High Court · 2025

I lffi"::i:r"t relansana, Rep bv ,s principar se ; md},r*:qli,Hiri[*;*r ffi :1[:[',"",,"""',- petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particurarry in the matter of writ of Mandamus' decraring the action of the 3RD respondent in issuing notice under sec 461-A of GHMC Act 1g55 vide Notice No.293.1/TpS/c 2ltsLp,cHMcr2,2s, dated 03'03'2025 directing the petitioner to vacate the preniises within 24 hours or otherwisq the authorities searing the unauthorized construction at prot No.1.r and 12 in qy ruo. etOlt, 311t1 and 318 of Chandanagar Viflage, Serilingampally Mandal, Rrnga neooy District without giving any breathing time and without obtaining any expranation from the petitioner straight away issued the impugned notice is highly irhgar, arbitrary and against the principres of naturar justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-4 of constitution of rndia by setting aside the notice dated 03.o3.2025 and consequenfly direct the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property without following due process of law in the interest of justice :\- 1 i i t I I i IA NO :1 OF 20 Petition the affidavit fil direct the re' enioyment of admeasuring SerilingamPa notice No 2g resPondent' ,,., , 16" p"ttu",;;; . :-.r^^.ircrlrnstanoes stated in 25 ., n,. r s;e ctio n 1 5 1 cPc ::ilil:"il:;TJ1ilill;1,"f::: ;.; peace{ur pr,s= 'uppor, ip,)n(ents *t to "o ll:::':.,';"", *o.,, trn, 11 and 13 Part' rhe')r,trtioners ot"'ln'.]-,]'a,,u],, 4/0 sq. yards in * rv lr'4rrrdal' n*o'-Rllllro2s, ,.',',', p,-" n.ti -,rrl disposal of the main writ petition T" #o by suspenJing rhe impugned dated 03'03 2025 i:'sJed bv the 3rd a.,r,.t. Chandi.nagar "r,"r,,tLPzGHMc/' Village' Counsel for the F etitioner: SRI' P' V' KRISHNAMACHARY counserf ortheRespondent-"i6",i*t"ooltstlutflBthtRMrNrsrRArroN REDDY' counsel for the tlespondent Nos' 2&3: SRI The Court made the following: ORDER $Tt'-l.iiil3Hl'Nr THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.666l OF 202s ORDER: Heard Sri P.V.Krishnamachary, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel fbr GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of part and parcel of house site bearing plot Nos. t I and 12 in Sy.No.316/1, 317/l and 3 l8 ol Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District i.e. rvithin GHMC limits and it is rest of area of Block No.l is not covered by any colony of Chandanagar Village, on the strength of registercd agreement of sale - cum- GPA bearing document No.3245 of 20t1. dated 26.04.2013. His vendor has also executed a ratification deed bearing clocument No.l244 of 20 1 3, dated, 26.04.2013.

3. According to the petitioner, he has consrrucred a tin shed and she is running a tea stall in it.

4. On the complaint lodged by Srnt. B.La'uanya, Sri Mohd. Khader and others, 3'd respondent has passed a speaking order dared

02.02.2024 directing the petitioncr to rcnrove the unauthorized i \..--.---...= \. constructiorr. I Ic: has also submitted an application date'J 16 C2'2024 to the 2nd :e:,p6riient seeking regularization of the said u'rauthorized construclio'l it terms of Section 450(4) and 455(A) of the GI{MC Act' 5. Srnt [].t'avanya, has filed W'P'No'3301 of 20114 tr' <leclare the inactior-rofthrlcspondentstherein,moreparticularly'r:spcndentNos-2 to 5 in r:tlor ir.rg the illegat construction made by the Petit oner herein' as itlegal ,ttrc ibr consequential direction to responde'rt Noi'2 to 5 to take actiorr alrlinst the petitioner in accordance rvith law lhis Cloutt considele< pr,'trdcttcy of the application dated 16'02'2Q24:'ind speaking order d:'tc.1 Lr r1.1024, vide order dated2l'06'2024 dispost'd of the said writ pelitron tlirccting the 2nd respondent to dispose of thr: application submitt:clhrthepetitionerdated|6.02.2024seekingregrl[lrizationol. the uttltttllro i,.ed construction in terms of Section 452 ol the Act Therca'le . r :'poudeut Nos'2 and 3 can enforce the spe akirrg order dated

01.01.:0- i ,, ithin firrther period of three (3) weeks the reafler' (, llr, ..rctitioner has filed W'P'No'6713 ol'202''4 cl.'allenging the spc-akirtr r)r l,)r dated 02'02'2024' Vide order dated 19 01 202'l' this ('ourt rli:1,o t'd ol'tlre said writ petition setting aside datc(l ()l (r.l l()ll and remanded the matter back to the i'r rcspondetrt u ith a diti:, lton to the petitioner herein to subrnit ':rpl lr'ation to the "he s p':aking ordcr I I I I I I I j I I t I

1. i ) I l I i show cause notice dated lE.Ol.2O24 and it is for the 3d respondent to 3 consider the same and pass order afresh.

7. As discussed supra, vide order dated 19.03.2024, this Court while setting aside the speaking order dated 02.02.2024, remanded the matter back to the 3'd respondent with a direction to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass orders afresh. The said f'act was not brought to the notice of this Court while disposing of the W.P.No.330l of 2024 on21.06.2024. Therefore, this Court directed the 2"'r respondent to consider the application dated 16.02.2024 submitted bv the petitioner in terms of Section 452 of the Act, and rhen rake sreps in enlbrcing the speaking order dated 02.02.2024 within a period ol two (2)weeks. In fact, by the said date i.e. 21.06.2024, the spcaking order dated 02.02.2024 was set aside. 3'd respondent has not passed orders aliesh in compliance with the order dated 19.03.2024 in W.p.No.67l3 ol1014. The said fact was also not brought to the notice of this Court rrhilc disposing of the W.P.No.330l of 2024 on21.06.2024.

8. Vide order dated 21.02.2024,2nd respondcnt has rcjccted the request made by the petitioner vide application datcd 16.02.2024 lor rcgularization of the said unauthorized constructiorr. 'lhere is no challcnge to it. Without passing orders afresh in compliance with the order dated 19.03.2024 in W.P.No.67l3 of 2014, 3'.r respondenr issued 4 impugne<l not ce dated 03 03 '2025 under Section 461-,{ rl the Act' directing the I,etitioner to vacate the subject property 'vithLn 24 hours and failing rvlri:h. he witl invoke powers under Sectic'n 4'';l -A of the Act lor seal ir rg, the unauthorized construction' Chall':ngi r5; the said notice, d;rted ( j .03 .2025, 3'd respondent filed the present *'ri'. petition'

9. /ts tliscussed supra, the aforesaid speakirg rrder dated 02.02.2024 J assed by 3'd respondent was on tht: re pr'esentation submittecl lr) ris Vendor i.e. Smt. B.Lavanya. Reference is :rlso made in the imptLgrred lloticc dated 03'03'2024 to the said effect' In fact' she has filed a Vv'.I).\o -ll0l ol2024 Even then, the petitioner has rc't made her as a pa1) t( Lhe present writ petition' There is no challenge to the rejectiorr c'rr.lt r datccl 1l '06'2024' I J. l.i :rr rccording to the petitioner, he is running a t3a stall and he is not t't.rl i tl ltlr licslt construction' l].r..cliscr-rsscdstrpra.theimpugnednoticedatell03.03.2025 was issucJ \' [h()ut passing orders afresh in compliance v"idr the order dated l9.r)-1. )r rl'l in W.P.No-67lf of 2024' Onthe sai<l grc'und only' the in-rpugrec n( tic. datccl 03.0i'2025 is tiable to be set aside' lr thc light ol the above discussion' tht: wit petition is dispostd ot |re Inrpugncd notice dated 03'03'2025 ssued by J"r resportrlc tr r; set zrsidc. --i "i respondent is directed to pass ot.ders alresh in I l I t II I 5 compliance with the order dated l9.O3.2l24in W.p.No.67l 3 of 2024 in terms of the said order by putting the petitioner, Smt. B. Lavanya, the vendor of the petitioner on notice and affording them an opportunity. He . shall complete the said exercise within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the result of the same, he shall take action against the petitioners strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the GHMC Act, 1955 within two (2) weeks thereafter. Therefore, the petitioner is directed not to make any lresh construction or make any alterations to the subject property. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. 0",,,,."t."1,'"i?li#f;,Tilil'tneous petitions, if anv, pending in this rvrit //TRUE COPY// SD/-S. MALLIKARJU NA RAO AS ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Principal Secretary (MAUD Secretariat , T.S Commissioner Greater Hvd erabad Mu nicipal d, Hyderabad Deputy Commrssione r, Chanda CC to SRI. P. V. KRI SHNAMA CCs to GP FOR MU NICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND U RBAN ELOP[/ ENT .High Court for the State of Telangana , at Hyderabad lourl CC to SRt G.MADHUSUD HAN REDD , SC FOR GHMC IOPUC] Citcle 21 , GHMC, Hyderabad Y, Ad\rccate pPUC erabad rporation, Tankbund CHAR CD Copies I { To, 1 2 3 4 5

6. 7. The The Roa The One Two DEV One Two BM GJP o\ ] i I I I i I I I I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:0410312025 ORDER WP.No.6661 of 2025 ,-a= =a= - iH:. r;, r o(. { ri 4 lul', 2025 * t * t sp,:li: t 6 -.1:::-_ _: i $'(' z o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,(,r ?A w