K.RanoaReddv v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : SMT.Ch.VIJAYA LAXMI The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA AND THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT APP EAL No.551 0F 2025 DGMEN (Per the Hon'ble Mrs lustice Surepalli Nanda) Heard Sri M, Damodhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,/petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Smt. Ch. Vijaya Laxmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondent No.4' PERUSED T E RECORD:-

2. The oresent writ ooeal is filed bv the ao el la nt seekin o Draver as nder: - "...to allow the Writ Appeal by settlng aside the order dated 02.05.2025 in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge and continue the earlier status-quo order dated 26.03.2d25 in wP No.9273/2005 as it is, and pass..." 2 SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.5';1 2025 The aD ellant in the Dresent writ ADDEA! 3 Detiti on r in W,P. No.9273 of 2O25 and t e saicl W.P. is the had been filed seekin q Drave r as under:- ".....to issue an order or direction more part cularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action ,rf the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order dated 10/0312025 in file No. 10/RDMA/A1/2025 and consequential notice of demolition issued by the 3rd rr:s;pondent Municipality in file No. GL/6t12024 dated 18/03/2025 in ordering to demolish the alleged deviations to the construction of the House No. 148 at Vidyanagar Colony Kothakota Municipality and lvlandal Wanap;rrthy District though the petitioner obtained construction permlssion in the year 2019 and complete the construction 2020 in his own property withoul. encroaching any bodies property and futher though the 2nd and 3'd respondents ha'/e not recorced any finding as to whether the said alleged deviations are being caused any inconvenience to the public as illegal unlawful contrary to la',v and 6en5e,truently direct the 3'd respondent municipality to withdlurw all cases as against the construcl:ion of house No. l4B which the petitioner adrtittedly constrr.rcted by obtaining the Construction perrnission and pia ss..- " 4, The o,rd ers rmDuoned in the oresent Writ dated 02.O5.20 25 oass d in W.P.No.92 73of2 O25 is Aooeal. extra cted hereu nder: "Learned counsel drawn attention of this Order dated 10.03.2025. for the petitioner 'ras Court to the Speal.ring l\s seen from the contents of the said orrler, r-'',rident that several speaking orders h,ave prassed in pursuance of order passed in it is 3 SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.55l 2025 WP.No.36611 of 2024 and WP.No.486 of 2025. After giving detailed hearing, conclusion has been recorded in paras 5 and 6 of the order by the respondent No.2 holding that the petitioner herein has not denied about the deviations made to the building construction and even after giving enough opportunities, he failed to provide any,valid proof. The panchanama conducted on 20.12.2024 by the District Task Force also established deviations in the structures. It was also held that speaking orders were passed in accordance with law. fn view of the above, status quo order dated 26.O3.2O25 is vacated. List on 25.06.2025."

5. The orders fl assed init aooellant/writ Detitioner, dated 26.03.2fJ25 in in favour of t a v W.P.No.9273 of 2025 a extracted hereunder:- Notice to respondent No.4. Personal notice to respondent No.4 permitted. Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.3 - municipality, seeks time to get instructions. Status quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained in respect of the property, bearing House No.14-8. Vidyanagar Colony, Kothakota Municipality and Mandal" Wanaparthy District, unti! further orders, List on 16.04.2025. .I 4 SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.5:i1 2025 The_ order dated 02.O5.2O25 Dassed in

