The High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the responderts 2 to g in not taking any action ag;ainst illegal / unauthroised construction in Survey Nos. 1g1 and 182 Plot no lf iL and '173 H. No 6-137122, West Sai Nagar eolo4y, lrlqqr Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - SOOOI2 abouJ illegal cgnstruclions qy way of representations dated 11t11t2024, 13t12l2OZA and 131,X21202Q to the respondents as illegal, arbitrary qnd in yiql4tion of the provisiq4g of grqater Hyderabad A/unicipal Corporation Act, '1955 and Rules made there under and consequentli direct rhe respondents 2 to 8 to take action against 169 illepa! constructions carrietl out by the respondents g and 10 under the provigions Of Greater Hydgrabad l,/unicipal Corporation Act and rules made there undqr. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petitig4 under Sectien "151 CPC praying that in the circumstanoes stated i4 ffre gffidayit filed in support of lhe petition, tl-re High Court may be pleased to QtAy . lhe con$truQtion in Survey Nos. 1B'1 and 1Q2 Plot No 172 and 173 H No.0-132122, West $ai Nggar Cglony, Neal Altryyn Cotony, Ku[atpElly, Hyderebad -.OO0O7Z, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of juotige. Counsel for the Petitioner. : SRI SAFDAR MIRZA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for Respondents No.2to7 : SRt K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC Cgllnsel fol Respsndents No.8 : SRI V.NARASTMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA Counsel fol Respondents No.g TO ll0:----.. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LN(SHMAN IVRIT PETITION No.6876 of 2o.25 ORDER: Heard Sri Safdar Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, Sri V Narasimha Goud, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.S. Perused the record.

2. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.9 and 10 proceeding with construction illegally/unauthorizedly. Therefore, he has submitted representation dated ll.ll.2024 to respondent Nos.2 to 7 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.9 and 10. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent Nos.2 to 7 did not consider the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. In the cause title of the present writ petition, he has stated that he is resident of Devamma Basthi, Balnagar 2 w P No.6876 of 2025 but in the representation dated 11.71.2024 acldress of respondent 1S shown as Kukatpally. Theretore, his bonafidees ar-e doubtful.

4. In the representation as well as in the writ affidavit, he has sta.ted that gth respondent has initiated construction on the plots based on questionable documents zrnd allegedly obtained permission from Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Tlee said statement'is nithout any basis. He has not obtained "rry information e'ither under Right to Information Ac1 or arry other source. The ailegations made by him are baseless and he has rrrade the said allegations without doing any exercise to irscertain the said facts. Therefor:e. his bonafides are cloubtful.

5. However, Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned stimding counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to T on instructions u()uld submit that respondent authorities have already inspected the site in a routine mannt,:r and l .:il I I I I KL,J W.P-No-6a76 oI2025 ., carne to know that respondent Nos.9 and 10 are making construction without leaving setbacks etc. Therefore,7h respondent has already issued show cause notice dated

18.04.2024 and passed speaking order dated 24.O4.2024 directing respondent Nos.9 and 10 to remove the unauthorized construction. He has also addressed letter dated 1L.O7.2024 to the Nodal Ofhcer, Special Task Force Team, Kukatpally Zone with a request to take steps in execution'of the said speaking order dated 24.04.2024. He will take further steps in accordance with the law.

6. In the light of said submission, notice to respondent Nos.9 and 10 is dispensed w"ith.

7. This writ petition 1S disposed of directing the 7fr respondent to take all necessaqr steps in execution of the speaking order dated 24.04.2024 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of (0a) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. KL..I w r.No 6876 of 2ois 4

8. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs 1S 9 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ p,:tition shall stand closed .:tt //TRUE COPYII SD/.T. TIRUMAL DEPUTY REGI EVI RAR SECTION FFICER The Principal Secretary, Municipal Adminis_tration and _Urban Development I Department srate oiilidngana, secretariat Buitdins, H9#Ri,tifreropment JffiffiT#iTione!- Greater Hyderabad Municipat corporation, Lower Tank (Ptannins), creater Hyderabad Municipar J::rii,iJ[",]ir ucommissioner I!,"rA.fb.lT] City ptanner, Greater Hyderabad Municipat Corporation . To, 1 -2 3 a , t

5. The Zonal Cornmissir uorporation (cHMc), ;ffi!#38:"ret Zone, Greater Hyderabad &lunicipat 6. The Town plannino - officer, Greater l-lyderabad Municipal corporation, Hyderabad z t EirBio3llo,"tr"f[,i?'"'i#:,!i, ,crlT,,;;,Jrerabad Municipar corporation Hvderabad Metropotitan Devetopment Authority (HMoA), IlS"t'r""#Tissioner, 9l Or" CQ to SRi SAFDAR M|RZA, Advpqate. [OpUe] 10.Two CCs to cp FOR I/ lelangana. [OU]'l IQPL ADMN URBAN DEV, Fligh Court fp,1 the Stale ef cc to sRt K RAVTNDER MAHENDFR, Ec FoR GHMC [of,uc] ]: :." 12 One Ce to SRI V NARA$IMHA GOUD; SC FOR HUOA 1OeUil 13. Two CD Copiep. w ?p* BS \ \ I , --."- ..x4|l!i3. FIIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 ORDER WP.No.6876 ot 2025 ./ ,) i 2[25 1 \ t Di:5 -,1,r .,.r' 1 i I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WlTflagl cOSTs t ql,rr \