R.Ashok v. 1. State of Telangana

3. The Tahsildar. Banswada I\,4andal, Kamareddy District. 4. T.Shiva Prasad, Sio.Sri T.Kishan, aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.2-5-54, Janda Galli, Banswada, Kamareddy District. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in issuing the impugned ordel under the name and style as shoW cause notice No.G1/TP/126 612024 daled. 20.o2.2o25, threatening with demolition of house property bearing plot No.35, admeasuring 1 14 Sq. yards, under Sy'No'347 of Banswada village and Mandal, Kamareddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and also against the provisions under the Telangana tr4un icipa lities Act, 2019 and the made rules made thereunder, and set aside the same, and consequently direct not to take any coercive steps of d€ molition of subiect I i the 2nd respondent property. t.A.NO: 10F 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto direct the 2nd respondent not to take any coercive steps of demolition of house property bearing plot No.35, admeasuring 114 Sq' yards, rrnder Sy'No'347 of BanswadaVillageanclMandal,KamareddyDistrict,bysuspendingtheimpugned order under the name and style as show cause notice l:lo.G1fiP 1126612024 daled. 20.02.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending Cisposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADlll i Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA RE:DDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : A.G.P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the ResPondent No.4 : - The Court made the lollowing ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.5629 of 20.25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

2. In view of the nature of relief sought by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage dispensing with notice to respondent No.4.

3. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent No.2 has issued notice, dated 29.Oa.2024 to the petitioner herein stating that he has constructed tin shed without obtaining prior permission from respondent No.2. I I l 2 KL,J w.P.No.5629 of 2025 ; Seven (7) <lays time was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation along \r\rith all the relevant documents. Petitioner has submitted explanation, dated O4.O9.2O24. Without considering the sam,: and passing orders, respondent No.2 issued another show cause notice, datr:d 20.02.2025 with the same zrllegations. Seven (7) days was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation Petitioner has not submitted . any explarration to the show cause notice, dated 2O.O2.2O25. He has Iiled the present writ petition challenging the said notice and zrccording to the petitioner there is a threat of demolition try respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, or:. instructions, would subnoit that the explanation subrnitted by the petitioner to the notice, dated 29.O8.2024 i.e.,

04.O9.2024 may be treated as explanatidn of the petitioner to the show cause notice, dated 2O.O2.2O25 and direct rr:spondent No.2 to consider the s;ame. ..7 KL,J W.P.No.5629 of 2025 l ! \

5. Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.2 will consider the explanation, dated O4.O9.2O24 and take action against the petitioner herein in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 (for short the Act, 2O1g) by putting the petitioner and respondent No.4 on notice and affording therri an opportunit5r of hearing.

6. In the light of the said submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the explanation, dated O4.OT.2O24 submitted by the petitioner to the notice, dated 29.Og.2O24 arrd considering the said explanation as explanation to the show cause notice, d.ated 2O.O2.2O25 and take action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act, 2019, by putting the petitioner and respondent No.4 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing...He shall complete the \ l w.P.No.S6Z9 ol202i 4 said exercisc within a period of four (4) weeks from the date o[ receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, respondent No.2 is directed not to take further steps pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 20'02'2025' No costs. As a sequei, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Pr,:tition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR !1 'I sE(:TloN.oFFlcER Kamareddy District ',. ,n" Principal Secretary, tVlunicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, s..,"t"l.iJi,'slii'o"J' stut" of relanqana a: Hyderabad' 2. The Municip,r t;o"iJtio-nlilHll*i"ip'r Council of Banswada Banswada' 3. The Tahsildar, Banswada Mandal' Kamareddy District' 4. Two CCs to GF FoFi'A;GNUi Hign court ior the State of Telangana at Hvderabad [OIJTI . TWO CCS tO GF' FOR MCPL ADIVIN AND URBAN DEVEI'OPMENT' High ffid f";th"atate of Telangana at Hvderabal. t9YTl . one CC to SRI MoHD voiilnirraeo QUADRI' Advoca'e [oPUCl . il & i" sni purrn rntsnrun REDDY' Advocate (o,uc) . Two CD CoPies 6 7 8

5. SA (I I I *t' r--;::+ - -_ / , -(HE S lA i:. e oI{ ( () () 7 .* 0 6 fiAn 2025 l)t SD/. rCtl l-i:=:;: (:O I HIGH COUR'T DATED:25101212025 ORDER WP.No.5629 of 2025 DISPOSING IOF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 6r"e* W