High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal and Urban Development Department, Hyderabad. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. The Turkayamjal Municipality, Rep- by its Commissioner, Turkayamjal, Ranga Reddy District. The Town Planning Officer, Turkayamjal Municipality, Turkayamjal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot 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 or Direction or an Order more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the respondents No. 3 and 4 in allowing the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out in Sy.No. 5 of Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without leaving set{acks, without permission and encroaching into petitioners property by removing the compound wall as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Building Rules and Regulations and consequently direct the respondents to remove the illegal and unauthorized construction by considering the representation of the petitioner. lA 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 pleased to direct the respondents forthwith to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out in Sy. No. 5 of Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which is adjacent to the compound wall of Street No.2 and main road, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PULIMAMIDI SHASHIOHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. D. MADHAVI, SC Counsel for the Respondent nos.3 and 4: SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, SC The Court made the following: ORDER t I ") /' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.6694 of2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Smt D'Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner is resident of Sri Sai Homes, Thurkayamjal Village within the Municipality of respondent No'3, is also claiming that he is Secretary of Sri Sai Homes Owner's Welfare Association. According to him, some third parties are making construction unauthorizedly by encroaching into the association property without leaving setbacks and the same is unauthorized construction. In proof of the same, he has filed the photographs' Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 01'03'2025 to respondent No.3 with a request to take action against third parties. Despite receiving an acknowledgment of the said representation, respondent No.3 did not consider the \ \ KL,J w.P.No.6694 of 2025 2 same. Challenging the said action of respondent No.3, petitioner hled the present writ petition

3. Whereas, Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has produced written instructions of respondent No.3, wherein, it is stated that respondent No.3 has issued building permission order dated 29.O9.2024 and letter of approval for commencement of work instant approval dated 14.1O.2024 in favour of Sri Kottakurma Kumar for construction of residential house consisting of ground floor plus one upper floor. Therefore, he is proceeding with the construction strictly in accordance with law. There is no deviation. The said written instructions are placed on record

4. As stated supra, though the petitioner is claiming as Secretary of Sri Sai Homes Owner's Welfare Association, he has not filed any proof in support of the same. In his representation dated OL.O3.2O25 or in the r,r,rit alfidavit, he has not given the details of the person who is making unauthorized construction by encroaching into their KL,J W.P.No.6694 of 2025 3 property without leaving setbacks. He has not submitted any application under RTI Act to respondent No.3 seeking information with regard to details of the person' who is making construction. Therefore, the petitioner herein has submitted representation dated 01.03.2025 with vague allegations and filed the present writ petition' Before submitting the said representation and after filing of the present writ petition, he has to do some exercise with regard to the person who is making unauthorized construction more particularly with regard to permission if any obtained by him. Without doing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. Perusal of the said building permission order produced by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 would reveal that the same was issued under TG BPASS. Therefore, respondent No.3 will consider only prima facie case and prima facie title. Thereafter, he will consider only the following three aspects: 1) Misrepresentation/ Suppression ol fact KL,J W.P.No.6694 of 2025 4 2) False statements, if any, made by complainant and (3) Deviation in construction to the building permission order.

6. Other aspects including alfecting easement rights o[ the petitioner, respondent No. 3 cannot consider.

7. The petitioner is aged about 72 years. Therefore, he is directed not to do such things in future. In the light of the same, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief, much less the relief sought in the present writ petition.

8. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.T.JAYASREE EPUTY REGISTRAR P .. SECTION OFFICER \1 To, 1 One CC to Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddv. Ad!{cate 2. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration Urban Deve - for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI 3. One CC to Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, SCTOPUCI 4. One CC to Smt. D. Madhavi, SC [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copres T J /BSK [oPUC] lopment, High Court HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 ORDER WP.No.6694 of 2025 SI4r4( (( g JUL 2025 ? /: ', ,,/ .. ,/ ..t' a. /,t t:tr\. ''l \ \ DISMISING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t