1. Mohd.Nazeeruddin (Died as per Lrs; PP2 to 6 v. 1. The State of Telangana

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein not to interfere with petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the house bearing No. 2-4-81 together with appurtenant land admeasuring 798'1 Sq. Yards, situated Sajidpura, Siddipet town, Medak district, by suspending operation of the proceedings No. G110212016 dated 26-08-2016, on the file of 2nd respondent herein, pending disposal of Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LN(MI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PEAITION No.311O6 of 2O16 ORDER: This writ petition is frled to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 in issuing nolice dated 26.08.2016, as illegal, arbitrar5r and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.

2. Heard, Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that father of the petilioner has acquired the land admeasuring 798O Sq.yrds in Sy.Nos. 1230 and L242, sittated at Sajidpura, Siddipet (for short 'subject propertyJ, under registered sale deed No.45 of 1357 Fasli (1947 A.D) and the same was succeeded to by the petitioner herein and his name has been mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook has also been issued; that petitioner has constructed Ground + 1 upper floor by duly obtaining permission uide permission No.C1/ 1096/2O03, dated 2O.O8.20O3 and also obtained permission from respondent No.2 uide permission No.C 1 / l0ll l2006, dated 31.O8.2OO6, for I 2 construction of second floor. Petitioner raised third floor and frled an application on 23.11.2015, for regularization under G.O.Ms.No. 152 MA & UD Department, dated O2.11.2015 and the same is pending. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 issued impugned notice dated 26.Oa.2O16, demanding the petitioner to produce some documents and on 07 .09.2016, respondent No.4 without following the due process tried to demolish the subject property of the petitioner; ttrat petitioner submitted a representation dated 1O.O9.2016, enclosing the title documents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that before taking any action, respondents have to follow the due process as contemplated under Municipalities Act including issuance of notice under Section 192,228 and 251 of A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965, however, in the present case, no such procedure has been adopted. Aggrieved by the action of respondents, petitioner frled the present writ petition.

4. l,earned Counsel for petitioner would further submit that this Court uide Order dated 19.09.2016, directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property by the petitioner. - J a

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 on written instructions would submit that. respondent corporation has not taken further steps pursuant to notice dated 26.Oa.2016. He further submitted that liberty may be granted to respondents to take steps, in case, if the subject property has been constructed by encroaching Nala, by duiy following due process of law.

6. Perusal of the record would disclose that the impugned notice dated 26.08.2016 was issued basing on the oral complaint of the Vice Chairman, Siddipet Municipality, alleging that there is encroachment of Nala by the petitioner, however, the details of alleged encroachment of Nala by the petitioner are not mentioned in the said notice. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation dated 10.09.2016 along with title documents. Further, no material is placed on record as to whether the explanation submitted by the petitioner has been considered and any orders thereof have been passed. Thus, it is clear that impugned notice dated 26.08.2016 is vague and was issued only on the oral complaint given by the Vice Chairman of the Siddipet Municipality, without following due procedure as contemplated under A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the impugned notice dated \ 4

26.O8.N16 is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set .., aside. 7 . Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 26.08.2016 is set aside. However, this Order will not preclude the respondents' authorities from taking appropriate steps strictly in accordance with law against the petitioner, in case of encroachment of NaIa. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, The Chief Justice on this Friday, the Seventeenth Day of October, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. SD/. MED ABDULLA KHAN SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, 'l . The'Principal Secretary, Municipal Administrat Salfabad, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. SECTION OFFICER . Secretariat Buildings,

2. The Commissioner, Siddipet Municipality, Siddipet, Medak District. 3. The Town Planning Supervisor, Siddipet Municipality, Siddipet, Medak District 4. One CC to SRI L.PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

7. Two CD Copies BSR TKS quq. HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 ! ORDER WP.No.31106 of 2016 't HE SI/ () 2 4 JAI{ 2026 7l l,t :-. t' t< ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS PA4 q^td"<^