One CC to Sri v. M. M. Chary

State of Telangana, Rep. by its P6ncipal Secretary ( MAand UO;, 'slcretariat Buildings, Hyderabad Greater Hvderabad Municipal Corporation, rep by its Commissioner and Special Officer, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad. The Deputy commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation, circle No. 15, Abids, The Assistant city Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation, circle No. 15, Abids, HYderabad Smt. Pooaku Shobha Rani, W/o: Late Pogaku Venkata Narsaiah, Aged 52 V;;;, til. H;;;"*it", nvo H. No. 1 -1 -335/4 t 1, 2s4, Bapunasar, chikkadpallv' Hyderabad -TS Smt. P.Keerthi, D/o: Late Pogaku Venkata Narsaiah, Aged 33.Years.' o;;. ilaG;if;, nvo n. No. t :t - 336t 4t 1, 2e4, Bapunasar, chikkadpallv, Hyderabad -TS P. Balakrishna, S/o: Late Pogaku Venkata Narsaiah, ngq!.pf V9a19' b"". euiin"si, Fyo H.No. r -i- 3361 41 1, 294, Bapunagar, chikkadpallv' Hyderabad -TS P. Uma Maheshwar, S/o: Late Pogaku Venkata Narsaiah,. Aged. 55 Years' Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.1-1-3361411, 294' Bapunagar' ChlkKaopally' Hyderabad -TS P. Satvanaravana, S/o: Late Pogaku Venkata Narsaiah,Aged 5J lgars' b;;. Ei*il'; nvb H. No r -t -s iat +t't, zsq, Bapunagar, chikkadpallv' Hyderabad -TS .. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 to 4 in not discharging their statutory duties and in not considering the representationi com plaint dated 0110212025 and subsequent orar compraints made by the petitioner for demorition of illegal and unauthorized construction of building comprising of Ground (prus) Four Upper Floors (prus) pent House undertaken by Respondent Nos.5 to g in property admeasuring 1.97 Sq. yrds in H.No.1-1-287r16t4, isituated at Bapunagar, chikkadpally, Hyderabad in total deviation of sanctioned plan dated 01to1t2o2zby encroaching road margin without maintaining setbacks thereby damaging the petitioner's property causing grave hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner and his family as irregar, arbitrary and unconstitutionar apart from being contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipar corporations Act, 1955 (as amended), T.s. Bpass Act, 2019 and the A.p. Buirding Rures in Go Ms. 168 dated'irrcqtzo,r, and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to 4 to demolish the illegal construction undertaken by Respondent No.5 to 9. fA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent No. 2 to 4 to ensure that no further construction is undertaken by the Respondent Nos.S to g in property admeasuring .lg7 Sq. yrds in H.No.1-1_ 28711614, situated at Bapunagar, chikkadpaily, Hyderabad pending the disposar of the writ petition. lANO:2OF2 025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent No. 2 to 4 to initiate steps for removar of ifiegar construction undertaken by the Respondent Nos.S to g in property admeasuring 1g7 sq. yrds in H'No.1-1-287116/4, Situated at Bapunagar, chikkadpaily, Hyderabad , pending the disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. M. M. CHARY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 9:--- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN UIRIT PEIITION No.59 LO of 20.25 ORDER: Heard Sri V.M.M.Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Iieddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 Perused the record.

2. Petitioner is resident of Bapunagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Respondent Nos.S to 9 are his neighbours. They have obtained building permission fcrr construction of stilt for parking + two upper floors. They have constructed stilt for parking + two upper floor.s, pent house without leaving setbacks a+d by encroaching into the road. Therefore, petitioner has submitted a representation dated OL.O2.2O2S to resporrdent Nos.2 to 4 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.S to 9. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respohdent Nos.2 to 4 did not act upon KL.J W-P.No.5910 of 2025 2 the same. Aggrieved by the said in action of respondent Nos.2 to 4, petitioner hled the present writ petition.

3. Whereas, Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 produced written instructions of 4e respondent wherein it is stated that petitioner has submitted a complaint on

26.06.2023 prior to O1.O2.2O25 against unauthorized construction of respondent Nos.5 to 9. Thereaftefi 4tr' respondent has inspected the site and found unauthorized construction. On consideration of the sarne, 4fr respondent has passed speaking order dated

05.O8.2O23 directing the respondent Nos.S to 9 to remove unauthori2ed construction. They have not removed the said unauthorized construction. Therefore, he has addressed a letter to the Nodal officer, Special Task Force (STF), Secunderabad Zone for removal of the unauthorized construction made by respondent Nos'5 to g. He has to pursue with the Nodal Offrcer ald take further action against respondent Nos.5 to 9 pursuant to / / KL,J w Ir No 5910 of2025 3 speaking order dated 05.08.2023. The said written instructions are placed on record.

4. In the light of the said submission, notice to respondent Nos.5 to 9 is dispensed with.

5. This ,,^rit petition is disposed of directing 4rn respondent to pursue with the Nodal Officer, Special Task Force (STF), SecunderabadZone for taking further action pursuant to the speaking order datecl OS.OS.itZS. Further, he shall complete the said exe::cise u,ithin a period of (Oa) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of I I this order.

6. At this stage, Sri V.M.M.Char5r, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions would submit that respondent Nos.5 to 9 are proceeding with the construction. Therefore, 4th respondent jLs directed to inspect the site and take all necessary steps to stop construction being carried out by respondent Nos.5 to 9. KL'J w.P.No 59I0 of 2025 4

7. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if aly, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI T REGISTRAR ASSI E TION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary ( MAand UD), Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Muni6i'pal Corporation, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad.

3. The D_eputy.Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No. 15, Abids,

4. The Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No. 15, Abids, Hyderabad

5. One CC to Sri V. M. M. Chary, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Municipal.Administration Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, SCIOPUCI 8. Two CD Copies G TJ B HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:2710212025 I ORDER WP.No.5910 of 2025 1HE S ,.4 15. 01 ilAq 2ffi e o o c I Sjr^ - ($ v z '.,.) ,,,'/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ o\