Shyam Sunder Atasniya v. 1. The State of Tel

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 more particularly one in .....RESPONDENTS the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceeding dated 03.11.2021 in issued by the Director Enforcement, Notice No. 5749/D|R./EVDM/E/GHMC/2021 vigilance and Disaster Management, GHMC, Hyderabad without reference to the Regularisation Application daled 27.06.2008 of the petitioner pending before the 6th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice. |.A.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 not to demolish the structures constructed on Plot No 59A, situated at MLA colony, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 50034 pending consideration of the Regularisation Application of the Petitioner dated: 27.06.2008 in the interests of justice. A.NO:4 OF Between The Hyderabad Dosaster Management and Asset Protection Agency, Represented by its Commissioner Hyderabad. vAcATE PETIT]ONER/RESPONDENT No.8 a AND

1. Shyam Sunder Atasniya, S/o Late Sri Gopikishan Atasniya, Aged-S2 years, Oc-cupation Business, Fl/o Plot no.59A, MLA Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034. .....RESIONDENT/PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, represented by its Secretary, Municipal . Administration and Urban Development at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad represented by its commissioner.

4. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Central Zone, Hyderabad.

5. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairatabad Circle, Hyderabad.

6. The Director Enforcement, Vigilance and Disaster Management, GHIUC, Hyderabad.

7. The District Collector, Nampally, Hyderabad. 8. The Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order granted on 29.4.2025 in w.P.No.13617 ot 2025 as extended subsequently and dismiss the writ petition with costs' I.A.NO:5 OF 2025 BETWEEN

1. The District Collector, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal' Hyderabad. ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND

1. Shvam Sunder Atasniya, S/o Late Sri Gopikishan Atasniya, Aged 52 years' OCtuprtion Business,'Rlio Plot no.59A, MLA Colony, Road No'12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034. .....RESPOND!NTS/PETITIONERS

2. The State of Telangana, represented by its Secretary, Municipal . - Administration and-Urban Development at Secretariat, Hyderabad' 3. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad represented bY its Commissioner.

4. The Zonal commissioner, Greater Hyderabad MuniaiPal corporation, central Zone, Hyderabad.

5. The Deodtv Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairadbad Circle, HYderabad.

6. The Director Enforcement, Vigilance and .Disaster Management, GHMC' Hyderabad.

7. The Hvderabad Dosaster Management and Asset Protection Agency, Repre3ented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. (R-8 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 17'6'2025 in l'A'No'2 ot 20251 / ,/ (RR 2 to 7 are not necessary parties to this petition) ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim orders passed on 02.05.2O25 in WP.No.13617 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI T.V.RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI M.ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 8 : SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : Ms. TEKURU SWETCHA, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER i* K. WRIT PETITION No.I36l7 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ms. Tekuru Swetcha, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Rovenue, appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7, Sri Kouturu Pavan Kumar, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 8, Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 600 sq.yards in Plot No.59-A, situated in Sy.No.l2}l413ll of Shaikpet village and Sy.No.102/l of Hakimpet Village, Hyderabad (for short, 'the subject property') on the p strength of a registered sale deed bearing 4ocument No.270 of 2000 dated 21.0L 2000 executed by Sri Ashok Kumar Kabra- It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that his vendor's vendor and his vendor have been in possession of 280 sq.yards of tand excess abutting to the said plot since last 40 years. He has submitted an application under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008 on 27.06.2008 seeking regularizatio4 of the said excess land. It is pending. Government has 2 appointed District Level Committee to submit recommendations/ remarks to process the said applications to CCLA under the said G.O. Even then, the said application was not considered. He has constructed a residential house consisting of Ground + two upper floors. In proof of the same, he has filed photographs.

3. while the matter stood thus, 5th respondent has issued a notice dated 03.1 I .2021 under Section 452(2) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1995 ( for short, the GHMC Act, 1995'), stating that the petitioner encroached lay out open space. 5th respondent has issue notice dated 18.01 .2021 under Section 635 of the GHMC Act, 1955 stating ttrat the petitioner is in illegal occupation of plot No.59A, Road No.l2, MLA colony, Banjara Hills. Therefore, 5th respondent requested the petitioner to submit the documents of t[e said plot for verification within three days.

4. According to the petitioner, he has submitted explanation on

20.01 .2021 to the notice dated 18.01 .2021, the same was nor considered. Thereafter, 5th respondent has issued one more notice, dated 10-08.2021 under Section 452 (l) and 46t (t) of GHMC Acr, requesting the petitioner to submit the documents for verification within 7 days. He has subrnitted documents and tl-re gone were not I J considered. Thereafter, 5th respondent has issued another notice dated

03.1 I .2021 under Section 451 of the GHMC Act, stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was rejected and further action as per Sections 636 and 5961461(4) and 461(A) of GHMC Act, will be taken. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that he and his vendors have been in possession of excess land of 280 sq.yards belongs to the government land which is abutting to his land admeasuring 600 sq.yards, and the application submitted by him under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 1,6.02.2008 seeking regularization of the said tand is pending. During pendency of the said application, without considering the same, respondents cannot issue the aforesaid notices and cannot reject the explanation submitted. by him. tt i, also specific contention of the petitioner herein that the said 280 sq.yards of excess land is sun'ounded by hillock without any approach road and it is not useful to the Government for any purpose. Without considering the same and the reply, 5th respondent is proceeding further.

6. It is the specific contention of the 7th respondent in the countcr that there is no plot No.59-A. The petitioner is trying to encroach the bL*,, 4 government land in Sy.No.l02ll part of Hakimpet village. Learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Revenue has produced a copy of lay out and also map. However, otr instructions, she would submit that 7th respondent would conduct joint survey to identifu the excess land of 280 sq.yards which is in possession of the petitioner, belongs to the Government in accordance with law and thereafter, 7th respondent will take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

7. Learned counsel appearing for 8th respondent, on instructions, would submit that 8th respondent will take action after 7th respondent conducting joint survey of the aforesaid property.

8. As discussed supra, though the petitioner is claiming that he has submitted an application under G.O.Ms.No.l66 dated 16.02.2008 seeking regularization of the excess land of 280 sq.yards, he has not stated so in the explanation dated 20.01 .2A21 and 16.08.2021. For the first time, he has contended about the submission of the said application in the writ affidavit.

9. In the letter dated 1t.07.2025 addressed by 6th respondent to . i,, 8th respondent, there is specific reference that they have not received the aforesaid application said to have been submitted by the petitioner. G.O.Ms.No.l66, dated 16.08.2008 and File No.15518 mentioned in the 5 acknowledgment filed along with the present writ petition does not pertain to the said application. It is further stated that the CPI (M) Party has filed PIL No.517 of 2013 challenging the G.O.Ms.No.l66, dated

16.08.2008. Vide order dated 30.12.2013 and 19.08.2015, a Division Bench disposed of the said PIL directing the State Government not to implement or act upon G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008.

10. In the light of the same, the government is not in a position to consider any application said to have been submitted by the petitioner under G.O.Ms.No.l66, dated 16.08.2008. The said facts are specifically mentioned by 6th respondent in the letter dated 11.07.2025 addressed to the 8th respondent. I 1. In the aforesaid notices issued by 5tn respondent, there is no mention of plot No.59A in the subject lay oul They have specifically mentioned that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of the said plot. I According to the petitioner, the said plot is in existence and on considering the lay out produced by him, the aforesaid registered sale I I deed bearing document No.270 of 2000, dated 21.01.2000 was entertained by the registering authorities. Now, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader has produced a lay out to contend that there is no plot No.59-A. However, this Court cannot consider the said aspects I / 6 involves with serious disputed facts, which in a writ petition filed under .i .{ Articte 226 of the Constitution of [ndia and this Court cannot conduct enquiry with regard to the said factual aspects are serious in nature. It is for the respondent No.6 to 8 to take action on the petitioner in accordance with law on the said aspect.

12. With regard to 280 sq.yards of excess land which is in occupation of the petitioner, 7th respondent shall conduct joint survey by putting the petitioner, 8th respondent and all interested parties on notice and affording them an opportunity to identifli the same and thereafter take action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Till the said exercise is completed, respondent Nos.6 to 8 are directed not to proceed further pursuant to the impugned notice dated

03.1 I .2021isstred by 5'n respondent.

13. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// ? ASS \ SD/. I\TANT C. DEEPIKA REGISTRAR i 'TSEGTION OFFICER To

1. The Secretary, tVlunicipal Administration and Urban'pdvetopment at 2. The Commissioner, Greater Hvoera6id N/lunicipal Corporation, Tank Bund S"6retariat, State of Tblangana at Hyderabad' Road, HYderabad. I

3. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Central 4. Th; D;drty Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad t\Iunicipal Corporation' Zor,e, HYderabad- ' Khairatabad Circle, HYderabad.

5. The Director fnio-rl"ti "nt, Hyderabad. Vigilance and Disaster Management' GHIVIC' Agency, HYderabad. Courrfor the State of Telangana AT Hy{erabad' IpUII

6. ffrebistrict Collector, Nampally, Hyderabad.' 1. rne ransildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad' B. The commisrioln'"i,'iift;;ild boiaster Management and Asset Protection 9. Two CCs to cP FOi tvlCPL ADtvlN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High 10.Two CCs to cF-ibC niVe"1rf Ue , High Court for the State of Telangana at 1 1 . oi; CC to sRt tu.nnuN KUIMAR, Advocate (glgc)-- ii.o;; cc to sRl r.v.RAt\4ANA RAo, Advocate IoPUcl i5.9|; cc to sii xoftrunu PAVAN KUrvlAR, Advocate [OPUC] 14.Two CD CoPies Hyderabad- [OUT] SA GJPw n .5-t HIGH COURT DATED:0711112025 I I ORDER WP.No.13617 of 2025 1l*E. U a h * * DISPOSING OF THE W.P 3 COSTS. ,edtA 18 ld- tdila5