High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or Direction more particularly a writ in the nalure of itr'landamus direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for temporarily raising the tin shed with screw and jacks in open plot bearing its No. 67, in survey No.6. to an extant of 465. Yards, situated at RTC Colony, Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar, Under GHMC, Saroornagar Circle, Ranga Reddy district. 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 g,rant tl" stay of notice of sealing of unauthorized construction [under Section 191-4 "J GHMC Rct, 1955 vide Notice No.: 36/TPS/DC/C|R05/LBNZGHMCI2O25, Date: 07.05.2025 till pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALLURI RAGHU RAMA AURAVA Counsel forthe RespondentNo.l: AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI PACHWA SRINIVASA RAO' SC The Court made the following: ORDER FOR GHMC ..i4:.1 TIIE IION'BLE SFTI JI.ISTICE J. SREENT\/AS RAO wlFuT' PETITION No.15O86 of 2025 OFIDER,: This u,ri' pctition is filed for the follorving relief "- -...t() issrrr: a Writ or Direction rnore parti(]ularlJ, .i Wl-it 1rr t h(- nattlre of Mandarnus dire<:t ttr e' responclents to oonsider the representation of th€, I)(:liticrrer f() 1('mporarily raising the tin she(l wilb scrcu, irncl -jzr<'ks in open plot bearing its No- 67, 1n srrrvc.y No. (r. lo ar extarrt of 465. Yards, siituated at R'l(l Col,rrr-y- Marrsoorabad, L.El.Nagar, under (lt lMC. Sarrror r r iegar Cir<:le, Ranga Reddy clistrir:t :rncl frass.. . "

2. I{eerd Sr-i Allr.ri Raghu Rarner Arlrerva, leierned counscl 1-or "re petitioner, Sri Pachr,v:e Srirriwasa Rao, Ieir-neo Slanding Cor-rnsel for resporadent Nos.2 ancl 3 .llrd learned Assistarrt (ioverr.rrnent Pleade:r ial)peru-ing for respondent No.1

3. With the conserrt of both ttre parties, tht: rwrit petition is clisprosed of at the stage of a-drnission. 4- 'I'he ferct sr giwing rise to frling of this vrrrit petrt ron La><rni brieflr' stated are that one Turnrrrala Srec \u / o I.okestr Kurnar is the ()wner and possessor o the open pl rrt trearing |'Io.67 a-drnea-suring 461s sqrlare yards covered by Sy.No.67 situated at RTC Colony, Mansoorabad, L.B.Na-gar and the sarne was taken on lea-se on under ttre narne Oa.O2.2O25 for rt.nning zr rness In the said plot, and style of Sri Shiva Balaji Mess. there is no constnrction. Basing on the lease agreernerrt, the petitioner sta.rted construction of the tin stred for rrrnning of rness and he has not rrzith RCC rnade ar.y perrnanent structure roof/ceiling sla.Lts or pillarsr/colurnns/t>earns. Respondent No.3 isslred sholrr-cattse notice on 1O.O3.2O25. Pursuant to the sarne, the petitioner srrbrnitted a. rwritten expla-nation orr 25.03.2025- Ttrereafter, respondent No.3 passed the irnpr-rgned order on 26.O4.2025 for dernolition of unautkrorized construction rvithin a period of 15 days on the grorlnd that the petitioner ha-s not obtained btrilding perrnission. On 29.O4.2O25 the petitioner ha-s sr.rlrrnitted a representation that due to ill-frealth, stre was a.drnitted in Hospital and therefore, requested respondent No.3 to grant perrnission and the petitioner is rea.dy and to pay necessa{/ charges. Horwever, I(arnineni willing lryF 7 rr:prcscntation, respon(lc)r) L rlo.3 rvithout properly consider-irrg the irnpugrted proceedirrgs dzrted 07.O5_.2O2S for seizure of unauthorizr:<l constrr'rction. Hence the pet it ion. issued r,r,,rit

5. Leerncrl cotlnsel for the petitioner sul)rni ,ed that the 1tc'tit ionr-,r is unernployee v,/ornen and eking or.rt l-rer lir,<:lilr<>ocl by n:nning rrless. Sl-re has taken the sub-ie<:l 1rr cntises for n.rnning rness and jbr that purposc, slt<' rnzr<le ternporary constrr-rction r>1. shecl and sLre is rtr,l rt-r erking arry perrrranent consll-r.rction thrert:f<rre, ttre petitioner requested resporrder-rl :rr rtl.rorities to grant perrnissiort. fr,rrther srt I >rn i 1 1 cd Lhat the vuillir-rg t,l p.t-y necessary charges and the pelil ioner inwested lrr rg<' :rrr-rounts, rwhicLr qza-s borroll,ed frorn the privzrtr' fir r.rrtt:e. If the said shed is clernolished, she rwill bt: pul t() great hardship. petitioner is readv He

6. Per cotltrct, learned Standing Cor.rnsel a.ppeal-in g on b<_'half of respondent Nos.2 a_rrd 3 subrnitted th:rt rl're petitioner is clairning righl.s ower ttre stred l l rr-o 19Ir renta_I agreernent. Neitkrer. ttre petitioner nor tlae original owrler has sutrrnitted any application seeking perrnission for construction of of any the slred as on toda,y. In the perrnission, the petitioner is not entitled for seeking .atrserrce any reliet.

7. Hawing considered the rival sr-rbrnissions rnade try the respectiwe pa.rties and a-fter perrsal of the rnaterial awailable on record, it reveals that the petitioner has not qtrestioned the irnpugned rrotice dated 07.O5.2025 issued by respondent No.3. Petitioner has only questioned tlre a"ction of the respondent a-uthority in not considering the representation subrnitted by the petitioner for construction of the ternporar5z shed in ttre subject property. Ewerr according to the subrnissions rnade by the respectiwe parties and a.lso ttre awerrnents rnade in the aff,rdavit, neittrer the petitiorrer nor the original owrrer of the sr. Lrject property have not subrnitted applica"tion seeking perrnission for constn:ction of the tin shed. Drlring ttre course of the petitioner Lrearing, learned counsel for reqrrested tkris Court tha-t tlee petitioner rnay be lr\ / \ I grantecl iberty sut>rnit applicati.>n constnrctic,r-r of tin shed by paying r,equisite arnount an(1 on slrch application, the respcndents' a.uthorily rtay be directed to consider the s;arne in accor(i.r11.'. rwith larv and the sa.icl sr-rbr:nission opposed by tl-rc learned Standing Counsel. a. Ta-kinp; into consideration the above Ia,cts and circurnstart <:e s and also in wievrz of tLre abc,ve said sut>rnrssiort rnadc by the respectiwe par1.ir.:s, this Court rvil.hout expressing any wierw on thc rrLerits of ttre cas<:, tltt: pctitioner/ orvner of the property has treen gr-zrnr r,'cl liberty to subrnit applicertion for construcrliorr <>f ttre ternporary shed in tht: subject propert}', wiLhin a period of one vt/eek lrorn the date of receipt oI- copy of this order and ()tr sr.rch applic.al-i()n. respondent Nos.2 and 3 are dirr:cted to consider th( sarne and pass appropriate orders in accordar'rc<' rxzi l l-r lar.v as expeditiottsl5z as prossibly prefer:rbly therea ftr:r-. a period of three rrithin (O3) weeks 'Iill such tirne, resporrdent Nos.2 and 3 are directe,l not to take any coercive sileps respect ol' tl I r: sttbject property. 1n 9- Witkr the a,t)ove said direction, ttre rxrrit petition is disposed of accordirrgly. TLrere shall kre no order S tO COSIS. Miscellaleous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PONNA KRTSHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( sEGngTOFFICER Circle, Hyderabad State of Telangana. l.ThePrincipalsecretary,IrilunicipatAdministration,secretariat,Hyderabad, 2. ih;-c;m;iisi"onei, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation, saroornagar 3. il;;1y'd;;.ittion"r, GHMC, Circle-05, Saroornagar' L'B Nagar Zone' +. iji'i,"bCiJsRt ALLURI RAGHU RANIA AURAVA, Advocate toquql d. i;; cc. to ci ron rrlcFr- Aouru a URBAN DEV, High court for the State o. 6nL-CC"to snipnbHwA SntNtvn'sn RAo, sc FoR GHMc [oPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies of Telangana, at Hyderabad. IOUTI Hvderabad l i i To PSK GJP / VACATION COURT HIGH COURT DATED:1410512,025 ORDER WP.No.15086 of 2025 # tr> ,/ l-, - ,., a-r'' \ fu' .: ,., .) \.... ). DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,/o 1.t ,/{ /"{,//,