6. W.P.No.1 3535 of 2O25 iled bv the 4th resoondent is extracted herein: - "In vir:rru of the order passed by this Court in \//P. No. 9273 <tf 2025 dated 02.05.2025, there shall be !nterim directicn to the respondent No.4 to implem€:nt speakirrg order dated 10.03.2025, as expeditiot.tsly as possibl,3 and file compliance report before this, Court by the next date of hearing. List on 25.06.2025." DISGSSS_IA_N AN D CONCLUSION :- DISCUSSION:- Learned counsel aooearinq on behalf 7 aDlre llant/ writ oetitioner mainlv followinqs bmissions:- uts-fort i) The orrler impugned, dated O2.O5.2O25 passed in W.P.No.9273 ot 2O25 vacating the status-quo order, dated 26,O3.2025 causes serious injusticer and irreparable injury to the appellant/writ pet[tioner since in view of the said order, the 3'd respclndent municipality is ready with demolition of the house property of the petitioner bearing No.14-8 iils per speaking order, 18.03.2025 issued to 5 SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.55l 2025 appettant/petitioner by the Commissioner, Kothakota Municipality directing the appellant/writ petitioner to rectify deviations and remove the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of sai{ order, dated 18.03.2025 failing which action would be initiated against the appellant/petitioner under the Telangana Municipality Act. 2019 and TGbPASS Act, 2O2O. ii) This Court while vacating the interim order of status-quo, dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 vide its order, dated O2.05.2O25 failed to take note the fact as borne on record that the 4th respondent did not file any vacate stay petition seeking vacation of the interim order, dated 22.03.2(J25 nor the official respondents thereunder and hence, the Writ Petition itself i.e., W.P.No.9273 of 2O25 ought to have been disposed of finally by the Court expeditiously without giving any scope for the 3'd respondent municipality to proceed with the demolition of the subject property of the petitioner till W.P.No.9273 ot 2025 is adjudicated and decided on merits finally by this Court. I 6 SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No 5';1 2025 iii) This Ciourt while vacating the interim orders, dated 26.0:1.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 granted initially in faovur of the appellant/writ petitioner failed to give credence to the fact as borne on record that neither the official respondents nor the unofficial ,lth respondent had fited their counter in W.P.No.92.73 of 2025 and therefore, the order impugned, dated O2.O5.2O25 passed in W.P.Ncr.9273 of 2025 had been passed hastily and mechanically in a routi ne manner. iv) This Court while vacating the interim orders of status-quo, dated 26.03.2O25 in W.P.No.9273 otf'2O25 vide its orcler, dated O2.05.2O25 failed to take note of the fact as borne on record that this Court on the same day i.e., on 02.05.2025 entertained the W.P. filed by the 4th respondent herein and granted interim orders in favour of the 4th respondent vide its order, dated 02.05.2025 observing as under:- "In vit:',ry of the order passed by this Court in V/P, No. 9273 ol 2025 dated 02.05.2025, there shall be interim directicn to the respondent No.4 to implement the speak rrg order dated 10.03.2025, as expeditiot.tsly as I 7 SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.55l 2025 possible and file compliance report before this Court by the next date of hearing, List on 25.06.2025." and by virtue of the said orders, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.13536 of 2O25, the appellant/writ petitioner herein is facing threat of demolition in respect of appellant/petitioner's house property by the 3'd respondent municipality as per the speaking orders. dated 1O.O3.2025 ot the Regional Director- cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad. v) This Court while vacating the order of status-quo, dated 26.O3.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 ot 2O25 vide its order, dated 02.O5.2025 failed to determine an important question and record its finding as to whether the alleged deviations are causing nuisance to the public as alleged by the unofficial 4th respondent herein or they are minor in nature or minimal which do not effect public at large and accordingly, the alleged deviations are not liable to be demolished. 8 SN, & JSR,J W.A.No.:',51 2025 Based on the aforesaid submissi ns, the learned counsel aDDearinq on behalf of the aDDella Detitioner contended that the Writ Ao eal need allow ed as oraved for.

8. I-hC-!C.arn ed standino counsel aDDearino on behalf of the resoo ndent Nos.2 & 3 and t e learned c ou n sel aDDearanq- tt No.4 mainlv outs -forth the followino submissions:- i) There i:; no illegality in the order impugned, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 ot 2025, on the ground that the panchanama conducted on 20.72.20241 by the District Task Force established deviations; in the structures. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are bound to ii) implement the speaking orders, dated 1O.03.2025 issued against the appellant/petitioner herein by the 2nd resporrdent herein, even as per the orders of this Court, dated 02.O5.2025 passed in W'P'No.13536 of

2025. /, 9 SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.55l 2025 The appellant/Writ Petitioner had not denied iii) about the deviations made to the building constructions even after providing ample opportunities, therefore, the order impugned, dated O2.O5.2O25 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2O25 in the present Writ Appeal warrants no interference by this Court. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned n tn n n n h f respondent Nos,2 & 3 and the learned counsel apDearinq on behalf of the unofficial resDondent No.4 contend that the present Writ ADDeal has to be dismissed in limini. CONCLUSION:-

9. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the appellant/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.9273 of 2025 declaring the action of the 2"d respondent in issuing the impugned order, dated 10,03.2025 and the consequential notice of demolition issued by the 3'd respondent municipality in File No.GL/67 /2O24, dated 14.03.2025 in ordering to demolish the alleged t ) ,.' ,3 { .,.'i l0 SN.J .t JSR,J W.A.No.5i;1 2025 f) permission in deviations to the construction of the house No'111-8 at Vidyanagar Colony, Kothakota municipality and Mandal, Wanaparthy District though the appella nt/r^, rit petitioner obtained constrtrction the year 2019 and comPleterl the in the year 2O2O, and ;n;1131111 the constructio rt appellant/rrurit petitioner obtained an order of status- quo in his favour vide order, dated 26'O3'2025 in W.P.No.92l7g of 2025 and the same was vacated on O2.O5.2O21; without there being any vacate stay petition filed by either of the official respondent Nos' 1to 3 herein nor the unofficial respondent No'4 herein. It is also borne on record that none of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein had filed their ctrunter affidavits denying the averments made by the appellant/writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.9273 of 2O25.

10. It is also pertinent to note that this Court rlide its order, dated 02.O5.2025 in W.P.No.13536 ot 2O25 filed by the 4th respondent herein passed orclers in favour of the unofficial respondent No.4 herein and SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.55l 2025 directed the 4th respondent thereunder i.e., the Municipal Commissioner, Kothakota Municipality, Wanaparthy District an W.P.No.13536 of 2O25 to imptement the speaking order, dated 1O.O3.2025 impugned by the appellant/writ petitioner in W.P.No.9273 ot 2025 as expeditiously as possible and file compliance report before the Court in W.P.No.13536 of 2025 by the next date of hearing i.e., 25.O6.2O25.

11. This Court opines by virtue of the order impugned, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 ot 2025 vacating the order of status-quo, dated 26.03.2(J25 passed in W.P.No.9273 ol 2025 and by virtue of the order, dated 02.O5.2025 passed in favour of the 4th respondent in W.P.No.13536 of 2O25, the appellant/writ petitioner is facing threat of demolition of the house property of the appellant/writ petitioner bearing No.14-8, as per the impugned order, dated 10.03.2025 of the znd respondent and the consequential notice of demolition issued by the 3'd respondent municipality in File No.GAl67 /2024, dated v t2 SN.J & JSR,J \\'.A.No.5:il 2025 {}

18.03.2O25i impugned the appellant/writ petitioner in W,P.No.92,73 ol 2025 without adjudicating the subject issue in W,P.No'9273 of 2O25 finally, without counter affidavits heing filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the said Writ Petition, without even a finding traving been recorded by the Court on merits pertaining to the alleged deviations. L2. This Clourt opines that by virtue of the order impugned in the present Writ Appeal, dated O2.O5.2O2li passed in W.P.No.9273 ol 2O25 and the order, dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.No'13536 of 2025, the 3l'd respondent municipality would proceed with demolition of the subiect house property of the appellant,/writ petitioner as per orders dated 1O.O3.202lt & 18.03.2025 impugned b)' the appellant/writ petitioner in W'P.No.9273 of 2O25 without there being adjudication and final disprrsal of W.P.No.9273 ol 2025 on merits, since admitte,dly as borne on record, no counter affidavits or vacate stay petitions had been filed either by the ,cfficial respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein or unofficial respondent 13 SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.55l 2025 No.4 herein in W.P.No.9273 ot 2025 as on 02.05.2025. Under these circumstances, this Court opines that the appellants are entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Appeal.

13. Takinq into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,/petitioner and learned standing counse! appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.4 c) The order impugned in the present Writ Appeal, dated 02.O5.2O25 passed in W.P.No.9273 ol 2025 d) The status-quo order, dated 26.03.2025 passed earlier in W.P.No.9273 of 2O25(referred to and extracted above) e) The orders impugned, dated 1O.03 .2025 of the 2'd respondent and the consequential notice of demolition issued by the 3'd respondent municipality in File No.GL/67/2024, dated 18.03.2025 impugned 14 SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.5:';l 2025 \.) in W"P.No.'9273 ot 2025 by the appellant/petitioner herein. f) The order, dated 02.05.2025 passed in favour of the 4th respondent herein in W.P.No'13536 of 2O25 (referred to and extracted above) filed by the 4th respondeni[ herein. In rriew of the discussion, reasoning and S) conclusion as arrived at para Nos.6 to 11 rrf the present judgment. The lVrit Appeal is allowed, the order imprrgned, dated O2.05.2025 passed in W.P'No'9273 ol' 2025 vacating the earlier status-quo order, dated 26.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.9273 of 2025 is set- aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for final adjudication and disposal of W.P.No.92.73 of 2O25 on merits expeditiotnsly in law by providing reasonable accordance to opportunity of filing of counter affidavits l'y the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein preferably wiithin a period of r:ight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondents are directed to 15 SN,J & JSR,J W.A.No.55l 2025 maintain status quo tn respect of the subject property i.e., house property bearing No.14-9, at Vidyanagar Colony, Kothakota Municipality and Mandal, Wanaparthy District, till the Writ petition i.e., W.P.No.9273 of 2O2S is disposed of finally, as per the specific directions as stiputated as above within the time period as indicated as above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ro, SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY //TRUE COPYTI DEPUTYCIEGTSTRAR sEcTloN oFFtcER

1. The Principal secretary,. Municipal Administration Department, secretariat, State ot Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Regional Director cum Appellate Commissioner, of Municipal Adminiskation, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabaci.

3. The commissioner, Kothakota Municiparity, Kothakota, wanaparthy District. 4. One CC to SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY, Advocate. tOpUCl 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTJ 6, One CC to SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, SC FoR MUNICIPALIry/MC. loPUCl

7. One CC to SMT.CH.V|JAY LAXM|, Advocate. tOpUCI 8. Two CD Copies. BSK LS HIGH COURT DATED:0710512025 VACATION COURT ,' -... lr. .$ .\ &-\ \ F,\- \,/. 'c. \ .? ," \\ * ti '<,1 ,/, ;: !t ii l \iri. (, 'ti , JUDGMENT WA.No.551 o12025 ALLOWING Ti-IE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ,1/ /,4 4,/r/1,