Mrs. N. Charumathi v. 2. The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe 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 a Writ of Mandamus, by issuing the following directions a. To selaside the impugned lntimation -Letter Dt.0710212025 vide File No, E- 250667icWMC/TP/Cir- ll/2022 issued by the 3rd Respondent at the behest of a representation made by the 5th Respondent, by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable and contrary to the provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, and violative of Article 3004 of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned lntimation Letter Dt.07l0212025 vide File i I T t t L F h t No. E-250667/GU/l\rlOl l:' lct-llt2)22 issued by the 3rd Responcent at the behest of a representation ra, r. by the 5th Respondent pending dispos;ar of the main writ petition in the interes ' c ' iustice' Counsel for the Petiti< ner: M/S' UNNAM L4ryI$t'l counsel for the Resp*d";;"i;'1;;p ionr'acpuaDMN & URBAI\I DEV ffi;;;i io, in" n".'p' ,d;;iil;;';ib +isnr prsnaM MoHrrH' srr FoR Counsel for the Resp' rndent No'5: SRI S'LAKSHMIKANTH The Coi-rrt made the f, rltowing: ORDER f t-f: t. F I a ilt, a ---,-----x3wl THE HON'BLE SRTJUSTICE K. I,AKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.6 425 of 202s ORDER: Heard learned counsel fbr petitioner and Sri pasham Mohith, leamed Standing Counsel appearing fbr respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri S. Lakshmikanth learned counsel appearing for 5ti'respondent.

2. Petitioner filed the present Writ petition challenging intimation letter dated 07.02.2025 issued by 3.d respondent directing her to vacate the subject property and remove the unauthorized construction of compound walt within fifteen (15) days.

3. Perusal of the record would reveal that a suil vitle O.S.No.79 of 2010 was filed by 5,r, respondent and his family members seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. petitioner is arrayecl as party defendant No.29 in the said suit. Learned trial Couft granted status quo order on 24.09.2010 in I.A.No.573 of 2010 in O.S.No.79 of 2010. Hgwever, the said status quo order is not extended r'^ .-.l.1 i i':, 61: r il. J furlher iur:l t rc said suit is pending. In the meanv't ilt', on the representat o' dated 17.11.2022 submitted by 5'r' testrotlclent, 3'd respondcr . lias issued the impugned intimation leler dated

07.02.21)25 r lecting petitioner to vacate the subje':t propefly antl romo v: thc uuauthorized construction of conrporrnd wall within fillecr t t5) days.

4. In sim l;ar circumstances, in Writ Petition |'lo 1563 of 2025 fiterl t,, one of the famity members ol 5'i' respondent herein. r.'ly'r order dated 10.02.2025, this Court rvhil,: setting aside the irrt lation letter dated 23.12.2024 irnpugne,l therein to the o.ter: of directing petitioner therein to vacate the subject F rol , jrty, directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to interf'erc ,r it Lhe inter se disputes between petitlorle r thcrein and 5'r' res rr ndent therein/petitioner herein, with negard to thc subject p 1)tr r)r1y. This Court also granted liherlr' to them to raise all th,: rrounds/contentions, which they have r rised irr the said Writ l)t: iition, in O.S.No.79 of 2010, and it is ior the trial Court trt r on,ider the same. 1 3 IiL, J w P No 6a25 ot2025

5. In the present case, admittedly, petitioner las constructed the compound wall without obtaining prior permission from 2"d respondent. But, 3'd .respondent cannot direct petitioner to vacate the subject properly, more so, during pendency of O.S.No.79 of 2010, in which, petitioner is a,rayed as party defendant No.29.

6. According to petitioner, she has already demolished the compound wall and in proof of the same, she has filed photographs.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing fbr respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for 5'r' respondent confirmed the aforesaid fact.

8. In the light of the above, the impugned intimation letter dated 07.02.2025 is set aside to the extent of 3'd respondent I I directing petitioner to vacate the subject property and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed not to interfere with the inter se disputes between petitioner and 5'h respondent with regard to the subject property. Further, petitioner and 4 I\L. J J, P \. 6.r?:; ol 2025 5'h resior .lent al'e at liberty to raisc all the grounds/cor lentions, which they have raised in the present Writ Pet tic rr, in O.S.No.79 of 2010 and it is lor the lrial Court to corts itlCt' . [',c Soffie

9. ,\cco Jingly, this Writ Petition is disposecl oL There shall be rlL) .rrcler as to costs \4isr: :llaneous applications, if any pending shall stand closccl I/TRUE COPY// siD/ - N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR s,E()TION OFFICER De'lel::Pment, To

1. The Prl p H S,)r.ft +ary Municl al Admin istration and yderabad' State of Te ertl 1;ecretariat, iMuniciPal nris: icner, Greatei Waranga langana CorPora tion Hanamakonda' Departm The Com ll GWMC, Hanam zrkonda District Hanamak rrn d I District The DePu :Y ( r:,mmtsst oner, KaziP et circle- ikonda District WMC, Hanam lt G circle- itv Plann oPucl The Assislz cate I Advo EV, Hig h Cc ur1 for the State LiNNAM One CC ttr lVl s URBAN D Two CCs tr> (;F' FOR MC :rt Hvderab of Telang a I IPASHAM :) oneCCt:S :ITS.LAKSH o neCCtoS Two CD () rF tes ouTl ITH, SCFoR GWMC [oPr-JC] NTH, Advoc er,Kaa LAW F PL ADMN & MOH MIKA ate [OPLJCl IRM 2 a 4 5 6

7. 8. o PSK. SS f'^q. i h lF lF 'l HIGH COURT DATED:07l0il't''025 ORDER WP.No.6425,t'" 2025 -.- ==-= = :. -- 1fitaEr'rt,, /t. <" /, :\ lil 23 ilAY Z , 2 a .t' 125 I a| .ri/,.t.j -€\ t DISPOSING {3F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COI;TS fotr,. -\s l>{ i t ;r r I l I iIl