N. Dhanraj Singh v. The State of Telanqana

Petition under A(icle 226 o( lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF MANDAMUS. declaring the action of the respondents no. 3 in issuing an intimation letter bearing No. 9939/TPS/C-23IKPZ1GHMC|2OZ5 dated o3.o7.2o25receivedono8lo7t2o25andanorderNo.9939/UC/2025dt o8to5l2o25 declaring the petitioner's temporary container as unauthorized construction thereby directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized portion within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said Notice , failing which ac{ion will be initiated, as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and over reaching of power and in violation of the principles of natural iustice and fundamental rights which the constitution guarantees contained an Article 14, 19 Article 300 A of the constitution of lndia consequently quashing the order No. 9939/UC/2025 dt o8to5t2o25 and intimation letter bearing No. 9939/TPSIC-23|KPZGHMC|2O2' dated O3lO7l2O25 by setting aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th,: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoLrrt may be pleased to suspend the operation of Order No. 9939/UC/2O?S dt 08/05/2025 and consequential intimation letter bearing No. 9939/TFStC-Z3lKpZlcHMCl2O2S dated 0310712025 by setting aside the same, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. AADESH VARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.I : GP FOR MUNICIP|\L ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DE\/ELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: SRI K. RAVI M/\HENDER, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER 3 THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VTJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20226 OF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is fited by the petitioner seeking the following reliet ". . . to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nanire of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents no.3 in issulng an intimation letter bearing No.9939/TPS/C23/KPZGHMC/2025 dated 03.07.2025 sreceived on 08.07.2025 and an Order No.9939fuCl2025 dt.

08.05.2025 declaring the petitioners temporary container as unauthorized construction thereby directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized portion within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said Notice, failing which action will be initiated, as illegal arbitrary capricious and over reaching of power and in violation of the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights which the constitution guarantees contained in Article 14, 19 Article 300 A of the constitution of India consequently quashing the Order No.9939NC/2025 dt. 08.05.2025 and bearing No.9939/TPS/CZ3KPZ1GHMC12025 dated 03.07.2025 bv intimation letter setting aside the same and to pass ..." .1:,/ e-i1\, 4

2. Heard Mr. Aadesh Varma, leamed counsel Ib: thq petitioner, and Mr. Ravi Mahender, leamed standing counsel lbr the GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner subm itted that the petitioner was the owner and possessor of the property bearing plot Nos.483 and 484/HIG admeasuring g00 square 1,ards in Survey No.l009 on M.C.K., Block No.3 l, situated at Kpt{B Colony, Phase VI, Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District i.e., schedule property. The property vras given for development to a builder under registered Developnt<:nt Agreement - cum - General power of Attomey bearing document No.399l of 2003 dated 09.06.2003. Thereafter, building per-mission was granted vide proceedings No.G2l4118.4/767 //OO3 dated 12.05.2003 for construction of multi_storie,l complex. The permission was accorded by leaving road affe<:ted area and setback areas. The building was constructed way ba<:k in the year 2003 as per the sanction plan. It is submitted that tht: petitioner is eighty-eight (88) years old and for his livelihood he erected a small temporary container for running a flower bougUet shop,. ,/ 5

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said container was kept way inside the building of the petitioner' Neither occupants of the building have raised any objection for erecting container, nor it is causing nuisance to anyone' The container cannot be treated as an illegal structure' It is not in the road affected area. In fact it is in the set-back area of the petitioner's property.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that show-cause notice dated 27.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner to which he has submitted his reply on 08.04.2025. The GHMC authorities without considering the reply, issued the impugned intimation letter dated 03.07.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the container within seven (7) days. The intimation letter dated

03.07.2025 is issued for extraneous reasons and is contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (for short'GHMC Act').

6. Leamed standing counsel for the GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, placed on record written instructions and ':l'll, 6 submitted that the container was kept in the setbzck area of the schedule property. After issuing show-cause .otice dated

27.03.2025, the petitioner submitted his reply, whicr was found to be unsatisfactory. Hence, impugned intimation letter dated 03.07.2025 was issued directing the petitioner t o remove the container which is an unauthorized structure within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the GHMC Act.

7. Learned standing counsel for the GHM( refuted the contentions of the leamed counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the flat owners residing in the schedule pruperty lodged complaint with the GHMC regarding the inconvt.nience being caused to them due to erection of the container in the front setback area of the subject property, and also the grills erccted by the pel.itioner in the cellar portion. 8 Section 2(3) of the GHMC Act reads as under: "(3) ,building, includes a house, out_house stable, latrine, godown, shed, hut, wall, fencing, platfonn and any other structure whether of masonry, bricks, woo<l. mud. metal or of any other material whatsoever;,, 7 It is clear from the above definition that any structure made of metal, or any other material is a building'- It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not taken any permission For keeping the container in the setback area of his building' Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the container is a temporary structure and cannot be treated as an rrnauthorized constructionisdevoidofmerits.Thefurthercontentionthatthe container is placed in the setback area and is not causing inconvenience or nuisance to anyone is also unacceptable for the reason that the impugned letter has been issued pursuant to the complaint from the owners of the schedule propcrty' Even' i[ there is no complaint, the petitioner is tiabte to remove the container as otherwise the very purpose of leaving setback area would be defeated. A'setback' area is meant for proper ventilation' safety' ingress and egress etc-, the setbacks minimise the damage to the building and occupants from potentla[ hazards like accidents' Frres etc. Therefore, this Court does not find any reasons to interfert wift the impWned intimation tetter dated 03'07 '2025' t I I I '. :/ 8 r)

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. SD/. A.HM D T SI /, ABDULLA KHAN ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I \ ECTION OFFICER One fair copy ro THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTTCE B)V (For His Lordship,s Kind perusai JAYSEN REDDY To, union of rndia, Ministry of Lavr, Justice and company I[:,::fl,il%.:retary, ffi.;tTtt?;rlT"n'"a Advocates Association Library. Hish cou( 'l . 11 L_R. Copies. , t 4. one CC to SRt. AADEST-ylIMA,Advocate 5 rwo ccs to Gp FoR r,,rur.rrcrpefio-rr,tiriEiffirJNrAND 6 one cc ro SRt. K. RlvruRHeuoER:i"c;offiHir.to"r.t 7. Two CD Copies [opucJ ier;;;"rr r, at Hyderabad loun DEVELOpT\IENT .Hioh court for tt St l. uRBAN "J " BM TKS \ I-IIGH COURT DATED:1510712025 ORDER WP.No.20226 of 2025 r<, I ,1 -_r i ,_) -- - :--::--: >\\ if t sEP 20[ . ti --? -. * t.t .\.,/, DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2o 44 // /? ,/tg-