High Court · 2025

Smt. Kotla Srivani, Wo. K. Srinivas Rao, Aged abo^ut 38 years'. Occ Housewife R/o. H. No.3-465, Main Road, Opp. Police Station, Choutuppal Municipality, Yadadhri-Bhuvanagiri District. ...'ET'T'ONER AND .) 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal S-ecre!a17, .!Ut1nic1pll Administration and Uiban Dev6lopment Departrirent Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telanoana State Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. i;;i'h";t6;;i rvrunii'pJtitv, nep 6y'its commissioner, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. Choutuppal Municipality Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri M. Narsimha, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Choutuppal village and Mandal Yadadhri-

3. The Town Planning Officer, 4. Maallaram Raghavendra, S/o. Business R/o. Bangarigadda, Bhuvanagiri District, TS District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of 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 wRlT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3 in issuing the confirmation notice vide notice No.G1t243t34t2)24-25 dated 07t0312025 directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized construction within 15 days without referring to any house number or plot number etc., for identification of the alleged unauthorized construction, and consequently sealing the existing structure of house No.3-467 in an extent of 126 sq feet (14 sq yards) situated at on the Hyderabad to Vijayawada road under the limits of 2nd respondent choutuppal Municipality, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and existence of siructure for the past 30 years and before expiry of appeal period of 60 days provided under Sec:.252 of TS Municipalities Act, 2019 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of Secs.174, 178,'181 and 252 of TS lVlunicipalities Act, 2019 apart from violation of Articles 14 and 300-,4 of Constitution of lndia besides violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the alleged confirmation notice vide notice No.G l /24313412024-25 dated 0710312025 and further directed the respondent authorities to not to demolish the house No.3-467 in an extent of '126 sq feet (14 sq yards) situated at on the Hyderabad to Vijayawada road under the limits of 2nd respondent Choutuppal Municipality 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 respondent Nos.2 and 3 immediately to unseal the house No.3-467 in an extent of 126 sq feet (14 sq yards) situated at on the Hyderabad to Vijayawada road under the limits of 2nd respondent Choutuppal Municipality and not to demolish / interfere in any manner in furtherance of the impugne( confirmation notice vide notice No.G1124313412024-25 dated 0710312025, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KANDI RAMCHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ANO URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --- The Court made the following: ORDER '. "-€'*=/ / .,/-' f HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. V]JAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8768 OF 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3, in issuing the confirmation notice vide Notice No.G1 124313412024-25 dated 07.03.2025, directing her to remove unauthorised construction within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, without referring to any house number or plot number etc., and consequently sealing the existing structure of House No.3-467 admeasuring 126 square feet (14 square yards) situated on Hyderabad to Vijayawada Road under the limits of respondent No.2 Municipality, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and before expiry of appeal period of 60 days provided under Section 252 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Act'), as being arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. lt is submitted that the impugned confirmation notice dated 07.03.2025 was issued by respondent No.2 Municipality in exercise of powers under Section 174 (4\ and 178 (1) and (2) of the Act. Against the said notice, there is a statutory remedy of 2 -1 filing an appeal under Section 252 of the Act within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that without waiting for expiry of the appeal time of 60 days provided under Section 252 of the Act, the respondent authorities have sealed her property.

4. Heard Mr. K. Ramchandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, Standing Counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

5. The impugned confirmation notice dated 07.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner stating that building was unauthorizedly constructed by him without valid building permission and without leaving buffer to the major drain as per rules and without maintaining setbacks. The petitioner was directed to remove the unauthorized construction within fifteen (15) days failing which it will be demolished by respondent No.2.

6. As statutory remedy of appeal is provided to the petitioner under Section 252 of the Act to challenge the impugned confirmation notice, it will be appropriate and proper for the respondent authorities to defer further action pursuant to the 3 impugned notice until expiration of sixty (60) days time available for filing the appeal

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, sfafus quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained for a period of 60 days from the date of impugned notice. Within this time, the petitioner shall take necessary steps to file an appeal under Section 252 of the Act before the appellate authority challenging the impugned confirmation notice dated 07.03.2025. The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate interim orders before the appellate authority.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, T.S.,Hyderabad. -n?no"oLaiTelangana state Secretariat Buildings'

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Adminis[qtionand Urban Development ' d;;,il;;t Di s.R z irr-e'cbmrissioner, choutuppal Municipatity, yadadri-Bhuvalagiri District 5. ii;; fown Ctanning'Officer, bhoutuppat Municipality Yadadri-Bhuvanagtrt 4. One CC to SRl. 5. Two CCs to GP DEVELOPMENT KANDI RAMCHANDRA REDDY, Advocate IOI-U-ql Fbii nrurutctpAL ADMINISTRATIoN AND URBAN uion Cturt for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad^[OUT] puiin xnrSHNA REDDY, sc FdR MUNlclPALlrlES District. , 6. One CC to SRI loPUcl

7. Two CD Copies o- M BS / CC TODAY 1 $E. SrAI€ i< q -) o 2 E l{An 7025 a ,.r.t i -.'t\ cE! (,/1\i (-,\' ....-:" HIGH COURT DATE D:2 410312025 ORDER WP.No.8768 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS