High Court · 2025

5. Sri. Neelam Srinivas, S/o. Narsimha Aged about 47 years Fl/o. H.No.2-4-431 and Ll 79, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 [i/andamus, declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not taking proper action for removal of the dilapidated structures in the premises bearing No. 2-4-431 and Ll179, situated at Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad, but only issuing Notices vide File No. 179/ACP/TPS/C30/SZIGHMC|2O21, dated 24.03.2O21 , and No. '1 79IACP/TPS/C30/SZ/GHMCt2021, dated 24.06.202'1 , but not proceeding to demolition and removal of the dilapidated structures even after lapse of specified Notice period as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions contained under Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, '1955 and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to forthwith demolish and remove the dilapidated structures in premises bearing No. 2-4-431 and Ll179, situated at Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein to forthwith demolish and remove the dilapidated structures in premises bearing No. 2-4-431 and L/'1 79, situated at Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NYAYAPATHI PRASHANT Cpunsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.5: Ms. PREETI PAWAR, REP. FOR SRI SRIKANTH HARIHARAN The Court made the, following: ORDER ,/ , HON'BLE SRIJUSTICB I( LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.33696 OF 2022 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr. Nyayapathi Prashanth, leamed counsel lor the petitioner Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Stdlding Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Ms. Preeti Pawar, leamed counsel representing Mr. Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for respondent No.5

2. Thc petitioner herein is claiming that he along with his two brothers are the absolute owners and possessors of portion ol house bearing No.2-4-43 I i.e., MCII Quarter No.L/l;79, admeasuring 40.67 square yards, situated at Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. ln proofofthe same, he has also placed reliance on the judgment in S.A. No.887 of

2000. According to him, respondent No.5 is also staying in other portion of the very same house. '['hc said house was constructed in the year 1941 and it is in dilapidated condition. Therefore, the petitioner has already vacated the subj ect house two (02) years back. He has submilted representations dated 09.03.2021 and 25.03.2021 to respondent No.3 with a request to demolish the same. On receipt of the said representations, respondent No.4 has issued notice dated 1 2 KL,J W I \10.11696 of2022

24.03 -2021 to the son of the petitioner under Section - 459 of the HMC Act, 1955 stating that the subject house is in dilapidated condition and, therefore, requested him to vacate the subj ect house. Similar notice dated24.06.2021 under Section - 456 of the HMC Act, 1955 was issued. Therefore, the petitioner has vacated the subject house. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not proceeding further pursuant to the representations dated 09.03.2021 and 25 .03.2021.

3. Whereas, respondent No.5 has filed counter contending that he is staying in the other portion of the subject house. It is not in dilapidated condition and reliance is placed on Structural Stability Report, dated 15.09.2023 given by M/s. Comfort Designers. The petitioner cannot seek demolition of the subject house belongs to respondent No.5. Therefore, he has filed I.A. No.l of 2023 to recall the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by this Court.

4. Whereas, Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC, has produced written instructions of Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.30, Begumpet along with notice dated

20.01 .2025, to contend that the Deputy Commissioner has already issued notice dated 20.01.2025 to the Executive Engineeq Circle I No.30,Begumpet, Secunderab ad Znne, requesting him to prepare the /:' 3 KL,J W.P. No.ll696 of2022 estimation of the subject house, which is in dilapidated condition for taking up demolition as an earliest, as there is a very possibitity that the building may collapse.

5. Vide the above [etter, the Deputy Commissioner has already come to a conclusion that the subjecl house is in dilapidated condition. The same is without any basis. On receipt of the said representations from the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has to obtain stability certificate from JNTU to a come to a conclusion as to whether the subject house is in dilapidated condition or not. Without doing so, he cannot request the Executive Engineer of the GI{MC to prepare estimation for demolition. The same is without any basis.

6. In the light of thc aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.30, Begumpet and respondent No.3 to consider the aforesaid representations dated 09.03.2021 and 25.03.2021, obtain stability report from the JNTU, Hyderabad, with regard to the condition of the subject house and, thereafter they shall take action, if any, inctuding demolition of subject house strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the GHMC Act, 1955 by putting the petitioner and respondent No.5 on notice and affording them an opportunity of 4 KI.J W P \o 33696 042022 hearing. The JNTU shall inspect the subject house by putting the petitioner ancl respondent No.5 on notice while inspecting the site and before issuance of stability certificate with regard to condition of subject house. However, they shall complete the entire exercise within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as r' to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. I.. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSI TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad [Vunicipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3. The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

4. The Assistant City Planner, Circle No.30, The Greater Hyderabad l\,4unicipal Corporation, Secunderabad.

5. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.30, Begumpet. 6. One CC to SRI NYAYAPATHI PRASHANT, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI G.I\IADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI SRIKANTH HARIHARAN, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

10.Two CD Copis5 BSR GJP \q- HIGH COUR-T DATED: 06/A212025 t ORDER WP.No.33696 of 2022 {t{el5 3 0 APfr 11il25 * l' r. i-1)

6. r- : A DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \3 ,.u(d w-. i+\ql" I I I l i I