High Court · 2025

1. Varala Srinivas Reddy, s/o V.Mannem Reddy, Aged about 41 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o.H.No.8-1-16/41, Green City Colony, Tandur Town, Vikarabad District

2. Rathod Dakya Naik, s/o. Bimla ttaik, RgeO about 41 years, occ. Business, R/o.H.No.3-84, Enamidi Thanda, Vadicherla Village, Boomrajpet Mandal Vikarabad District ..,PETtTtpNEBS AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt., Municipal Adminiskation and Urban Development Department, Secretarlat, Hyderabad - 500 022

2. The Qqmmissioner and Director of Municipal Adminlqtratiqn, AC Guards,

3. The MunicipBl Couocil, Rep. by its CommissionerTandur Municipality, Tandur Vikarabad District

4. L.Prabhavathi, w/p, Rajasekhar Kqshinath, aged about 50 years, occ. Househcld, Rlo.H.No.7-2-483l2, SRT, 262, Sanathnagar, Hyderabpd -500 018 ...RE$PONDENTS Petition undqr Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Gourt may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus declariqg the action of 3rd RespondenUMunicipality in granting building permission in favour of the 4th Respondent vide impugned 1r.No.258000/TANDi 004612823, dated 1610312023 in the residential housing plot bearing no.S2lB bqlonging to the petitioners, in approved layout bearing no.88/75 of Tandur Municipality and declare the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and qet aside the same. IA NO: 1oF 2025 Petition under liection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High CoJrt may be pleased to STAYTllfurlherproceedingspursuanttothebuildingpermissiongrqnte{byth9 3rd Bgspoldent in favour of lhd 4th Respgpdent vige impugned ' ' Lr,No.?58000/TAND/0046/2023,datedl6O32023intheresidentialhou$ingPlql bearing no.Q21B belonging to the petitionere' in apprc of Tandur Municipalit)/, pending disposql 9f the abqve Wllt Oetition' )veQ laYoqt b-daring no BS/70 iou nsel f o r the Petitiio ne r: S Rl s.SATYAM EP.P.Y' -sl'-cS.u SR! SARASANI RAHUL REDPY N s E L' REP' FoR Counsel for the Respondent No'l & 2: AGP FgR McPl- ADMN URBAN PEV Counsel for the Respondent No'3: S!f1U-r1111lSHNA REDDY' SC FOR MCPL The Court made the following: ORPER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN IVRIT PETITION No.6O84 oF 2026 ORAL ORDER: Heard petitioners, representing Mr. S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.RahuI Reddy, learned counsel for the learned Assistant Government pleader . for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Mr.putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

2. Petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner ald possessor of plot bearing No.52/B admeasuring 250 square yards in Sy.No.138 of Shaipur Village, Tandur Mandal, Vikarabad District, on the strength of registered sale deed bearing document No.3354 of 2024, dated 04. lO.2O24 executed by Mr.Arun Sagar Jajswal. petitioner No.2 has executed Notarised General power of Attorney, dated 10.01 .2025 in favour of petitioner No.l. The vendor of petitioner No.2 has filed suit in O.S.No. 160 of 2022 against the vendor of respondent No.4 i.e., K.Venkatesh seeking perpetual injunction. 2 t .*

3. Vide order dated 19.O7.2023 in I.A.No.ll62 of 2022 in O.S,No. 16O of 2022, Iearned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, granted injunction restraining the vendor of respondent No'4 frorn interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the vendor of petitioner No.2 over the subject property. According to 1.he petitioners, there is no appeal filed against the said order and it attained finality.

4. During the pendency of the said suit an<l subsistence of the said injur:Lction order, the defendant in ttLe said suit has alienated the subject property in favour of respondent No.4, who in-turn, obtained building permit order dated 16.03.2023 and work conlmencement order dated 16'03.2023. BolI:, are dated 16.03.2)023. Therefore, respondent No.4 is proceeding with the consl.ruction in the subject property.

5. It is the specific contention of the petitio ners her:ein that respondent No.4 has obtained the aJoresaid building permit order and work commencement letter, both dated 16.O3.2O24, by way of mir;representation/suppression of lacts. Therefore, petitioner No.I has submitted a representatiou dated

14.02.2025 to respondent No.3 with a request to take action I 3 against respondent No.4. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent No.3 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.3, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

6. Whereas, Mr.putta Krishna Reddy, learned Stalding Counsel for respondent No.3 has produced written instructions of respondent No.3 along with the show_cause notice dated 16.12.2024 and speaking order dated 26.01.2025. According to him, respondent No.3 has already considered the representation submitted by the petitioners and issued show-cause notice dated 16.L2.2O24 to respondent No.4 and thereafter, passed speaking order dated 26.O1.2025 directing respondent No.4 to stop the construction. However, respondent No.3 will take further steps against respondent No.4 to stop the said construction and for removal of unauthorised construction, strictly in accordalce with the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 by putting the petitioners and respondent No.4 on notice and affording them al , , I { i-) opportunity of hea-ring. Copies of the same are furnished to Mr.S.Satyam lteddy, learned Senior Counsel' In the light of the said submission, notice to respondent 7 . No.4 is dispensed with. This Writ Petition is disposed of' directing resp,lndent No.3 to take all necessall'r steps to stop the illegal co nstruction and a-lso for removial of the same pursuant to the speaking order dated 26'01'2025, sl'rictly in accordance rrrith the procedure laid dorvn under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 20 19' Howerzer, respondent No.3 sha1l complete the said exercise within four (4) weeks from the d.atr: of receipt of a copy of this crrder' Libert5r is gralted to respondent No.4 to challenge the speaking order dated 26.Oi .|2025. ln the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs' As a s,:que1 thereto, miscellaneous petitions'' if any' pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed SD/.P. A ,,TRUE COPY'/ DDY RAR ICER To,

1. The PrinciPal Secretary to Govt., MuniciPal Ad ministration and Urban DeveloPment Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Je langana-500 Commissioner and Direqt9t of Municipal Administfati on, AC Guards, unlciPal Council, Tandur MuniciPalitY' Tandur ViKarAbad erabad -500 oQ4 022 2. the ff$fitfl t$.[li,*BjJ,,3J,::r' e Siate of

3. The Qommtss Saifabad 't1Ydioner, M District 4 One CC 5Q ne CC 0 Two QC T€IA r!ga

7. Ttvo CD Copie HIGH COURT DATED: 2810212025 ORDER WP.No.6084 of 2025 CGTo DAY I q f o o 9TAT€ o 1 sx $\[R N5 t Drr prJ I o t- t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION' WITHOUT COSTS \