High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by- its Principal Secretary' Municipal ni"riiiJt,""rtid",' ['rori.'|-o"u"rJ5.""nt, is-,'s"cretariat' Hvderabad (T S ) Greater Hvderabad Municipal Corporation' Represented by its Commissioner' iank Bunri Road, Hyderabad Telangana Stale The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Cricle -29 Maradpally' Secundrabad' Asst. City Planner, GHMC, Circle -29 lrlaradpally' Secundarabad' Jakula Balaiah, s/o late sri Jakula lrilallaiah Age 73 years, occ not known' nyi] i]r.rr Ti-til+70/z Mittus uu a, seund e rabad 4 5 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ' order or direction preferably a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondent No s' 1 to 4 in not disposing of the petitioners representations dated 0g/06/2022' 2510312023' o4to2t2o25 and 17 to2t2o25, in removing the grill/gate which is illegally erected by Respondent No.5 by completely blocking the access of the Petitioner and which causes affecting petitioners easementary rights and also for not taking action for i[egar encroachment of the common passage by constructing drainage and opening the windows and raising the balcony in the portion of Petitioners property, thereby blocking free access to the petitioner' is highly illegal arbitrary and amounts to infringement of Article 300 A of the Constitution of lndia' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMED AFZAL PASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSIIMAN WRIT PETITION No. 6295 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. Petitioner is claiming that she ls the absolutc owner and possessor of open plot bearing door No.l2-8-47012, admeasuring 35.46 Sq. yards, situated at Mettuguda, Secunderabad, on the strength of a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.l577 of 2018 dated 10.05.2018. While the matter stood thus, 5'h respondent interfered with the possession of petitioner. Therefore, she filed a suit vide O.S.No.1236 of 2O2l against 5'h respondent for perpetual injunction. Learned XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, granted interim injunction in her favour vide order dated l7 .06.2022 in I.A.No.698 of 2021 in O.S.No.l2f6 of 2021. Against the said order dated 17.06.2022, 5'h respondent has not preferred any appeal. Therefore, the said \\ 2 tL,.' u' P No 6295 of 2025 interinr ordcr dated 17.06.2022 attained finality. Even then, 5tl' respondent IS parking the vehicles and erected tin sheds/grills/gates. The same is preventing access to her property. 1'hercfore, she has subrnitted a representation dated

17.02.2025 to respondent Nos.3 and 4 with a request to take action against 5'l' respondent. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not act uporl the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction ol' resporrdent Nos.3 and 4, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition 3, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. on instructions, would subtnit that disputes betwcen pctitioner and 5'h respondent are with regard to sub-iect pr(rl)crty. Therelbre,3'd respondent is not considering the sarne

4. As stated above, petitioner has filed a suit vide O.S.No. 123(r o1202 I against 5'h respondent seeking perpetual injunction and the learned trial Court grantcd interim injunction in lavour of petitioner restraining 5'h respondent -'-/ 3 l\LJ w.P No 6295 of 2025 from interfering with the possession of petitioner over the subject properfy. The said order dated 17 -06.2022 attained finality. According to petitioner, 5th respondent is parking the vehicles in petitioner's property, erected a gate, tin shades etc', in violation of the said order. Therefore, she has submitted a representation dated 17.02.2025 to respondent Nos'3 and 4'

5. Perusal of the record would reveal that she has submitted representations dated 09 .06.2022, 25 .02.2022, 04.02'202 5 and

17.02.2025 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 with a request to take action against 5th respondent. Thus, petitioner is virtually requesting respondent Nos.2 to 4 to decide inter se disputes between petitioner and 5th respondent which respondent Nos'2 1 \ to 4 can't. If 5ft respondent is parking the vehicles in front of petitioner's 'house in violation of aforesaid order dated

17.06.2022 passed by the trial Court in I.A-No'698 of 2021 in O.S.No.1236 of 2021, petitioner has to take steps including filing of an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2,A. of CPC in the said suit. But, she cannot submit representations to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take action against 5th respondent anci I I 4 KL, J W.P No.6295 of2O25 file the present Writ Petition alleging non-consideration of the - said reoresentat ions.

6. ln the light of the said discussion, petitioner is not entitled for any relief much less the relief sought in the present Writ Petitron. I'herefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be d ism issed.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed granting liberty to petitioner to avail other remedies. There shall be no order as to costs Misccllaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. A SHAMBA GISTRAR Ch. NAGABHU RE iSISTANT .! sEcTloN OFFICER / \ To, One CC to SRI I'iIOHAMMED AFZAL PASHA' 1 Adyc, cate [OPUC] 2 One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' SC FOR GHMC IOPUC] TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof i"lrngan, at HY'derabad [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP ny'"( I I 1{ HIGH COURT DATED:0310312025 ORDER WP.No.6295 of 2025 dE SIAI€ o 2 g r.iJ 2[25 ( ) r I \ , o ! .t t: l-16'5 r,,r. r ti -1. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS tBP"\"6 v\u'