Syed Asad Ali Abedi v. '1 . The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus for being aggrieved by the Respondent No. 2 office notice bearing No. 917/TPS.A/V30/CGlCRZ1GHMC|212S Dated 0510212025 received to the petitioner on 2110212025 for proposal to demolish his property is illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents No. 2.and 3 not to take coercive steps upon the notice bearing No. 917/TPSM30/C6/CRZ/GHMC|2025 Dated 0510212025 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner in the interest of justice. *77 lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to take coercive steps upon the notice bearing No. 9'1 7/TPS/W30/C6/CRZ|GHl\ACl2O25 Dated 05/0212025 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner pending disposal of the a:ove writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. THAKUR CHANDRA KANIAL SINGH Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: ------- The Court made the following: ORDER - HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.6560 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raparthi Venkatesh, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos,2 and 3.

2. The petitioner herein filed the present writ petition to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing notice dated 05.02.2025 for demolition of property of the petitioner as illegal.

3. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.22-l-9lll2, situated at Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderubad having purchased the slme from respondent No.4 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1908 of 2023, dated

13.09.2023. From the date of purchase, he neither attended repairs, nor made new constructions on the subj ect property. After purchase, the vendor of the petitioner i.e., respondent No.4 wanted to get back the property and pressurized him to resale the same to her, for which he did not accept. Having bore grudge against the petitioner, she gave a complaint to resondent No.2 against him on 23.12.2024 alleging that the petitioner encroached road margin area by extending 2 KL.J W P No 6560 of2025 balcony/staircase itlegally. Thereafter, respondent No.2 gave a notice dated 21.02.2025 to the petitioner asking him to submit his explanation. Without giving an opportunity for submission of explanation, respondent No.2 passed a speakinll order dated

05.02.2025 directing him to remove the unauthorized construction within fifteen (i 5) days. Challenging the same, the pe.itioner filed the present writ pctition.

4. Whereas. leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC has produced written instructions of respondent Nos.2 and 3 along w ith photographs and show-cause notice dated 30.12.2024 Lnd the complaint given by respondent No.4 etc., wherein it is stated that respordcnt No.4 has given a complaint against the petitioner stating that the petitioner encroached road margin area by cxtending balcony/ste.ircase illegally. Pursuant to the said complaint, the officials of CHM,I inspected the site and found that the subject property consists of ground + I Upper Floor constructed long back. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 encroached road margin area by extending balcony/stair case. Therefore, they have issued a show-cause notice dated 30.12.2024 directing them to submit their explanation and production of relevant documents rvithin seven (07) days, failing which n,rcessary action 3 KL.J W.P. No.5560 of2025 would be taken. Despite the same, the petitioner did not submit any reply and, therefore, respondent No.2 had passed the speaking order dated 05.202.2025 and thereafter they would initiate necessary action in accordance r.vith law

5. Perusal of record would reveal that the complaint dated

23.12.2024 filed by respondent No.4 would reveal that she had sold a part of the house admeasuring 36.50 square yards to the petitioner under the aforesaid sale deed. After purchase, the petitioncr raised stair-case illegally outside his premises comecting balcony affecting her remaining house elevation. Pursuant to the said complaint, respondent No.2 had issued a show-cause notice dated 30.12.2024 to the petitioner stating that the petitioner encroached road margin area by extending balcony/stair case illegally and, therefore, directed him to submit his explanation along with relevant document within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which, necessary action would be initiated following due procedure laid down under law. It appears, the petitioner did not submit explanation to the said notice within the time prescribed in the said notice.

