The High Court · 2025

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 and more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1"t Respondent in purporting to conduct enquiry including by issuing Notice Lr' No' 25t4t14tAcplTps/c5/szlcHMc/2016 dated 29.02.2016 as . illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and quash such action and proceedings and consequentially, restrain the respondents from interfering with the Petitioners rights in respect of property admeasuring 390 sq. yards bearing H. No. 14'7-25 to 14-7-27 situated at Muslimjungpul, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad' l.A. NO: 1OF 2ol P. NO: 10013 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Notice Lr. No. 25l4l14lACPITPS/CS/SZIGHMC12O16 dated 29.02.2016 including dispossession and demolition of the Petitioners' property admeasuring 390 sq. yards bearing H. No. 14-7-25 to 147-27 situated at Muslimjungpul, Begum Bazat, Hyderabad perrding disposal of the writ petition. Counselfor the Petitioners: SRI K.V RUSHEEK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, S.C. FOR GHMC Counselfor th,s Respondent No.2: SRI FARHAN AZAM KHAN, S.C. FOR WAKF BOARD The Gourt made the following: ORDER I ,'t\r., HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY VIRIT PETITION 7a67 of 2OL6 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in purporting to conduct enquiry by issuing notice dated 29.02.2016, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently, to set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri K.V.Rusheek Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioners, Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Farhan Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for petitioners would submit that the

3. father of petitioner No. t had purchased the land admeasuring 39O Sq.yrds covered by H.No. l4-7 -24 to 27 , situated at Muslimjungpal, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'subject propertyJ, under registered sale deed No.949 of 1969, dated 2I.O7.1969, from Ramanjdas Peeti, who purchased the same under auction sale certificate dated 27.02.1944, of City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and after demise of his father, petitioner succeed.ed to the subject propoerty; that petitioner No.1 obtained permission from respondent No.1 Corporation 1 l ,n*{H 1E LNA,J W.P.No.7867 of 20t6 2 and constructed a building consisting of Ground + two upper floors; and running a diagnostic centre in the name and style of 'saboo Diag,ostic centre'. He further submitted that petitioners have als. raken the vacant land admeasuring I 43.69 Sq.yrds, which is existing adjacent to the subject property under regist':red Lease Deed No. 16 L2 of 2oo4, dated 0 I . I I .2oo4, from Mir Al'sar Ali and Sultana Begum.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that as the petitioner came to know that vacant land belongs to wakf Board, the petitioner No.1 approached respondent No.2 for regula.izarion of his occupation and enjoyment of the said land as tenant and also paid amounts and his occupation was regularized uide proceedings dated 30.09.2005, on the monthly rent of Rs.l,ooo/-. while the matter stood thus, respondent No' 1 vir;ited the subject property and handed over the impugned notice clated 29.02.2016, caling for documents from petitioner No.1. Accordingly, petitioner No.1 submitted representation/ reply de-ted 09.03.20r6, enclosing all the documents including title documents. However, respondent No.1 without considering the representation/reply submitted by the petitioner No.1, trying t. interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the subject property. He further J / LNA,J W.P.No.7867 of 2016 3 submitted that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction or authority to enquire and determine the title of the petitioners, therefore, the impugned notice dated 29.02.2016, was without any authority and the same is liable to be set aside, therefore, the present Writ Petition.

5. lrarned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 on instructions submitted that respondent No.1 Corporation would consider the reply dated 09.03.2016, submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and take steps, if required, in accordance with law.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 by referring to the counter would submit that petitioners have made illegal construction in the land belonging to Wakf Board without obtaining any permission from respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 Board would follow due process as mandated under law and in any event, it is up to respondent No.2 to take action against illegal construction, if any, made by the petitioners.

7. Admittedly, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 29.02.2016, and in response to the same, petitioners herein \ \ \ .l I I I LNA,J tV.P.No.7867 of 20t6 4 submitted reply dated 09.03.2016, enclosing all the documents of the subject propert5r including titre documents, however, respondent No.1 corporation neither considered the repry nor passed any orders pursuant to notice dated 29.02.2016. 8' In the light of above discussion, the writ petition is dispose d of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 09.03.20 i6, submitted by the petitione.s and pass appropriate orders strictry in accordance with lavr withi^ a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order, by duly issuing notice to the petitioners as v'ell as all affccted parties and also affording them an opportu:ritv of hearing. If, the respondent No.1 is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioners, he shal assign specilic i-easons and pass a reasoned order, communicate copy of the said orde r to the petitioners. There shal be no order as to costs. Mis;cellaneous petitions pending, if &try, shall stand closed To //TRUE COPY/ Sd/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSrsrANr FptsrRAR / SECTtdff oFFICER

1. The Corrmissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund Hyclerabad

2. The, Chierf Executive Officer, Telangana State Wakf Board, Razzak Manzil, Opp. Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyd-erabad.

3. One CC to SRI K.V RUSHEEK REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. one cc to sRl FARHAN AZAM KHAN, sc for WAKF BOARD lopucl 5. One CC to SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, SC &r GHMC. tOpUCI 6. rwo cD c:opies TWj PMK/MP HIGH COURT DATED i2'.911012025 ORDER WP.No.7tl67 of 2016 I THE S 1 6 {[B 2026 * ') U )- \r ( * DISPOSIIIG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I J-<s uf zlze ,f d ..+ftg*i.,,,,: