor able.

71. In the facts of the present case, the petitionr:r:; as well as the unorficial respondents having not placed any material befbre this court as to the areas of the defence establishment of secunder-abad and its units mentioned therein, the Court cannot pass an order in v,lcuum. accepting 30 a, either the claim of the petitioners or that of the unofficial respondents herein, as to the said area being covered or not covered by Annexure A attracting or not attracting the security restrictions.

72. Further, if any, notification is issued and the said notification being in force, the petitioners are required to take further steps in terms of the Act as held by the Apex Court in tvr/s-Goya Resorts private Limiteds case (B supra) in order to claim the restrictions in terms of Section 7 0f the WODA or as specified under the specific notificaiion are applicable. However, taking note of the Fact that even before the Hon,ble Supreme court since, it was preaded that no rurther steps havrng been taken after issuing decla ration/notification under Section 3 of the WODA, and the Hon'ble supreme court having granted the Union of India six months time to issue fresh declaration/notification under Section 3 of the WODA, by setting aside the decraration issued earrier, and taking note that security interest of the nation are of paramount importance, particurarry the recent Pahalgam incident, this court is of the view that personar interest shourd pave way for public interest. As noted herein above since, it is not shown to this Court of any notification having been issued under section 3 of WODA and further, steps having been taken as specified thereunder within the time period prescribed thereunder, even in the present cases this Court is of the view that the following directions are to be given: i) The petitioners are given time till 31.12.2025 to publish notification/declaration under section 3 of the woDA, if not already issued ,-4 4 t

17. Two CCs to GP for lvlunicipal Administration and U -b,an Development, High Court for tlrr State oI Telangana al Hyderabad. [OUT 18, One CC to SRI PRAVEEN KUIVAR VEERJALA, S,(). ICIT GHI\,,lC [OPUC] 19.One CO to SRI K RAVINDER REDDY, S C. for GH\4C [OPUC] 20.One CC to SRI S. ABHAY KUtilAR SAGAR, S.C. fo'1,4-tnicipalities [OPUC] 21 .One CO to SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY, Advocate []PUCI

22.One CO to SRI P. VENKANNA, Advocate IOPUCI 23. One CO to SlRl V. NARASIIVIHA GOUD, S C. for Htr4l A [OPUC] 24.Orc CO to SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C for GHlt4(l ['.)PUC] 25.One CO to [iRl KOKA SATYANARAYANA RAO' Advr;c'ate IOPUC] 26. One CO to SRI M. DHANANJAY REDDY, Advocate ()l']UCl 27.One CO to lr,4/s. D. I,'IADHAVI, S C. for HwDA [OPUC 28.One CO to SRI K RAI/ACHANDRA, Advocate [OPU{)] 29.One CC to SRI V. VENKATA MAYUR, Advocate [OPI.]L)] 3O. One CC to SRI fi4 SAI CHANDRA HAAS, Advocate '()l:'>Ucl 31 . One CO to SRI JAGAN I/ADHAVA RAO, S C. for Mu''ri:;ipalities IOPUC]

32.One CO to SRI I\/ADAS BHARATH CHANDRA, Advo:ztte [OPUC] 33,Two C[) Copies MP BS M, 14 :'( Y- HIGH COURT TVK,J DIr-l-ED:0410612025 I I \ ii:'- 'l:'\1, :'-

4., .) , '.) t 2 E SEP 2025 O4' .1o4-r6"'-r'l'-" COMMON ORDER W.P. Nos.5357,16252,16875, 18780, 18781 trt,tD ZOSBT OF ZO23 AND 417 5, 4222, 4230, 427 7, 4326, 4342, 680 1, (iti41, 6967, 7 01 4, 7 065, 7 07 0, 7083, 7090, 7 099, 7 1 01, 7 107, -,' I 1 1, 7 121, 7 122, 7126,7148 & 7581 ofZOZ4 DISPOSING OF THE U/IRIT PETITIONS WI'THOUT COSTS -\ ^i I \r' \1