Sri Nomula Sudeep Patel v. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.JAGAOESHWAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN UF BAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI G.MADHUSUDH/ N REDDY, SC FOR GHMC WRIT PETITION NO: 35 678 0F 2025 Between: 'I . Dubbaka Sai Kiran, S/o D Srinivas Rao, Aged about 45 l, ,ars, Occ, Business 2. Smt. Dubbaka Shailaja, Wo Dubbaka Sai Kiran, Aged i bout 40 years, Occ, Employee, Both Rl/o Plot No 14, LIC Colony, West Maredpally, Secrrr derabad 500 026 ..PETITIONERS AND 1 - 2 3 The state of relangana, represented By the principa secretary Municioar Aomrnrstration. and Urban Development, Dr. B R L rbedkar Telangdna Secretariat, Hyderabad The Greater ,Hydera_bad _ Municipal Corporation, Il :presented by its L;ommissioner. Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad Ih" Pepyty Commissioner, Circle 30, cHMC, Begumpet Circte, Secunderabad 4. The Assistant Secunderabad 5. Nomula Sudee Business, R/o 500 042 p Patel, S/o Late N Babaiah, patel, Aged u rout 51 years, Occ, H No 6- 1 -107, Raju Colony, Begumpe"t. B: anagar, 'HyOerabaO City Planner, Circle 30, GHMC, Begumpet Circte, ...RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or direction more the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent no 3 in issuing a letter vide L.No. 868/TPS/DC/C-30/SZIGHMC12025 dated 11 .O9.2025 directing the petitioners to stop their constructional activity above and over and above their house plot in municipal no 1-8-868 (Old No 1/3 RT), Prakash Nagar, Secunderabad, and continuing the same even in spite of a reply dated 12.09.2025 along with all such documents evidencing the rightfulness of constructional activity in terms of building permission in permit no 381908/26751GHMC12024 dated 14.03.2024' followed by a representation dated 28.10.2025 being an abuse of process, otherwise a private affair with skullduggery unofficial respondent who had filed a false case in WP No 2222312025 though unconnected to the property in subject, for extorting the petitioners, basing on a false complaint even in spite of an order of restraint from competent civil court in lA No 43012025 in O.S No 15712025 as being lllegal, Arbitrary Un Constitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A, against the Letter and spirit of Judgments rendered by Honorable supreme court and catena of Judgments rendered by this Honorable court apart from being violative of principles of natural Justice and Fair play, and consequenfly quash the Letter L.No.86B/TPS/DC/C-30lSZlGHlllcl2O25 dated 11.09.2025 of respondent 3 to stop the construction as illegal. IA 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 direct the respondents not to cause any interference to the constructional activity carried out by the petitioners in pursuant to valid permit bearing No 381908/2675lGHMCl2o24 dated 14.03.2024 0ver and above the House Plot of Petitioners bearing '1 -8-868 (Old No 1/3 RT), Prakash Nagar, Secunderabad except under due process of law pending the disposal of the writ petition. counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAMA RAO IMMANENI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN t, IBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 to 4: SRt G.MADHUSUDT AN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER r*, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STAT]' OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAY;JEN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 22223 AND 35678 0F 2025 Date:30.12.2025 Between : Nomula SudeeP Patel AND The State o i Telangana, Rcp. by its PrinciPal Secretary, Municipat Administration & Urban Development DePartment. Secretaiiat, Saifabad, Hyderabad & 4 others COMMO N ORDER .. Petitioner . Respondents Since the subject matter in both these writ petitions is satne and the parties are common, they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner in W-P. No'22223 of 2025 is respondcnt 2 No.5 in W.P. No.35678 of 2025 and the petitioners W.P. No.35678 of 2025 are respondent Nos'4 and 5 in W.P No.22223 of 2025. r \ P{ge 2 of8 BvR.J $'P I\ ).2222J & 15678 of2025

3. W.P. No.22223 of 2025 is taken as l,: Lding case for disposal of both these writ petitions.

4.1. The case of the petitioner is that responde rt Nos.4 and 5 are owners o1' the house property bearing No. 1-8-8(il 346 square yards, situated at Prakash Naga , admeasuring ', Begumpet, Ilyderabad. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have ob_r ined building permission vide Building Permit No.381908/GFl /tcl4725t2024 dated 11.03.2024 from respondent No.3 the Deputy Commissioner, GIIMC, Circle - 30, Begumpet, Se,: rnderabad, for construction of stilt for parking + three (3) upper floors. L.r the north and south, the subject building is bourr, ed by 20 feet wide road, and east (I{.No.2/3 RT) and west by nei6;l bours houses. As per the building permission, respondent Nos.4 .nd 5 have to leave setbacks of 2 meters in front and 1.5 meters ( n three sides; respondent Nos.4 and 5 have mortgaged the second l loor in favour of respondent No.3 under the registered mortgal : deed dated

29.02.2024 r.ide document No.466 of 2024. ) - Pege .l of8 BVRJ rvP No.22221& J5678 0f2025

4.2. It is stated rhar as per Rule 4(a) of G.O. Ms. No. 16g dated 07.04.2012, if the abutting road is less than 30, width, additional 5 feet setback should be left for road widening. As the subject property of respondent Nos.4 and 5 is abutting to 20 feet road, they are required to leave 5 feet in addition to 2 meters as setback on the front side of the subject building. It is submined that respondent Nos.4 and 5 not only violated terms of the building permission by not leaving mandatory setbacks but also encroached 2% feet existing 20 feet road. Hence, the petitioner lodged complaint dated 19.06.2025 ro respondent No.2 _ GHMC requesting to take action against the unauthorized construction raised by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Further, the petitioner sent separate letters to the concemed Electricity Department, HMWS&SB and the Sub-Registrar requesting them not to provide electricity, water connection and not to release the mortgaged property until Occuparion Certificate is issued by the GHMC.

4.3. It is stated that though show cause notice dated

28.03.2025 was issued by the GHMC to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to submit explanation within fifteen (15) days as to why the r Page { of8 B1'R"I wP \, . 2223 &.15678 of2025 deviations made to the sanctioned plan should not tt demolished, there was no response from respondent N I ;.4 and 5 Hence, rcspondent No.3 issued another notice dated 7.04.2025 to respondent Nos.4 and 5. However, instead of giving e <planation to respondent No.3, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 157 ol 2025 along with I.A. No.430 of 20.1 ; against the GHMC and obtained statu.\ quo order dated 23.04.20a 5 which was extended up to 20.06.2025

5. Ileard Mr. D. Jagadishwar Rao, learned co Lnsel lor the petitioner; Mr. Rama Rao Imrnaneni, leamed :ounsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5; Mr. G. Madhusudhan Rt:, dy, lg2m.6 Standing Counsel for GHMC; and perused the materir I on record.

6. The leamed counsel for the petitioner subnrj .ted that the status quo ordcr was violated and respondent Nos. and 5 are continuing with the construction activity in the sub.i< rt property. While so, respondent No.3 passed the speaking rrder dated

13.06.2025 stating that respondent Nos.4 and 5 hzve violated -7/ f1 PrBc 5 otE BYRJ WP No.22221& 3567t of2025 building permission and constructed the subject building without leaving setbacks 7 Grievance of the petitioner is that even after passing the speaking order dated 13.06.2025, respondent No.3 is nor taking steps to demolish the unauthorized construction made by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Order dated 30.07.2025 was passed by this Court in the W.P. No.22223 o12025 directing respondent No.3 to stop construction activity undertaken by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the subject property by implementing the speaking order dated

13.06.2025. 'fhereafter, W.P. No.35678 of 2025 has been filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 to declare the action ofrespondent No.3 in issuing the Notice in L.No.868/TPS/DC/C-30|SZ/GI1N!C12025 dated I I .09.2025 directing them to stop the construction acrivity in the subject property

8. It is the contention of the leamed counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the petitioner is not the resident of Prakash Nagar Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad, where the subject building is situated. The petitioner is no way concemed with the alleged .t- tra\ Page 6 ofS BI'RJ \I P No.zl l; I & 3567E ot2025 deviations made by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the subj': t property' The petitioner is a resident of Balanagar which i; five (5) kilometers away from the subject building of responderr Nos'4 and

5. The petitioner has filed about twenty-five (25) similz: cases and is targeting gullible people and indulging in bLat <mail and extortion. Pursuant to the orders olthis Court, subjec ruitding of respondent Nos.4 and 5 has been sealed

9. Leamed Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and : submitted that deviations, il any, are minor in nature and within l0% of the permitted deviations. No resident of Prakash Na,r rr Colony, Begumpet, has grievance nor lodged any complairr regarding unauthroised construction or road encroachment bY rcspondent Nos.4 and 5. Assuming that therc are any deviations, lr : satne will be rectified. Leamed counsel submitted that responden No.3 may be directed to remove the seal effected to the subject : -rilding and respondent Nos.4 and 5 may be permitted to proce ( C with the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. a (-l Page 7 of8 BvR.J WP No.2222-l & 35676 of2025

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject building is constructed by respondent Nos'4 and 5 in deviation to the sanction plan and that the speaking order dated

13.06.2025wasnotchatlenged.Therefore,thequestionof respondent Nos.4 and 5 requesting this Court to unseal the subject prope(y does not arise. Respondent No'3 may be directed to implement the speaking order and demolish the unauthorized constructions-

11. tn the light of the above rival contentions' this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to submit explanation to the speaking order passed by respondent No'3 ' Accordingly' both the writ petitions are disposcd of, at the admission stage itself' directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to submit representation to respondent No.3 with a request to unseal the subject building and also to take necessary steps to remove the deviations pointed out in the speaking order dated 13.06'2025' On such application being filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, respondent No'3 shall unseal the subject building enabling them to remove the deviations pointed f I j Page 8 of8 BvR..I \r P \,.r222-l & 35678of 2025 out in the speaking order dated 13.06.2025. Furlhe ', if deviations are not removed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, respo I lent No.3 is at liberty to scal the subject building. Horvever, if sucf deviations are rectihed / renroved by respondent Nos.4 and 5, the ; rbiect property shall be inspected by respondent No.3, and if th,: building is in conformity with the sanctioned plan, respondent N I ;.4 and 5 shall he permitted to proceed with further constructior irr accordance rvith the sanclioned plan. At later stage, if it is fourr, that there are any deviations to the sanctioned plan in the sr I ject buitding, appropriate action shall be taken by responden. No.3 against respondent Nos.4 and 5. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applic:r ions, if any, pcndlg ln thc writ petition stand closed. 11 //TRUE COPY// SD/- I SRINIVASA REDDY ASS;I STANT R,EGISTRAR ,"+ SECtTdN OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 The-Principal Secretary, Municipar Administration, anr Jrban Deveropment, Dr. B R Ambedkar Terahgana secretaiiii, nyotii6bJ, s r ,te or rerinsila.-"'' The Commissionel Greater. Hyderabad Municipal Co poration, Having its office at Tankbund Road, Hyderibad, The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle-30, Begumpet Secunderabad. lh" Assistant City planner, Circle 30, GHMC Begumpet Circle, Secunderabad. I

5. One CC to SRI D.JAGADESHWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUCI 6. One CC to SRI IMMANENI RAMA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] ATwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof " i"tingana at HYderabad [OUT] 9. Two CD CoPies BSR I I \ HIGH COURT DATED: 3011212025 CC TODAY !J ,.:j /-':-' ::::--. s s* \ t.,' '.r. r'), i. !\ >: l' l-r , l;.' :,;, <r' -tr-,;'j H Oir\ COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.22223 and 35678 ot 2025 p t I DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETII'ONS, WITHOUT GOSTS Yo