P. Pavitra v. State of Telangana

THE HON'B LE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITI ON No.5 a9O of 2o25 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking foilowing relief: "For the reasons aforesaid it is humbly prayed that this Hon,ble Court may be pleased to issue a lvrit, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the construction carried out by the petitioner oyer the property bearing Plot No. 373, admeasuring 238.g8 Sq. yds equivalent to 2OO Sq.Meters situated in Sy Nos 92,93,9 4,gS,97 ,gB of Miyapur Village, Serilingampaly Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana as being void, illegal, arbitrarv, without jurisdiction, r,iolative of Articres 14 and 30oA of the Constitution of lndia and pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon,ble Court may deem fit anal proper in the circumstances of the case..

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.373, admeasuring to an extent of 23g.g8 square yards in Survey Nos.92, 93, 94, 95, gZ, and 9g, situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the subject property'), having pruchased the ' same from Sri Garikapati Pandu and sri Gaddam venkata Raju through registered sale Deeds dated 02.11.2022 and O4.O2.2O22 bearing Document Nos.g157 of 2022 and 11501 of 2o22 respeltivery. It is further stated that the petitioner made an application and obtained permission for construction over the subject property uide Permit No.39z 1s3 / 4262 / cHMc / 2024 dated, o2.os.2o24 and after verification of the site, the petitioner was given a work commencement letter dated 14.06.2024- T.,e grievance of the petitioner is i. -- \ \ \ CVBR,J -- -- 'l \ 2 W.P.No.589O of 2025 that the respondents are frequently visiting the subject propert5r and interfering and causing obstruction over the construction activit5r.

3. Sri G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appeariilg for respondent Nos.S ald 6 and Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA)appearing for 7th respondent have submitted that there are boundary disputes in the lands in Survey No.100 of Hafeezpet and Survey No.1O1 of Miyapur Village. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that since there are boundary disputes in respect of the above said lands the respondents have taken up a survey and after conducting survey, they will proceed in accordance with law, if the property of the Government is found to be in possession of the petitioner.

4. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the parties fairly submit that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by or(ers dated 18.02.2025 and 10.06.2O24 passed b;z this Court in W.P.Nos.462O of 2025 arrd 13978 of 2024 respectively.

5. The operative portion of the order dated, 78.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.462O of 2.025 reads as under: "8. In the light of the same, this Writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to request the Surveyor to serve notice on the petitioner and 3 CVBR, J W.P.No.589O of 2O25 the owners of the plots on the addresses mentioned in the cause title and registered development agreement cum irrevocable general power of attorney bearing document No.7682 ot 2021, dated O9.O4.2A21. The petitioner shall proceed with the construction, strictly in accordance with the said building permit order dated 29.03.2022. Till the said exercise is completed, respondent No.2 shall not interfere with the construction activity 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 10.06.2O24 passed in W.P.No. 13978 of 2024 reads as under: "11. In view of the above, while permitting the petitioner to file his reply to the notice dated 18.05.2024, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be perrnitted to proceed with the construction as per the building permission obtained 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 respondent authorities adjudicating the subject plot as not falling in Sy. No. 15O of Hafeezpet village. tt is further made clear that the petitioner shall not encumber the subject property in favour of 3.d parties.

12. costs." 7 . Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No i In view of aforesaid submissions and for the reasons assigned by this Court in the orders dated. 18.02.2025 and 10.06.2Ci24 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.462O of 2025 and 13978 of 2024 respectively, this Writ Petition is disposed of on same terms and with similar directions. It is neediess 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. i 4 CVBR, J W.P.No.5890 of 2025 .J Miscellaneous applications, if aly pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY Ury REGIS CTION OFFICER To Telangana.

1. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, H 2. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendra Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District 4. Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 5. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, erabad, State of Serilingampally Zone, Ranga Reddy.

6. The Clty P[anner, Serilingampally Zone, Greater Hyderabad tvlunicipal Corporation, Ranga Reddy.

7. The l\tletropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development, Authority (HMDA) Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Rd, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana 500082. 8- One CC to SRI |VI.NAGA DEEPAK, Advocate IOPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

10.Ohe CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 11.One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA [OPUC] 12.Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the orders dated 18.02.2025 and 't 0.06.2024 passed by lhis court in W.P.Nos.462O of 2025 and 13978 ot 2024 respectively) PSK BS lY I , ! {'t! i?& i ii.a:' -...*, HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 \ ORDER WP.No.5890 of 2025 k oB THE sr4 ,) 16 llPn zffi \ Itz..r:t f' (.. i! l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Yk l4 w) ) I I l HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K. LAKSHMAN. WRIT PETITION No.462O OF 2o25 ORA], ORDER: Heard Mr.V.S.R.M.V.Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. I arrd 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 Fi-le No.5424/MP/HUDA/91 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

29.03.2022 for construction of 1 stilt + 5 upper floors over the subject propert5r. According to the petitioner, it has commenced the construction and it is at the footing stage. 2 .1 \ I I The petitioner is proceeding with the construction' strictly in accordance with the said building permit order dated 29.O3.2O22.Even then respondent No'2 is interfering with the construction without foltowing the due procedure laid down under the law. Challenging the said action of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present writ petition'

4. Whereas, Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No'2, on instructions' would submit that there is a dispute with regard to the land in Sy'No' 10O of Hafeezpel and Sy.No. 101 of Miyapur Village 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 aforesaidland.tofixtheboundaries.Surveywasalmost complete, howev.er, respondent No'2 will be requested to serve notice on the owners of the plots and afford them an opportunity of hearing.

5. Similar issue fell for consideration in W'P'No'13988 of 2O24.Yide order dated 06-06.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No'2 to get the land 3 surveyed and demarcate the same by fixing the boundaries through the officials of Survey, Settlement ald Land Records after putting the petitioner and atl other boncerned parties on notice and affording them an opportunit5r of hearing. This Court a-lso 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 instructions, 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 procedure 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 .2022 and complete the construction on. or before

29.03.2025. The petitioner is contending that it has already commenced the construction on or befote'29.Og.2O22, but the construction is at footing stage and the petitioner has to complete the construction on or before 29 .O3.2O25, tailing which it wiil be treated as illegal construction. The petitioner has to necessarily approach the GHMC authorities seeking extension of time for completing the construction.

8. In the light of the 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 agreement-cum-irrevocable general power of attorney bearing document No.7682 of 2021, dated 09.O4.2027.. The petitioner shall proceed with the construction, strictly in accordance with the said building permit order dated 29 .O3.2O22. Tilt the said exercise is completed, respondent No.2 shall not interfere with the construction activit5r 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, miscellaneoris petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. February 18,2O2S K. LAKSHMAN,J .,. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.13978 OF 2o24 ORDER: This Writ Petition is frled for issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in interfering and attempting to demolish tlle building on the subject property without issuing any notice or afiording an oppotunity for hearing and without following any procedure contemplated under law, as being illegal, arbitrary ' and unconstitutional and with a consequential direction to respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with the subject property without following due process of law.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent No. l, Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel appearing on 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. 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 fal_ Jing in Sy. No. 150 of Haleezpet village, Serilingampatly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, while the 4th respondent is that the subject land whereat the petitioner is undertaking construction falls in land in Sy. Nos. 1OO and 1O1 of Miyapur village.

4. Though the respondent authority in the aforesaid Writ Petition had contended of the authorities issuing notiee in Form-A dated 18.05.2024 as also in this case by affixture ald this Court having held that the service of notice by allixture is by following the procedure prescribed, the claim of the 4th respondent of serving notice on petitioner by affixture cannot be accepled 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 serving the notice by affixture, however, taking note of the fact that the husband of the petitioner therein who was present in the Court arrd was willing to accept the same directed the respondent to serve a copy of the notice on the husband of the petitioner who had 3 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 receive the notice on his behalf for him to submit an explanation ttrereto 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 copy of the notice in Form-A dated 18.05.2024 to Mr. Karthik Madhanu, learned Counsel representing Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner wh.o had acknowledged the receipt of the 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 (10) 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 filed by the petitioner.

8. Since, the respondent on the basis of the notice in Form A dated 18.O5.2024 clair;:s to have served by affixture have resorted to partly demolish the subject construction 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.

9. Purther, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is in the process of construction and intended to proceed with the construction, in the mean 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 frle an affidavit undertaking not to claim equities in the event the claim of the petitioner that ttre subject property falls in Sy. No. 150 of Hafeezpet village as against the claim of the 4d respondent that the subject properBi as falls in Sy. Nos.lOO and 10 1 of Miyapur viilage fails, in order to proceed with the constmction.

10. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the petitioner has filed the undertaking affrdavit, 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 of the petitioner as may be raised by its reply to the notice dated 18.O5.2024 and, also subject to the survey directed to be undertaken by this Court in the order passed in W.p. No.13988 of 2O24.

11. In view of the above, while permitting the petitioner to f e his reply to the notice dated 18.05.2024, this Court 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 Municipal authorities as per the permission dated

13.07.2018 at his cost and risk and shail not be entifled to claim any equities in the event of the respondent authorities adjudicating the subject plot as not falling in Sy. No. 150 of Haleezpet village. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not encumber the subject property in favour of 3'a parties.

12. Subject to the above observation, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. Date: 10.06.2024 MRKR T. VINOD KUMAR, J