6. Therefore, respondent No.2 passed a speaking order dated

05.02.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized 4 KL,J W.P No 6560 of2025 construction voluntarily within fifteen (15) days fr,rm the date of receipt of notice, failing which, their authorities would remove the same as per Sections - 496 and 4614 of HMC'Ar:t and expenses incurred thereof, shall be recovered from him. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.02.2025 stating that he received the said speaking order on 21.02.2025 only and that opp,rrtunity may be given to him to place the true facts and, therefbre, requested respondent No.2 to drop further action. Challenging the said speaking order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition

7. The main contention of the petitioner is that. no opportunity was given to him to place the true facts that too in the presence of respondent No.4. Though in the written instructions, r'cspondent No.2 stated that on receipt of complaint from respondent No.4, the GHMC Officials inspccted the site and found the subject property constructed long back and both the petitioner and respondent No.4 encroached the road margin area by extending balcony/stair case, th,l same was not mentioned in the show-cause notice datcd 30.12.2024. ln fact, in the show-cause notice dated 30.12.2024, respondent No.2 did not mention about the encroachment/unauthorized construction exr:ept mentionhg as to what is stated by respondent No.4 in her compla.nt. Even in the 5 KL,J W P No.6560 ot2025 speaking order, dated 05.02.2025, respondent No.2 has not mentioned the atleged encroachmenVunauthorized construction except what has stated by respondent No.4 in her complaint. Strangely, in the written instructions produced before this Court, respondent No'2 stated that after receipt of complaint from respondent No.4, the GHMC Oflicials went to the site and found the alleged encroachment of road area./unauthorized construction, which is totally silent in the show- cause notice dated 30.12.2024 and speaking order dated05'022025' Thus, the show-cause notice dated 30.12-2024 and the speaking order dated 05.02.2025 are bereft of necessary particulars with regard to the allcged cncroachmcnt/unauthorized construction by the petitioner as stated in the written instructions. Even aceording to the petitioner, he was not afforded opportunity to place true facts before respondent No.2. l'herefore, in the absence of necessary details with regard to the alleged encroachmenVunauthorized construction as alleged by respondent No.2 in the written instructions, the same cannot stand to its strict scrutiny and are liable to be set aside.

8. In the light ol the aforesaid discussion, the show-cause notice dated 30.12.2024 and speaking order dated 05'022Q25 are set aside. Liberty is granted to respondent No.2 to initiate action afresh by ( ( 6 KI-.J W P No.6560 ot2025 mentioning the violations specifically in the show-ciLuse notice, call for explanation and consider the same strictly in accordance with law. Ile shall complete the said exercise within four (04) rveeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner and respondent No.4 shall co-operate with respondent Nos.2 and 3 ard other GHMC Officials in that regard.

9. With the alorcsaid observations and directions. this writ petition is disposed of. In the circumstanccs of the case, thcre shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if an1,, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ' //TRUE COPYi/ , SD/. A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OFFICER SE "$k t I To, 1'ThePrincipalSecretary,MunicipalAdministrativeDepartnlent,Stateof Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.6, Malakpet' Charminar Zone' GHMC' Hyderabad.

3. The Town Planning Officer, Circle No.6, Malakpet, Cha rminar Zone' GHMC' Hyderabad. 4 lvlrs. Asiva Fatima. W/o. Mir tt/ehdi Hussain, Aged abotlt 48 years, '' Occupation. Housewife, Rl/o. H. No. 22-1-91712, Noor l(han Bazaar ' ff Vi"ir6rO, f"fangana'Staie - 500024. Cell No's 6303r)76057 / 6302643085

5. One cc to SRl. funrun CHANDRA KAI\iIAL SINGH Advocate [oPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADI\ilN URBAN DEV ,Hig1 Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad. [OUT]

7. Two CD CoPies One spare coPY %" GK GJP -_==ni_-=s!=--*a!' :,;-t - :-t:n-c'-_-- *j. -,..+rEj:=-4.{"YF -._'---: -=.eryti_-j HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 1 t i 1r :.- . .i!, ' (-/ \ ?, oz s[P 2$5 ( l,',:' - 'r1 (., ,..,- a:) .',: ii ',/ ORDER WP.No.6560 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS