Smt.B. Reena Saxena v. The State

years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.12-2-330/8/2, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. 15. Mr. Zahooruddin Syed Madani, S/o Mr. Syed Tajuddin Madani Aged about 45 years, Occupation. Business Rl/o H. No. '12-2-33018/2 Murad Nagar, Asifnagar, Humayan Nagar, Hyderabad -28

#16. Anwari begum, Wo Syed Zahooruddin Madhani aged about 76 years, Occ. Retired Service Fi./o H.No. 8-1-5231267, Brindavan Colonty, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad. 'l7.C.Veena, D/o C.Amamath aged about 37 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. 3- 6-691812511, Avanthinagax, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 lssue a Writ order or direction , more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents Authorities in not demolishing the illegal and unauthorised constructions made by the unofficial respondents no. s to '17 in the plot No 52 and 53 bearing house No. 8-2-68413152 and B-2-684t3t53 (Old ptot No. 52 and 53 in survey No. 129/53 situated at Rear side of Road No. 12,street No.5, Banjara Green Colony, Banjarahills, Hyderabad without considering the Representations dated. 6-10-2025, 15-12-2025, 29-01-202613-03-2026 of the petitioners as ifiegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Principals of Natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequqnfly Direct the Respondent No. I to 4 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized constructions made by the unofficial respondents 5 to .t 7 being carried out at plot No s2 and 53 bearing house No. 8-2-68413152 and B-2-684t3t53 (Old ptot No. 52 and 53 in survey No. 129/53 situated at Rear side of Road No. 12,street No.5, Banjara Green Colony, Banjarahills, Hyderabad immediately by considering the representations of the petitione rs dated 26- 1 0-20 25,1 5 - 1 2-2025,25 -0 1 -2026,1 3-03 -2026 in the interest of justice. 1 !.A.NO:1 OF 2026 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 No. 1 to 4 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized mnstructions made by the unofficial respondents 5 to 17 being carried out at Plot No 52 and 53 bearing house No. 8-2-68413/52 and 8-2-68413/53 (Otd plot No. 52 and 53 in survey No. 129/53 situated at Rear side of Road No. 12,street No.S,Banjara Green Colony, Banjarahills, Hyderabad immediately by considering the representations of the petitioners dated. 26-10-2025, 15-12-2025, 29-01-2026, 13-03-2026, pending disposal of main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. ABDUL RAB MALIK Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : AGP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S to 17 : - The Court made the following ORDER TN THE HICH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR HYDERABAD WRIT PETITION No.11541 ot2026 DATE OF ORDER: 16.04.2025 Between: Smt. B.Reena Saxena and another. AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and others. . Petitioners ... Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri Abclul ltab Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Iearned Government Pleaclcr for MA&UD appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. With their consent, the writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stagc itsclf . 2 Tl'ris writ pctition has been filcd seeking the following prayer:- "...declarmg the inactiott of thc n:spontlents autlnritrcs in not demolishing tht illegtl nnd tnuthorisetl constructiotts made by the unofficial respondtnts no. 5 to 17 in tlu: PloI Nos. 52 and 53 bcaring houx No. 8-2-684/3/52 and 8-2-684/3/53 (Old plot Nos.52 and Sj in surtny No. 129/53 situatcd nt Renr sidc of Rotd No. 72, street No.S, Banjara Grcen Colony, Bmlnrnltills Hyderabarl ruithout considering the Represe n t n t o ns da tL, d 26 1 0 - 202 5, 1 5 -1 2-2025, 29 -01 -2026,1 343-2026 of tlu petitioners as illegnl, nrbtrnry and contrnry to the principals ol Naturnl justicc and. n[so utolatiue of Articles 74, 19, 21 and j00-A of Constitutiotr of lndin and consequently direct respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to dentolish tlw illegnl nnd unnuthorized constntctions nade by the unofficid responfunt Nos.5 lo 17 heing cnrried out nt Plot Nos.52 ind 53 benring Itouse No. 8-2-684/3fr2 ttttd 8 2-684/3/53 (Oltl pLot Nos. 52 antl Sj ii suntey No. 129/53 sitrmtt,d llertr sulc of llontl No.72, street No.S, Banjara ()rcen Colony, Battyrtt hills Hydernbntt imnrcdiately by consideri g tle represe n tntiott s of tlu petitioners rtated 26_10_202i, 1 5 -1 2-2025, e 4 1 -2026, 1 3 -0 3 -2026..." i I I 2

