1 . Mohammed Shoukatullah Sharif v. TheStateofTelangana

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MOHAMMED ADAM Counsel for the Respondent No'1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No'2 & 3: SRI K'RAVI MAHENDER' SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No'4: SRI MANIDEEP MADHAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent No'5: SRI L'RAM SINGH The Court made the following: ORDER .) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY ORDER WRIT P ITION No.so42 ol 2o2s The writ. petition is filed to declare the action o. the respondents Nr;.2 and 3 in trying to demolish the shops of the petitioners bea -irrg No.6-3-137lA, in portion of the house bearing No.3-137, on Pl,lt No.18 in Sy.No.22lA having built up ar{la of

240.00 sq. feet (including common areas etc.) on the ground floor together vvith 1/4th undivided share of land admeasuring

28.66 sq. yards situated at Balanagar Village, Balanagar M;lndal i under Kukatpally Municipal Circle (GHMC), Ranga Reddy District and bearing I\o,€i-3-137lB, in portion of house bearing No.3-137, on Plot No.18 ir liy.No.22lA having built up area of 240.00 sq, feet (including comrnon areas etc.) on the ground floor together with 1/4th undivided share of land admeasuring 17.61 sq. yards sitr-rated at Balanagar Village, Balanagar Mandal under Kukatpally Municipal Circle (GHMC), ll.anga Reddy District, without having any notice and without following de process of law, as being illegal and arbi:rary and contrary to t1e provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act,

2. The case of the petitioners is that their father, Mohammed "v- Inayathullah Sharif, was the owner of all the subject shops, having purchased the s;ame through registered sale deeds bearing i-_' 2 document No.259 of 2012 and document No.260 of 2012. The father of the respondent No.4 is the owner of the first floor of the subject property and the respondent No.4 had a malafide intention to claim more undivided share and occupy the ground floor, which is in lawful possession of the petitioner. With such intention, the respondent lodged a complaint with the GHMC authorities falsely alleging that the structures of the subject propefty are in a dilapidated condition.

3. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 filed Wp.No.26545 of 2023 claiming to be the owner of ground + 2 floors and that the building is in a dilapidated condition and the father of the petitioners was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the writ petition. The father of the petitioner died on 24.09.2024 and the said fact was not informed to this Court when the writ petition was heard and order was passed against a dead person.

4. It is submitted that the GHMC authorities did not serve any notice to the petitioners or to their father during his lifetime. On a search made in the GHMC website, it was found that the GHMC, allegedly, served notice dated 05.02.2025 in the name of their deceased father. While the matter stood thus, on 17.02.2025 the officials of the GHMC came to the subject premises and informed I I : a;::-. :', -) the petitioners that the property will be demolished pursuant to the orders passed in WP.No.26545 of 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned final notice dated 05.02.2025 was issued under Section 456 of the Hyrierabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') is a sham. The property of the petitioners was neither inspected nor Cid they have any knowledge about the structural stability report dated 27.O1.2025 said to have been submitted by the Executive E.ngineer, Kukatpally Circle. The petitioners' p-operty is in a stable condition and the structural stability report, allr:gedly, given by the Executive Engineer on 27.O1.2025 is for extraneous consideration and without conducting inspection of the petitioners' property.

6. On the other hand, Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned standing counsel for GHMC, submitted that as per the order dated 29.1O.2023 ii WP.No.26545 of 2023, the Executive Engineer inspected the site and submitted the structural stability report dated 27.Ot..1025. Thereafter, the final notice dated 05.OZ.ZO25 was issued in accordance with law, as the entire building inr:luding the shop of th€ petitioners was inspected. The structures a-e in a dangerous condition and liable to be demolished. i 4

7. Learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5 submitted that the notice dated 30.05.2023, issued under Section 459 of the Act, was served on the father of the petitioners and after due enquiry, the impugned notice under Section 456 of the Act was issued vide Lr.No: /CLR-24/T?S/K\Z/3HMC/2O25 dated 05.02.2025.

8. In the light of the rival contentions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and the assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that their shop is in stabre condition and can withstand for another twenty years, this Court is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice. one more opportunity shourd be given to the petitioners to prove that the shop in their possession is in stable condition.

9. Accordingly, the petitioners to submit writ petition is disposed of directing the their explanation to the notice dated 30.05.2023 issued under Section 459 of the Act within a period of seven (7) days from today. On receipt of such explanation, appropriate action shall be taken by the respondents No.2 and 3 in accordance with Section 456 of the Act within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter, without reference to the final notice dated 05.O2.2025, The petitioners are given liberty to submit structural stability report of a private Engineer and other documents in 5 support of their case that the shop in their possession is nor, in a dilapidated conrlition and still stable. The miscellaneous petitions pending, lf any, shall stand closed. There slrall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// sD/- P.CH.NAGABHUS|-TAMBA ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR secrtoNrrtcen \ To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Commissionei, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally, Circle No.24, Grealer Hyderabad [\/unicipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. ri'

4. One CC to SFll TMOHAMMED ADAM, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SFll L.RAMSINGH, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SR.l K RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 7. One CC to SFll MANIDEEP MADHAVARAPU, Advocate [OPUC.] 8. Two CCs to CiF' FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court lor the State of Telangana at ll yderabad [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies BSR w HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 I CC TODAY t{E ST,q7 1 e o .l [25 ") Z 21 t't[fl ( q o o * t ORDER WP.No.SO42 o12025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 9\