Sri. Vennam Vivekanand, S/o. Late v. LaxmiNarayanq,aged about

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Prl., Secretary, Department of tvlunicipal Administration, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, TS The tt/edchal lvlunicipality, Rep., by its Commissioner, office at Medipally, Medchal lVlalkajgiri District, TG M/S Gemni Wafer and Cones Machines, Rep., By its Proprietor Sri Sunil Pamnani, S/o. D.K Pamanani, aged about 60 years ,Occ. Business, Rio. 45,lshaq colony, Near AOC Gate, Secunderabad,TS M/s.Gemni Wafer Technology, Rep., by its partners(i) Smt. Amrita S.Pamnani W/o. S Pamnani, Aged aboui 5z years ,Occ. Business, (ii) Srl Sundeep Sunil Pamnani, S/o. S.D.Pamnani, aged 30 years, Occ. Business, Both are R/o.45 lshaqColony, Near AOC Gate, Secunderabad, 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 appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of N/andamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondent No.2 in passing order No 144lMCl\A12024 dated.29- 01-2025 by directing the petitioner to remove the compound wall and sheds in the plot admsg.500 Sq.,yrads in Sy., No.6 19,situated at Poodur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, TS without considering the explanation/reply daled.21 -10-2024 submitted to the notice dated.l5-10-2024, even though no sheds are existing in the said plot and the said compound wall was constructed around the open plot in the month of october,2021 to prevent the respondents No.3 and 4 s illegal a-cts from encroaching, for.which no permission is required as per Rule 14(2) (b) of Lay out and Building Rules-2002 and making efforts to demolish the compound wall acting under the'pressure of thii respondents No.3 and 4, without considering the petitioner s representation dated.10-02 -2025, as highly illegal, bad, arbitrary, without authority/power g End contrary to the A p Gram Panchayat Land Development (Lay Out and Building) Rules 2002 and violation of Articles of constitution of lndia and principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequenfly direct the respondenls more particularly the respondents No.2 and their sub-ordinates not to remove/demolish the in the month of October,20 2l around the above compound wall constructed mbntioned petitioner's open plot in any manner forthwith lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '1 si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend .the order No '144IMCMl2O24 dated.29-01-2025 passed by the respondents No. 2 forthwith, pending disposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No's 3 & 4: -- The Court made the foltowing: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PEf,ITION No.5027 of 20.25 ORDER: Heard Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu,-learned counsel for the petitioner arrd Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Perused the record.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

29.O1.2025 of 2"d respondent. Vide aforesaid order, 2"d respondent directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction of compound wall constmcted by the petitioner in Sy.No.619 situated at Poodur Village, Medchal t\landal, Medchal Malkajgiri District within 2"a respondent m unicipality.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed a suit vide O.S.No.23 of 2022 agatnst petitioner and four others for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. They have also filed an interlocu,tory application seeking injunction. The same KL,J W.Ir No.5027 of 2025 2 was dismissed vide Order dated 14.06.2023. Thereafter they have submitted representation to 2"a respondent alleging that petitioner has constructed compound wall and shed in the said property without obtaining permission from 2.d respondent. On receipt of said representation, 2nd respondent has issued show cause notice dated 15.1O.2024 and they have submitted explanation on 21 .1O.2024 and 20.O2.2O24. Thereafter, 2"d respondent vide impugned order dated 29.01.2025 directed the petitioner to remove the said compound wall and shed. 15 days time was granted to petitioner and others. Inspite of rernoving the saicl unauthorized constmction, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner u,ould submit that 2"d respondent municipality was constituted on

31.08.2024 and Poodur village 1S merged 1n t}:e 2"d respondent municipality. Earlier Poodur was a Gram Palchayat. As per Rule 14 (2) of the Telangana Gram Panchayat Land Development (layout and building) KL-J W.P.No.5027 of 2025 J Rnles, 2OO2 and vide G.O.Ms,No.377, Panchayat Raj (S.II) Department, dated 12.10.1973, there is no need of obtaining permission for construction of compound wall. Compound wall was constructed in the year 2023 Therefore, there is no need of obtaining permission.

5. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that Rule 14 of the said Rules deals with application for building permission and Sub-Rule (2) says No such application for permission shall be deemed necessar5r for following mlnor a-lterations, repairs in any existing building in accordance with the rules:

4....... b. Undertakrng fencing or construction of compound u,all. c..............."

6. Therefore, for undertaking fencing or construction of compound wa-Il of any existing building/house permission is not required as per Rule 14 (2) of the aforesaid rules. But, for construction of compound wall 1n respect of new building/house permission from the KL.J W P.No.5O27 of 2025 4 then Gram Panchayat is necessar5r. I.earned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that petitioner has already removed the shed. In proof of the same, he has hled photographs.

7. As discussed supra, 2"d respondent has passed the impugned order dated 29.O1 .2025 after issuance of show cause notice dated 15.10.2024 to the petitioner and others and considering the reply submitted by them. Thereafter, he has passed speaking order dire:cting the petitioner and others to remove unauthorized compound r,r,alI and shed. It is an appealable order in terms of Section 252 (ll of Tetangana Municipalities Act, 2019. \t is not the case of the petitioner herein that rhe impugned order dated 29.01 .2025 is in violation of principles of natural justice or the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 to maintain the present writ petition despite availability of an eilternative remedy of appeal KL,.] W P No.5027 of 2025 5

8. In the light of the same, petitioner is not entitled for any relief much less relief sought in the present writ petition and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Liberty is' granted to the petitioner to prefer an appeal challenging the said order dated 29.OI.2O25 within (1O) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, impugned order shall not come into effect. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner failed to prefer an appeal within 1O days, liberty 1S granted to respondent No.2 to take action against the petitioner. There sha-ll be no order as to costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition sha,ll stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-N. SRIHARI D PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, The Medchal lvlunicipality, Rep., by its Commissioner, office at Medipally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, TG 2 One CC to SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL [OPUC] 4 Two CCs to GP FOR IMCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies 5 BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 ORDER WP.No.5027 of 2025 a C a, EH T4 c c ._) 1ta, I A P R 1 0 ( ( L-. ':i ,/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS