R Sasidhar Bggd.y v. possessor of Plot No.257

Order

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: 'Hon'ble Court may be pleased to lssue a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature o[ a rvrrt of mandamus cleclaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the construction carried out by the Petitioner over the property bearing Plot No. 257, admeasuring 300 Sq. Yds situated in Sy.Nos.92, 93,94,95,97, and 98 of Mrlapur Vrllage, Serilingampalty Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, Tclangana as being void, itlegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14 and 3OOA of the Constitution of India and pass such, further or other order(s) as this Hon'lcle Court may deem fit and proper rn the circumstances o[ the case."

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.257, admeasuring to an extent of 300 square yards in Survey Nos.92, 93, 94, 95, 97 and 98, situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the subject property'), having purchased the same from Bommarillu Constructions and others, through registered Sale Deed dated 03.1 l.2ol7 bearing Document No.1736 of 2015. It is further stated that the petitioner made an application and obtained permission for construition over the subject property uide Permit No.37 2882 / 187 I I GHMC / 2024 dated, 2 1.O2.2O24 and after obtaining the said building permit order, the petitioner has commenced the construction over the subject property. The grievalce of the petitioner is ( \ I 2 \ that the respondents are frequently visiting the subjcct property and interfering and causing obstruction over the constluoti()n activity.

3. Sri G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned Sitanding Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GllNlC) appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6 has submitted that there are boundary disputes in the lands in respect of Survey No. l0() of Hafeezpet and Survey No. 101 of Miyapur Village. Learned Stanclir-rg Counsel further submitted that since there are boundary dispulcs respect of the above said lands, the respondents have proposed to conduct a surve5r and after conducting survey, they will proceed in a,'cordance u,ith law, if the property of the Government is found to be in possession of the petitioner.

4. Be that as it may, learned counsel 'br tl're parties fairly submit that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by orders dated 18.02.2025 and, 10.06.').024 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.4620 of 2025 and 13978 of 2024 respectivel-y.

5. The operative portion of the order datert 18.O2.2O25 passed in W.P.No.462O of 2025 reads as under: "8. In the light of the same, this Writ Petition is rlrsposcri of directing respondent No.2 to request the Suweyor to serve notice cn the petitioner and the owners o[ the plots on the addresses mentioned in tlr,] cause title and / 3 registered development agreement-cum -irrevocable general power o[ attorney bearing document No.7682 ot 2021, dated 09.04.202I. The petrtioner shatt proceed with the construction, strictly in accordance ivith the said building permit order daLed 29.O3.2022. Till the said exercise is completed, respondent No.2 shalt not interfere q/ith the construction activltv being carried out by the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid building permit order dated 29.O3.2O22. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." )

6. The operative portion of the order dated 10.06.2024 passed in W.P.No. 13978 of 2024 read,s as under: "11. In view of the above, while permitting the petitroner to frle his reply to the notice dated 18.05.2024, thls Cottrt is of the view that the petitioner may be permitted to proceed with the construction as per the building permission obtained by him from the Munlcipal authorities as per the permission dated 13.O7.2Ola at his cost and risk and shall not be entitled to claim any equities in the event of the respondent authorities adjudicaring the subject plot as not falling in Sy. No.150 of Hafeezpet vrllage. tt is furthcr made clear rhat the petitioner shall not encumber the subject propefty in favour of 3., parties. Subject to the above observation, the Writ petition is disposed ot. No t2. costs.'

7. In view of aforesaid submissions and for the reasons assigned by this Court in the orders dated 18.O2.202S and 10.06.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.4620 of 2025 and 13978 of 2024 respectively, this Writ Petition is disposed of on same terms and with similar directions. It is needless to observe that the respondents shall issue notice to the petitioner as per the address mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition before taking any action, in accordance with law. 4 Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed' There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYii SD/. K. AMMAJI DEI)UTY REGISTRAR srchkorercEn ''/ To Telanqana. 1 . Principal Secretary' Revenue Department Secretariat' Hyderabad ' State of :: :' "' " l, i-i:if.,.l;-:1"6ifp11-d,;1';5fun+ffi 5 The Zonal Commtsstont : + f; I Effit[iu''ti,nt:';r:ti 9'" R"]'3?1"".. Hvd e ra ,ar I M unici pa| ;ffi 'f r B'"'""ltti.k?B'ilo'*"t-'DAN REDDY' sc FoR Gr-{r/c I.PUC] 33:'-i5it'3ffivEl'dahtfl 's:i'r[?',n'$,,'..rreansanaa'i B" t,[1 "'il:: 10 Two CD CoPies S?,1g*H,".'fi,'.:i:!?',1":?i'1silt?#;ifl 'f i';33ffi Br"""o PSK CJ o ,ili;., {:fl, t F-i HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 ORDER WP.No.5564 of 2024 ,/, /.*. ,, '.i : ._l __) Yi l' -- .i ;, :. '".-'l'. 0 I MSiP : .,:! DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ o HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.462O OF 2o25 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr.V.S.R.M.V.Prasad Sanaka, learned counseI for the petitioner, learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1 and Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner herein has entered into a registered development agreement-cum-irrevocable general power of attorney with regard to the plot bearing Nos.365, 366, 367 and 368, admeasuring 222 square yards each, in total admeasuring 888 square yards, in sanctioned layout plan by HUDA vide File No.5424lMP /HUDA/9L in Sy.Nos.92 , 93, 94, 95, 97 and 98, situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, within GHMC limits.

3. The petitioner has obtained building permit order dated

29.O3.2O22 for construction of 1 stilt + 5 upper floors over the subject property. According to the petitioner, it has commenced the construction and it is at the footing stage. 2 The petitioner is proceeding with the construc:tion, strictly in accordance with the said building permit order dated

29.O3.2022. Even then respondent No.2 is interfering with the construction without following the due procerlure laid down under the law. Challenging the said action of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present writ petitic'n.

4. Whereas, Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent l$o.2, on instructions, .*.ould submit that there is a dispute with regard to the land ln Sy.No.100 of Hafeezpet and Sy.No.101 of Miyapur Villagr, of the same Mandal. In compliance with the order of this Court, respondent No.2 has already requested the survey authorities to conduct survey for the purpose of demarcation of the aJoresaid land to fix the boundaries. Survev was almost complete, however, respondent No.2 will be reqrrested to serve notice on the owners of the plots and af:ord them an opportunity of hearing.

5. Similar issue felI for consideration in W.P.No.13988 of

2024. Yrde order dated 06.06.2024, this Court ctisposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.2 to get the land a J surveyed and demarcate the same by fixing the boundaries through the oflicials of Survey, Settlement and Land Records alter putting the petitioner ald all other concerned parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. This Court also directed respondent No.2 not to dispossess the petitioner therein from the subject property and that both parties shall maintain Status quo.

6. Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on ipstructions, would further submit that except conducting survey, respondent No.2 never interfered with the possession of the subject property. On completion of survey, if the construction is within the aforesaid. four plots, respondent No.2 will not interfere with the construction activit5r being carried out by the petitioner and the possession of the petitioner and the owners of the plots. Otherwise, respondent No.2 will take action against the owners of the plots and the petitioner herein, strictly in accordalce with the prbcedure laid down under the law.

7. As per the said building permit order dated 29.03.2022, the petitioner has to commence the construction on or before 4 29 .O9.2O22 and complete the construction on or before 29-03.2025. The petitioner is contending that ;t has already commenced the construction on or before 29.O9 2022, but the construction is at footing stage and the petitioner has to complete the constmction on or before 29.03.2025, failing which it will be treated as illegal construction. 'Ihe petitioner has to necessarily approach the GHMC authorities seeking extension of time for completing the constructiorL

8. In the light of thg same, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to request the Surveyor to serve notice on the petitioner and the owners of the plots on the addresses mentioned in the cause title and registered development agleement-cum-irrevocable gener-al power of attorney bearing document No.7682 of 2021, dated

09.O4.2027. The petitioner shall proceecl with the construction, strictly in accordance with the said building permit order dated 29.03.2022. Till the sai<l exercise is completed, respondent No.2 shall not interfilre with the construction activity being carried out by the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid building permit order dated 5

