Nenavath Shantha Bai, Wio Nena v. The State of Telangana, Represented

Administration and Urban Developmen B. R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana - 5 2. The Greater Hyderabad ttilunicipal Co Commissioner, CC Complex Tank Bun 500063. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater H 20, Serlingampally Zone, Telangana. Sri Baddu Ram Naik, S/o Late Sri Vose Retd., R/o 2-3612, GoRanpally Thanda, District, Telangana-

022. ration, Represented by its Road, Hyderabad, Telangana - am, Aged about. 62 years, QCE Serllingampaly Mandal Rangareddy erabad Municipal Corporation Circle 3 4 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Co circumstances stated in the affidavit filed pleased to issue a writ order or direction mor of Mandamus declaring the action of Corporation, Respondent No. 2 herein acti Respondent No.3 herein in hurriedly thr dwelling place of the Petitioner and forestall remedies as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, co fundamental rights of Petitioner under Art Constitution of lndia and for consequential di stitution of lndia praying that in the therewith, the High Court may be particularly one in the nature of Writ he Greater Hyderabad Municipal through its Deputy Commissioner, atening to demolish the residential ng the rights of Petitioner to judicial trary to law and violation of the cles '14, 19, 21 and 300-4. of the ions directing the civic authorities emolition of premises bearing No. H. not to take any coercive steps including the No. 2-64l1l9lDl4 (GHMC PTI No. 1119916 03) admeasuring 95 square yards situated at Goranpally Village, Telangana - 50001 9 Serilingampally (tM) Rangareddy District, IANO:1OF2 025 Petition under section r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein not to take any coercive steps incruding the demolition of premises bearrng No. H. No. 2-64t1rgrDt4 (GHMC pr No. 1119916003) admeasuring g5 square yards situated at Gopanpary virage, Serilingampally (M), Rangareddy District, Telangana - 5000.1 9 pending the disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAyUR MUNDRA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: sRr G.MADHUSUDHAN REDoy, sc Counsel for the Respondent No.4: _ FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITI ON No. 27 0F 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in hurriedly threatening to demolish her residential building a d forestalling her rights in seeking legal remedies, as being njust, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14,21 and 3OO- of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently, to direct respo dent Nos.2 and 3 not to demolish the structures made in the s bject property

2. Heard Mr. Mayur Mundr learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. G. Madhusudha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad tVluni ipal Corporation, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and pe sed the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the p speaking order dated 02.07.2025 itioner submitted that the s passed directing the petitioner to remove unauthorized nstruction consisting of Ground+2 upper floors in premise bearing H.No.2-64l119tD situated at Gopanpally Village, Se lingampally Mandal. The l I I i I l 2 speaking order was challenged by preferring [Vlunicipal Appeal No.66 of 2025 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Courts at Hyderabad, under Section 654 read with Section 655 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'). ln the said appeal, application in 1.A.No.930 of 2025 was filed seeking interim suspension of the speaking order dated

02.07.2025. The said application came to be dismissed on

04.08.2025. The petitioner is yet to receive the certified copy of the dismissal order dated 04.08.2025. As against the order passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Courts, Hyderabad, there is further remedy of appeal under Section 656 of the Act to the High Court. As certified copy of the dismissal order is not issued so far, the petitioner is disabled in filing the appeal and there is threat of demolition.

4. Considering that the certified copy of the dismissal order dated 04.08.2025 in lA No. 930 of 2025 in M.A.No 66 of 2025 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Courts, Hyderabad, has not been issued to the petitioner so far, in the interest of justice, respondents Nos.2 and 3 are directed not to take any coercive steps for demolition of the building in premises bearing H.No.2-64l1l9lDl4 (GHtvtC pTt No. i i i99i6003), To 3 admeasuring 95 square yards, situ ted at Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District, for a period of three (03) weeks from today. Notice to re pondent No.4 is dispensed with. However, if respondent No.4 s any grievance regarding this order, he is at liberty to seek mod fication of this order.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs As a sequel thereto, misce laneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition stand clos d 'R';$.'#NYA:t,EiRRX \ //TRUE CO Y// SECTION OFFICER d k h s S d Grea J T e I 2 The Sma C a U SE C e C Th c h ef J u flnclpa Se etary M u n c a p P B R Am ed ka Te a nsana Secreta r a b 500022 Te ansa na a b r Hyd e a om m SS on a a 50 H yd e abad T ans d Tan Bu nd Roa omm SSlon r G teate Ht C 4 The De a m pa v zone Te langan 20 Ser NDRA, Ad U R M U c t one C o SR M L A M N & 5 o R D PC 6 Two c P F to G CS b d rouTl o Te anoana a Hydeta a t f DHEU o ne CC T wo C D op e S C S R G MAD H U S U M u rts Hvdetab m S ta on a )n t H yd Ia a b d t T ad. t lrban Developmenr elangana, State ol MuniciPal CorPoration' 00t) J detaba M u n c pa d ocate o U C l RBAN DEV H P C orp CC ComPlex oration Circle co rt for the Sta U R DDY, SC FOR GHMC TOPUC] 7 B PSK. PSK HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 ORDER WP.No.24427 of 2025 CC TODAY '-Ji-i'l xtA O 1 $ FI\B ?',',i5 c ). * Cr' ( r\a'i I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ {