SRl. RUDRESH PANDE REP SRI v. YADU KRISHNA SAINATH

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 Writ of Mandamus dbclaring the actlon of respondent No. 2 in trying to demolish petitioner's Shed (Commercial) bearing Municipal No.1-13-124/4/2, admeasuring 167.22 Square Meters equal to 200 Square Yards, Sitauted at Kapuwada Street, Ward No. 06, Kaghaz Nagar Town, Komarambheem Asifabad District, without considering petitioner's explanation dated 05-05-2025 without giving opportunity of being heard and without following due process of law as being illegal, arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice and Art. 3004 of Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondent No. 2 not to demolish the petitioner's Shed (Commercial) bearing Municipal No. 1-'13-124lAi2, admeasuring 167.22 Square I\ileters equal to 200 Square Yards, Sitauted at Kapuwada Street, Ward No 06' Kaghaz Nagar Town, Komarambheem Asifabad District IA NO: 1 OF 202{i Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumr,;tances stated in the affidavit fil:d ir' support of the petition, the High Co;rt may be pleased to direct the resporrden I No. 2 not to demolish the petitioner's shed (commercial) bearing Municipal No. l-13-124lA/2, admeasuring 167.22 Square fuleters equal to 200 Square YarrJs, Siituated at Kapuwada Street, Ward No.06, Kaghaz Nagar Town, Komarambheem Asifabad District Counsel for the l'etitioner: SRl. RUDRESH PANDE REP SRI V. YADU KRISHNA SAINATH Counsel for the llespondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. KRISHNA REDDY, SC The Court made the tbllowing: ORDER t; :; II , I t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTYAS RAO UIRIT PETITION No.L5244 of 2o25 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring tJre action of respondent No 2 in trying to demolish peLitioners Shed Commercial bearing Municipal No. 1-i3-124/A/2, admeasuritg 767 22 Square Meters equa.l to 2O0 Square Yards Situated at Kapuwada Street Town, Komarambheem Ward No.O6, Kagl;,az Nagar considering PeLitioners Asifabad District, without explanation dated 05.05.2025 without giving opportunity of being heard ald without following due process of law as being illegal, arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice and Art 3O0A of Constitution of India, consequently direct tl-e respondent No.2 not to demolish tJ e petitioners Shed Commercial bearing Municipal No'l-13-1'241A/2 admeasuring 167 .22 Squate Meters equal to 2OO Square Yards Sjtuated at Kapuwada Street, Ward No'06' Kaghaz Nagar Town Komarambheem Asifabad District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in t-le circumstances of the case "

2. Heard Sri Rudresh Pande, learned counsel representing Sri Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner and. learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for 2 :- \_' ,1 respondent No.l and Sri P.Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Cotrnsel for respondent No.2.

3. With tbe consent of the learned counsel. l'or the pa-rties, the .,vrit Petitron 1S disposed of al. the sl-2ge of admission

4. keLrneC counsel for the petitioner submittecl that the petitioner is ou.ner and possessor of the su.bject property i.e., shecl (con-rmercial) bearing Municipal No.1-13 lLl,4lA/2 admeastrrin5l 167.22 square meters equal :o 200 square yards, situar.r:d at Kapuwada Street, Ward No.O6, Kaghaz Nagar Town, Komarambheem Asifabad District and the petitioner cla-iming his rights over the subject property stating that he purchased the same through registered sale deed dor:ument bearing No.3O8 of 2024 date:d 29.O',1,.2O24. Respondent No.2 granted permission for constru<:tion of residentral building on 19.1O.2023 in Accordir g11' the petitioner started construcr:ion of a shed 'ISbPASS. (commercial' as the front portion for his livelihood.

5. Wtrile things stood thus, respondent No,2 issued notice ciate(l )6.O4.2025 ald directed the petlti()ner to J produce relevant record's accordingly' the petltroner submitted copies of relevant records' Thereafter' agarn respondent No.2 has issued another show cause notice dated 3O.04.2025 directing the petitioner to produce the house ownershiP documents' Pursuant to the same, the petltloner submitted a detailed explalation and on 05.05.2025 by enclosing a copy of registered sale deed document No.3O8 of 2024 d'ated' 29'02'2024 along with otherdocumentsincludingTSbPASSpermissiongranted by respondent No.2' However' respondent No'2 without properly considering the explanation of the petitioner issued impugned notice dated 08'05'2025 and also trying to dispossess the petitioner by demolishing the subject property which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

6. Per Contra,Iearned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2submittedthatsincethepetitioneroccupiedtheroad and making construction of the subject property' respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice dated 08.05.2025 after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated O5'O5'2O25 pursuant to the earlier 4 r 7 show cause notice dated 30 'O4 '2025 and the same 1s ln accordalce vrith 1aw. 7 . g2riing regard to the rival submissions; made by the respective pzrties and after perusing the mar-erial ar''ailable on record, it reveals that respondent No'!l direcled the petitioner tc submit his explanation within a pe riod of seven (O'Z) dSys as to why the subject shed should not be removed. The record further reveals that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the irrrpugnerl show cause rtotic e of respondent No'2 and straight away approached this Court by filing the present v'rit petil:ion' \

8. Ta<ing into consideration the circumsr-ances of the case, this Court deems; it appropriate facts and to dispose c,f the writ petition permitting ttLe petitr'oner to submit expianation to the impugned shovr cause notice dated 08.01j.2025 issued by respondent No'2 u'ithin a period of twc (02) weeks from the date of receipt ot a copy of this :rde r. On receiving such explanation, rr:s1:rondent No.2 is riirer:ted to consider the same and pass appropriate order irr accordance with law after giving opport-.rnity of personal hearing within a period of four (O4) weeks from 5 thereafter. Till such time, respondent No'2 is directed not to take any coercive steps in respect of the subject property. It is made clear that this. Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the case' g. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OF FICER To, \l

1. The PrinciPal SecretarY, MuniciPal Adminiskat 2. The Com missioner, Kaghaz Department, Secretariat Buildings, T.S.,Hyd erabad Komarambheem Asifabad District One CC to SRI V. YADU KRISHN A SAINATH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI P.KRISHNA REDDY, sc toPUCl Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINIS TRAT ION AND URBAN High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT] and Urban DeveloPment Municipality, Kaghaznagar, Nagar DEVELOPMENT'

6. Two CD CoPies BM BS VACATION COURT HIGH COURT DATED:21 t0512025 ORDER WP.No.15244 ot 2025 7 k \ ,.-r -_)i:2 \-r '.t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ; I I I rn 1 "7 $, )q eTT!;e 2 tq YA 2$25 , E: i= :i >.,,, ) ny' i i i