29.03.2022. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed February 18,2o25 K. LAKSHMAT{, J .:"*rll \ THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VINOD TiUMAR WRIT PETITION No.l397a oF 2024 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed for issuance oi a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in interfering and attempting to demolish the buitding on the subject property without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity for hearing and without following z n1. procedure conlemplated under la*, AS being illegal, errbitrary and unconstitutional and, with a consequential direction to respondents not to interfere with peaceful posscssion and enjoyment of the petitioner with the subject pro lerty without following due process of law.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitio:rer, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Iearned Standing Counsel appearing ,ln behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, and with the consent of parties, the Writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission. 6 2 \

3. The facts of the present case are more or less identical to the facts of that case have fallen for consideration by this Court in W.P. No. 13988 of 204 with regard to the development of the layout and plot being sold therein as falling in Sy. No. 15O of Hafeezpet village, Serilingampaily Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, while the 4th respondent is that the subject lald whereat the petitioner is undertaking constr.uction falls in lald in Sy. Nos.1O0 arrd lOl of Miyapur village.

4. Though the respon{ent authorit5r in the aforesaid Writ Petition had contended of the authorities issuing notice in Form-A dated 18.05.2024 as also in this case by afiixture and this Court having held that the service of notice by afhxture is by following the procedure prescribed, the claim of the 4th respondent of serving notice on petitioner by affixture cannot be accepted as a valid defence for it to be sustained.

5. This Court, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, while noting that the petitioner has rejected/denied to take notice whereby the authorities have resorted to sewing the notice by afltxture, however, taking note of the fact that the husband of the petitioner therein who was present in the Court ald was willing to accept the same directed the respondent to serve a copy of the notice on the husbald of the petitioner who had acknowledged the same. In the facts of the case. the same said person who had accepted the notice on behalf of his wife is the petitioner herein and the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been instructed by him to rer:eive the notice on his behalf for him to submit an explalation thereto within the period indicated therein.

6. Upon the aforesaid statement being made to this Court, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 had handed over a,{opy of the notice in Form-A dated

18.05.2024 to Mr., Karthik Madharru, learned Counsei representing Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner who had acknowledged the receipt of thr: same.

7. Since the notice as issued by the 4th respondent has been served on the petitioner through learned Counsel today and a time period of ten (1O) days is provided therein, this Court is of the view that the respondent authority should be directed to take further action in the matter, after considering the explanation/reply if any hted by the petitioner.

8. Since, the respondent on the basis of the nor.ice in Form-A dated 18.05.2024 clairr.s to have served by a-fhxture have resorted to partly demolish the subject constru<:tion and the 4 said service of notice by affixture has been held as invalid service, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are to be restrained from taking any further action in the matter, till such time the authorities shall consider the explanation / reply that may be filed by the petitioner to the notice dated 18.05.2024 . g. Further, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is in the process of construction and intended to proceed with the construction, in the meaq time even before the authorities considering the explanation that may be submitted by him to the notice dated 18.O5.2024, this Court directed the petitioner 'to file an affidavit undertaking not to claim equities in the event the claim of the petitioner that the subject property falls in Sy' No. l5O of Hafeezpet village as against the claim of the 4tt' respondent that the subject property as falls in Sy' Nos' 100 and 10 1 of Miyapur village fails, in order to proceed with the construction.

10. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of tl,is Court, the petitioner has frled the undertaking aflidavit, uide l'A No'2 of 2024 whereby the petitioner had undertaken not to claim any equities by proceeding with the further construction in the event 5 of the authorities not accepting the contention ol the petitioner as may be raised by its reply to the notice dated 18.05.2024 and also subject to the survey directed to be undertaken by this Court in the order passed in W.P. No. 13988 of 2Olt.4. 1 1. In view of the above, while permitting the p3titioner to file his reply to the notice dated 18.05.2024, this ()ourt is of the view that the petitioner may be permitted to proceed with the construction as per the building permission ob rained by him from the Municipal authorities as per the permission dated

13.07.2018 at his cost and risk and shall not be entitled to claim any equities in the event of the respondt.nt authorities adjudicating the subject plot as not falling in Sy. No- 150 of Hafeezpet village. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not encumber the subject property in favour of 3.(r parties.

12. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pendi;-rg if any shall stand closed. Date: 10.06.2024 MRKR T. VIN()D KUMAR, J ..---{