#3. Brief facts of the case as stated are that the petitioners claims to be the owners and possessors of the land admeasuring 340.69 Sq.Yards of H.No.8-2-584l3 /54, Plor No.54 in Survey No.l29/53 situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same aide ttvough registered sale decd bearing document No.3738 of 2014 dated 29.09.2074. tt is submitted that the neighbours of the southern side i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 17 constructed illegal compound wall within the petitioners premises and are also carrying out unauthorized construction on Plot Nos.52 and 53 (Old plot Nos.52 and 53 in Survey No.129/53) situated at Rear side of Road No.12, Street No.5, Banjara Green Colony, Banjara Hills , Hyderabad. In view of the same, the petitioners submitted their representations dated 26."10.2025,

75.72.2025, 29.01.2026 and 13.03.2026 respectively. However, no action has been taken. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

#4. The learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that if the petitioners' representations daled 26.10.2025, 1,5.12.2025, 29.07.2026, 73.03.2026, are still pending for consideration, the respondent authorities would consider the same and take action in accordance with law.

#5. In the case on hand, it is pertinent to refer to Section 7(6) of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certilication System (T$BPASS) Act, 2020 (for short 'the TS-BPASS Act'), the same are extracted hereunder:- "7. Apptoudl of Buildtng Permisslons- (6) Citizens shall be encouraged to bing to the notice of Municipality and District Collector cases where unauthoized construction or construction in uiolation of or in excess of permissions, in the monner pre_scribed. The identrtg of such informers shatl be kept confidential. All such cases sha/l be examined tuithin a ueek from such information and appropiate actton tnitlated. The inforiation shall be incentiuized in all such cases uLhere the informahon, fumished bg him is found to be correct. "

#6. For better appreciatioll, this Court deems it appropriate to refer some of tlie relcvant sections of Greater Hy<lerabar{ Municipal corporation Act, 1955 (hercinafter referred to as'the Gt.tMC Act'). Section 428 of the GHMC Act, 1955

#428. Notlce to be qiuen to commiss ioner of intentlon to erect a bulldinq: (1) Euery person ruho tntends to erect a building shall giue to the commissioner notice of his said intention in a form, obtained for this purpose und.er Section 435, specifying the position of the buitding intended Io be erected, the description of building, the purpose for uhich it is intended., ifs dimensions and the name of the person tuhom he intends to employ to superuise its erection. Section 433 of GHMC Act 7955

#433. Notlce to be gltEn to the Commissloner of lntentlon to make additions, etc "Euery person uho shall intend (a) to make ony oddition to a building; or (b) to make anA alteration or repoirs lo a building; not being a frame-builcling, inuoluing the remoual or re-erection of ang external or partg-u.tall thereof or of ang Luall uthich supports the roof thereof, to an extenL exceeding one -hatf of such wall aboue the plinth leuel, such half to be measure,l in superficial feet; or (c) to make any alteration or repairs to o frame_ building, tnuoluinq the remoual or 4 re-erection of more than one-half of the posts in ang such wall thereof as aforesaid or inuoLuing the remoual or re-erection of anq such uall thereof os aJoresaid to an extent exceedtng one- half of such uall aboue the plinth leuel, such half to be meosured in superftciaL feet; or (d) to make inuoluing:- any alteration in a building (i) the sub-diuision of ang room in such building so cs to conuert the same into.ttbo or more seporate rooms- (ii) the conuersion oJ ang passage or space tn such building into a room or rooms; or (e) to remoue or reconstruct ang portion of a buitding abutting on o street uthich stands u.tithin the regular line of such street; shall giue to the Commissioner in a fonn obtained for the purpose under section 435 nottce of his intention, specifging the portion oJ the building in tuhich such uork b to be executed, the nature and extent of the intended uork, the particular part or par1s, rf ang, of such rttork u.thich is or are intended to be used for human habitation and the nane of the person uhom he intends to employ to superuise its execution." Sectfon 457 of GHMC Act, 1955 "457. Inspection ol buildJings in course o;f erection, alteration etc.:' The Commissioner mag at ang time during the erection or re-erection of a building or th.e execution of ang such work as is descibed in Section 433 make an inspection thereof ttithout giuing preuious notice of his intention so to do.' Sectlon 452 of GHMC A 7955

#452. Demolitlon or (rltera:tlon of the building uork unla'usJullg comnenced, cal'r'ied on or completed and appeal thereoni (1) If the Commissioner is satisfied that the construction or re-consttuction of ang building or execution of ang work as described in Section 433 is commenced or canied out contrary to the prouisions of the Act or building rules or bye-lanus made thereunder, he shall mttke a proutsional order requiing the person uho is consttucting or re-consttucting such building or exeanting such tttork or has constnlcted or re-constntcted such buiLding or 5 exec'uted such Luork to demotistt such unauthorized construction or re_construction or work uithin a peiod specified to bing such constnlction or re construction of the building or ttork in confonnitg tuith the prousions of the Act or building rules or BAe-Ious made thireunder and mag also dtrect that untit the said ord.er is complied uith, the concemed person shall refrain from proceeding with suci constnlction or recon.struction of the building or work, Section 456 of GHMC $ct,7955 "Da.noe rous Structures "t ""g Remova.l of structures, trees etc., tohich a.re in ruins or likelg to falb (1) If it sha iii. appear to the Commissioner that anA st; cture (including under lhis expression ong Orlaing, io, , pa.rapet, pauement, Jloor, steps, railings, ioo, o, u.ttndout frames or shutters ,, ,ooj, or other stru.cture and angthing afftxed to or prijection Jrom or resting ona anA building, utalt, pirapet o, ith", structure) is in ruinous condition or likilg to fall, or is in a1g uay dangerous to ang person"o";;i;";, resorling to or passing Ag, suci structure or" aritl o,ther struchtre or place in the neighbor rhoold lhereof, the Commissioner maA, bq *nit"n ,oti"i, require the ou)ner or occupier-oJ {uch structui.re to -" do one or more of the foltott_.,ing things, namelg:_ (i) to pull doLun, (ii) to secure, (iii) to remoue, or (iu) to repair such structure or thing, and to preuent all cause of danger therefrom. (2) The CommLssioner mag also, if he thinks fit, require the said. owner o, o*pi., Ay tn" sita notice, either forthuith or beyore proceeitng, t" p"ii dou.tn, secure, remot)e or repair the sticturi or things, _to set up a proper and sulJicient hoard or Jence Jor lhe protection of passers bg and other persons, uith a conuenient platfonn and hand-rail, if there be room enough fo, ti. t:ii Commissioner shalt think the same destrabie, i; serue, rrs footwag for passengers outside of such noard or Jence. (l) tf ,t appears to the Commissioner that the danger from a stnlcture uhich is ruinous o, ofrirt to fall is imm.inent, he mag, before giuing noti""-;; aforesaid or before the peiod of'notiie .;;i;, "o^" i 6 fence ofJ take dou.tn, secure or repair the said structure or take such steps or cause u.tork to be exeanted as mag be required to orrest the danger. (4) AnA expenses incuned by llrc Commissioner under sub-section (3) shalL be paid by the owner or ocatpier of the structure. (5) (o) Where the Commissioner is of opinion uhether on receipt of an application or othenxise that the onlg or th.e most conuenient mean-s by uhich the ou)ner or ocanpier of structure such as is refened to in sub-section (1) can pull dou.tn, secure, reffLoue or repoir such stntcture, is bg enteing any of the odjoining premises belonging to some other person the Commissioner afier giuing such person a reasonable opportunity of stating any objection maA, Lf no such objection is raised or if ang objectton uhich is raised appears to him inualid or insufftcient, bg an order in u.titing, authoise the said outner or occupier to enter such adjoining prembes. (b) Euery such order bearing the signature of the Commissioner shall be a sufficient authoitA to the person in *^hose Jauour it is made, or to any agent or person employed bg htm for this purpose, a.tter giuing to th.e oluner of the premises reasonable written nol.ice of his in"tentior, so to do, to enter upon the said premises with assistants an-d. uorkmen, dt anA time betueen sunrise and sun set, and to execute the necessan) u-tork. (c) ln executing, any u.tork under this section as little damage as possibLe shatl be done to the ad, joining owner's propertg, and the owner or occupier of premises for the benefit of which the work is done, shall - (i) cause the u.tork to be exeatted ttrith the least practicable delay; (ii) pay compensation to anA person u.tho sustains damage bg the execution of the said utork. Sect{on 46 7-A of GHMC Act, 7955 "46 7-A. Pou.rers to se(rl unauthorlzed, construction/development of premlsesr (1) It shall be laufut for the Commissioner, at anA time, before or after making an order for the remouaL or discontinuance oJ anA unauthorized de uelopme nt or consttuction u nder section 461, to make an order directing the sealing of such deuelopment or propertA or 7 taktng the assistance of police, for the purpose of carryinq out the prouisions of the Act." Section 636 of GHMCAct,7955 "636. Work or thing d.one ulthout nttltten perrnission oJ the Commissioner to be deemed unauthorized:- (1) If ony work or thing requiring the u.titten pennission of the Commissioner under ang prouision of this Act, or ang rule, regulation or bge law is done bg ana person uithout obtaining such Luritten permission or, if such tLitten permksion is subsequenttg suspended or reuoked. for ang reason by the Commissioner, such u.tork or thing shall be deemed to be unauthorised and subject to an!/ other prouision of this Act the Commissioner maA at anA time, by u.titten notice, require that the some shall be remoued, pulled down or undone as the case mag be, bg the person so carrying out or doing if the person carryinq out such work or dotng such thing ts not the otuner at the time of such notice then the owner at the time of giuing such notice shall be liable Jor carrying out the requi-sitions of the Commissioner. (2) If within the peiod specifed tn such tuitten notice the requisitions contained therein are not catried out bg the person or ou)ner, as the case mag be, lhe Commisstoner maA remoue or alter such u.tork or undo such thing and the expenses thereof shall be paid bg such person or ou)ner as the case mag be."

#7. On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the respondcnt authorities are r'ested with statutory powers to inspect any property and after putting on notice and after giving fair opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, may take appropriate action against the unauthorized constructions on such properties, in accordance with law. 8

#8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Sports Club and Ors. Vs. Union of lndin (IIOI) and Ors1, hetd that violators of the Town Planning Scheme cannot be granted any relief. The relevant observations are as under: "52. Before concluding, ue consider it necessary to enter a caueat. In all deueloped countie' great emplasis hos been laid on the planned deuelopment of cities and urban areas. The obiect of planned development has been achieued by rtgorous enJorcement of master plans prepared afier careful studg of complex issues, saentific research qnd rdtionalisotion of laws. The people of those counties haue greatlg contributed to tlrc concept of pLanrrcd deuelopment of cities by stictlV adhering to the planning ktws, tle moster plan etc- Theg respect the lau;s enacted bg the legislature Jor regulating planned deueLopment of the cities and seldom there is a complaint of uiolation oJ masler ptan etc- tn the consttuction of buitdings, residential, uLstitutonql or commercial- In contrast, scen,,no in the deueloping countries Itke ours is substantially different. Though the competent legislatures haue, from time to time, enacted. laus for ensurirg planned deuelopment of the cities and urban areos, eniorcement lhereof has been extrentely poor and tle people haue uiotated ttle mqster ptans, zoning plans and building regulations and bge-laws txith impunitV. In lasl Jour decades, almost all ctties, big or small, have seen unplanned grou.tth In lhe 21st cettturg, ittegal and unouthorized the menace of consttactions and encroachments has acquired monstrous proportions and everyone hos been paging heavg pice for tL.e same. Dconomically afJluent people and those hautng supporl of the political and executiue apparatus of the Stale haue consttucted build.tngs, commercial complexes, multiplexes, malls etc n blotant violation of the municipal and toun plamning laws, master plans, zonal deuelopment plans qnd euen the sanctioned buiding plans- In most of the cases of illeaal or rs of the unduthorized construct,,rns. the o municioal and. other reoulatoru bodies turn blind to the influence of hioher eue either due or other rectsons. Those tuho construct buildings in utolation of tle releuant statutory provisions, moster plan etc. and those who directlg or in.directlg abet such uiolatiotts are totallg unmindful of tle graue consequences of their actions and/ or omissions on the present as well o '((2oo9l rs scc 7os) 9 clcllttie menities Uke u)q os future generatiots of the country tahtch will be lorced to liue in unplonned cities and urban areas. The people belongirq fo this clqss do not reahze thet the conslrucrions made in uiolation of the releuant laws, master plan or zonal deuelopment plan or sanctioned buildrng plon or the building s used for o purpose other thon the one specifed in lhe releuant statute or the masler plan etc., such con*ructions Dut unbedrable burd.e^ on the e le ctricltu. se w erao e etc. doart from creatlno chaos on the roads. The pollution causbd due to lraffi.c congestion affects the health of the roe.d users. The pedestnans and people belonging lo ueoker sections of the societg, who cannot afford the luxtry of air- conditioned cars, are the worst dctims of poltution. They su.ffer from skin diseases of different tApes, asthma, allergies and euen more dreaded drseases like cancer. It can only be a rnotter oJ lmagination hou much the gouemmenl lws to spetld on the treatment of such persons and aLso for controlling pollution and aduerse impact orr the ertuironment due to traflc congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due lo illeqal ond unauthoized constmctions. Thls Court hqs rom time to buildi s consf, ruct vlolation o municioal qnd other laus and. emphasized. that no comorontlse should be made ulth the toun lanni should. be oiuen to the violato" of thc toun plo'r'rinq scherlre etc. on the onound that he has soe'nt substq.ntial a.ntount on co,r'structlo'r af the butld.in s etc. - K. Ra'rndas Shenou a. Chief I Councll o udipi 1974 t2) scc 5()6. Dr. G.N. Khaiurla v. Delhi Develooment Authorltu 199s 15) SCC 762, M.I. Bullders Pttt. Ltd. u, Ro.dhen Shuann So,hrl 7999 I5, SC.C 464. Frleads Colonu Deuelopmcnt Committee a. State of Or{ssa 2OO4 l& SCC 733, [fr.C. Mehta u. Unlon of Indla. 2006 , SCC 399 cnd S.JV. Chandrasekha.r Stolte U. Kdntdtaka 2006 l3l SCC 2Oa. Toton Munl scheme q. o rell o

#53. Unfortunatelu, despite repeated judoments bg the this Court and Hiqh Courts, the builders qnd olher affluenl people enqaqed, in the constntction octiuities, who haue, ouer the uears showft scant respect for req.tlatoru mechanism envisaqed in the municipol and other similar laws, as also the ntdster plans, zonal deuelopment plans, sanctioned plans etc., haue receiued etlcour(tqemet and supporl from the State apparatus. As and Luhen th.e courts haue passed ortTers or the officers of local and other bodies haue ktkcn action for ensuing riqorous compliance lou.rs relattnq to planned deuelopment of the crltes anri ,uban oreos and issued directions for .- r/ 10 demolition of illeqal/ unquthoriz'ed consttuctions, those m pouer haue come fonar() to protect the uronq doers etther bu tssuing administratiue orders or enactittq laws for illeqal and unauthorized requlariztttion of constntctions irl the ftame of cornpossion qnd hardship. Such actions haue done ineparable ha.rm to the concept of planned deuelopment of the cities and urban areas. It ls high time thqt the executiue and po litical aoDatdtus of the Stdte take serious vieu of the ntena.ce of llleo(,l and unduthorized, constructlons o,nd. stoo thelr sttpoort to the lobbles of affluent class of builders and others. else even the n urltaess rural areas of the countru utill simllar c lEmoha.sls suoolledl ic conditlons.

#22. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Aplrrtments Co-ope?dtlue Housing Society Ltd.. and Ors. Ys. Municipal Corporatlon of Murnbai and Ors (2013) 5 SCC 357, held that Con-stitutional Courts ouqht not to exercbe their equitable iurisdiction to requbrAe illeqal and unauthDri.z,ed con-stnlcttons. The reLeuant obseruattons ore as und.er: "45- In uiew of the aboue disczssiort, we hold that the Petitioners in the tralsferred case haue faiLed to make out a case for directinq lhe Respottdents to requtarize the construction made in uiolatron of ttLe sanctioned plan. Rather, the ralio of the aboue- noted iudqments and, in partta ar, I?oual Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd- u. State of Haruana and Ors. lsupral is clearlu attracted in tlrc present case. Wa would llke to teiterate that no authorltg adrmln:lsterilz.g rnunicipal lows qnd other silmllar lquts can encourqge violation oJ the sq.nctioaed Pldn- The Coutts dre also expected to refraln lrom exercising equita.ble jurisdlction lor reguldrization oJ lllegal and u'1,a,uthorized consttactlorts else lt would encourage uloldto"s of the planning lq.ws antd d.est"oy the uery ld, ed and concept oJ planned. deltelop'ment oJ urban a.s utell as rurq.l areas-" (emphasis sltppliedt"

#9. It is also relevant to refer to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 of 2022 (2024 INSC 866) (Bulldozer's Case), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave ccrtain directions and guideli, res to the Government for manner of proceeding in demolition of the unauthorized construction. -.,_,_ 11

#10. Since the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 mandates issuancc of noticc to the pt, rsons conccrned and the GHMC authorities are empowered to cxamine ancl tlecicle the issue with respect to unauthorized constructions, bv issuing notice to tlte concerned parties, the respondent authorities are directcd to issue notice to the concerned parties. As-such, in the present case, issuance of notice to responLlent Nos.5 to 17 is dispensed with.

#11. Having consi(lered the above facts and circumstance, recording thc submission madc by the lcarned counsel appearing on either side, without expressing an_y opinion on tl're mcrits of the case and after considering judicial precedcnts n:fcrrcd to hcreinabove, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of thc writ petition directing the respondent authorities to considcr pctitioucrs' rcpresentations dated

26.10.2025,

75.1,2.2025,29.07.2026.13.03.2026 and after giving fair opportunity of hearing to petitioners anti responclent Nos.5 to 17, shall pass appropriate orders strictlv in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (04) wecks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate thc same to the petitioners. It is made clear that if thc allegations macle by the petitioners are found to be hue, thc respondent authorities shall take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law.

#72. It is clarifiecl that in the event of respondent Nos.5 to 17 are otherwise aggrievcd may avail remecly of filing application for the modification of this order, in accordance with law. 72

#13. With the above directions. this writ petition IS disposed of Miscellancous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.JAYASR ASSISTANT RE R SECTION OFFICER Udran Development To

#1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyd

#2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

#3. The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC Circle-36, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Telangana

#4. The Assistant City Planner, GHMC, Circle-36, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. One @ to SRI ABDUL RAB MALIK, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC, Advocate (OPUC) 8. Two CD Copies SA TKS HIGH COURT DATED: 1610412026 C.C. TODAY - .1rri l'T/rT l/.a." - c \ (\ - \.' (-. \ t. -:t 2t $9flNn j. r5.i1;::,;i rr:\'/ _\:3.::_- , ,, -,<-, '. - ORDER WP.No.11541 of 2026 ./ .:L DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS.