1. Nirmal Katariya v. The State of Telangana

Bhagwanth Rao Office at Plot No. 15, B- 3- 684/3- 15 LIC Colony, Srinagar Colony, HYderabad

6. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT's 2GETHERMENTS Flat Owners, mutually Aided Co- operative Society represented by its President P. Janardhan Reddy having its office at Beside Sitara Grand Talkie Town lr,4iyapur, Ranga Reddy District. ...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'an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents No. 1 to 4 against the illegal and un-authorised construction of compound wall and gates/barricades abutting the O. S. R by the respondent No. 6 in front of the commercial space G2 referred as Shop No. 1 to 4 in Ground floor and F2 referred as shop no. 1 to 4 in the First floor in the building lgtown as 'KSR's 2GETHERMENTS in Sy. Nos.61,62,63,64,66,67 and 68 situated at Miyapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by deviating from the approved sanction plan thereby restricting our access to our shops despite submitting online complaint on 'l 7. 05. 2024 followed by representation Dt. 01. 06. 2024 as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 14, 19 and 300,4 of the constitution by violating the principles of natural justice besides being contrary to the provisions of Municipality Act consequently direct the respondent No. 1 to 4 to remove the illegally constructed compound wall and gates/barricades abutting the O. S. R by the 6th respondent society by deviating from the sanction plan. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15't 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 respondent No. 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the illegal construction of compound wall and gates/ba rricades abutting the O. S. R by the 6th respondent society thereby deviating from the sanction plan situated at 'KSR's 2GETHERMENTS in Sy. Nos. 61 ,62,63, 64, 66, 67 and 68 of Miyapur village, Serilingampally [t4andal, Ranga Reddy District forthwith, as otherwise petitioners stands to suffer serious hardship and irreparable loss and injury. I ,--'3 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M.LAYEEQ KHAN Counsel forthe 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: SRI VISHAL KUMAR JAIN Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI G.KALYAN'CHAKRAVARTHY WRIT PET ITION NO: 992 OF 2025 Between: 2GETHERMENTS INFRA PVT.LTD., having their office at Plot No'15, S-3-OA+R-tS. LIC Colonv, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderaba9 -73, Rep by. its Hljn"oino Director Sri T.Harinath Rao S/o. T. Bhagwanth Rao, aged about 49 years"R/d. Flat No.601, 2-1-251 Lahari Apartments, Nallakunta, Hyderabad' ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Princip.al Secretary, lt/unicipal Ad ministration and Urb-an Development Secretariat, Hyderabad Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner Tank Bund road, Hyderabad.

3. The Zonal Commissioner GHN/C, Serlingampally Zone. 4. The Deputy Commissioner GHN,4C, Circle No. 20,Serlingampally' 5. The City Planner, GHtVC, Serlingampally Zone Circle No' 20, Serlingampally' 6. Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Not known to . the petitioner, a-ge^d ^lvlajor, Occ: - FieiiOent of KSd2getherments Welfare Association,.Ryo. KSR 2getherments Apartment, Sy.No.6i to 68, Beside Sitara Grand Hotel, lvliyapur'

7. Raia Bala Badruni, S/o. Not known to the petitioner, agqd- tVlajor, Occ: pfliiOent of KSR 2betherments Welfare Associating,.Ryo. KSR 2getherments Apartment, Sy.No.6i to 68, Beside Sitara Grand Hotel, Miyapur' (RR6 & 7 are impleaded as per C.O. dt. 18.02.2025 in l'A'No'2/2025) ...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 pass an order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the letter dated 0211212024 issued by the Respondent No. 5 vide Lr. No. 1017/CP/SLPZI GHI\AC:2024 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. t-( 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 suspend the letter daled 0211212024 issued by the Respondent No. 5 vide Lr. No. lOlTlCP|SLPZIGHIVC/ 2024 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VISHAL KUMAR JAIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.6 & 7: SRI G.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER '1 HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN - WRIT PETITION Nos.27344 oF 2024 AND9920F 2025 ORAL OR-DER: Heard Mr. M. Layeeq Khan, leamed counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.27344 of 2025, Mr. Vishal Kumar Jain, leamed counsel for petitioner in W.P. No.992 of 2025 and respondent No'5 in W'P' No.27344 of 2024, Mr. G' Kalyan Chakravarthy, leamed counsel for respondent No.6 in W.P. No.27344 of 2024 and respondent Nos'6 and 7 in W.P. No.992 of 2025, Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos'2 to 4 in W.P. No.27344 of 2024 and respondent Nos'2 to 5 in W'P' No.992 of 2025.

2. Lis involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same' Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No.27344 of 2024'

3. The petitioners are 8 in number. They are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of commercial spaces G2 referred to as Shop Nos.l to 4 in the Ground Floor and F2 referred to as Shop Nos.l to 4 in the First Floor of the subject building i'e', "KSR's 2GETHERMENTS", having a total built up area of 8020 2 KL.J W.P. Nos 27144 of2024 & 992 of202i square feet and also a Visitor Car Parking in the allotted space together with undivided share of land admeasuring 212 square yards out of7501.34 square yards in Survey Nos.61, 62,63,64,66,67 and 68, situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District. They have purchased the said commercial spaces from respondent No.5, who is petitioner in W.P. No.992 of 2025. They have specifically mentioned the sale deed numbers and the dates etc. in a tabular form in paragraph No.3 of the writ affidavit.

4. Respondent No.5 (hereinafter referred to as 'Developer') being the developer completed the construction and sold flats etc., to several purchasen, who have formed into an Association under the name and style 'KSR's 2GETHERMENTS FLAT OWNERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVtr SOCIETY' (hereinafter referred to as 'Socieff') - respondent No.6. The Developer and the Sociery constructed compound wall and erected gates/barricades abufiing the said commercial spaces unauthorizedly. The same is in front of the petitioners' property. Therefore, they have submitted representations dated 17 .05.2024 and 0l .06.2024 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 (hereinaftcr referred to as 'GHMC Authorities') with a request to take action against the developer and the society. Despite receiving J KL,J W P Nos 2714'1 of2021 & 992 of2o25 and acknowledging the said representations' the GHMC Authorities did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of the GHMC Authorities, the petitioners filed the present writ petition'

5. According to the Developer, he has obtained building permit order dated Og.Og.2Ol7 for construction of rhulti-storied residential- cum-commercial building, two basements for parking, partly Ground I,.1oor for amenities and partly for Shops + 14 Upper Floors for residential flats' It has already sold the said flats' It has also obtained Occupancy Certificate. Even then, on the letter dated 04'10'2024 of the Station House officer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerat e, vide letter dated 02'12'2024 ' the City Planner' GHMC, Serilingampall y Zone, Circle No'20' informed the Station House officer that the Developer has obtained building permission only for residential purpose as per the approved sanctioned plan and the GHMC office has inadvertently mentioned basing on proceedings issued as "for the proposed construction of multi-storied residential- cum-commerciat building: two basements for parking, Partly ground floor for amenities & partly for Shops + 14 Upper Floors for residential flats", which is to b e ignored' It is further stated that as seen from the original sanctioned plan, permission was accorded only 4 KL.J W.P. Nos 27344 of2024 & 992 of2025 for residential purpose, and as regards to shops, the builder had constructed t\ o shops in the land originally owned by flat owners welfare association and the same was recorded while handing over the assets of the building to the President of the Society on 13 .05.2023 .

6. As per the letter issued by the Builder dated 13.052023 to the President of the Society, the society is having legal right over the assets and the builder has no right to interfere into the property belonging to the society. Thus, the building consisting of2 Cellars + Ground + l4 Upper Floors is totally meant for residential purpose.

7. Challenging the said letter, the developer filed W.P. No.992 of 2025.

8. Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC, on instructions, would submit that.on receipt of the complaint from the Society, vide speaking order dated 14.02.2024, the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle No.21, directed Mrs. K. Radha & others to remove the unauthorized construction made by them in deviation to the building permit order dated 09.09.2017 and after obtaining occupancy certihcate. The said Radha and others did not prefer any appeal against the said speaking order dated 14.02.2024. TherCflortr. it attained finality. ./ ) KL.J W P. Nos.27344 of2024 & 992 of202i

9. Perusal of record would reveal that on the complaint lodged by Mr. M. Shyamal Rao, Faciliqr Manager of Society, Miyapur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.60l of 2024 against three (03) unknown persons on 06.05.2024. Investigating is pending. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, sought certain information from the GHMC Officials, who in turn, fumished the infbrmation vide letter dated 02.12.2024. According to the Developer, the said letter is contrary to the building permit order and without any basis. The same is also contrary to the speaking order dated

14.02.2024. There is every possibility of Investigating Officer using the said information against the developer and file report in terms ol Section - 173 of Cr.P.C.

10. Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, leamed counsel for the Society, would submit that the developer has started construction ol community and it applied for occupancy eertificate. The same got approved as per the norms of Municipal Plan which was approved earlier. As per the said sanctioned approved plan, common areas which includes visitor parking, play area for the kids and lawn area which can be utilized by all the communiqu members commonly. The developer after completing substantial construction work did apply for e H H !*trl&: &, I i 6 KL.J W P Nos.2l341 of 2024 & 992 of 2025 an occupancy certificate, but has misled the Municipality in various areas and has not properly constructed the building and the society is fighting multiple cases and litigation to secure the compliance of the commitments and tiabilities of the developer towards land owners of various flats whom the society is answerable. I 1. Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the society, would also submit that the Developer has erected a barricade in front of the aforesaid two shops which is illegal.

12. Leamed counsel for the developer would submit that the developer has completed the construction strictly in accordance with the building permit order dated 09.09.2017. It has executed a Mortgage Deed in favour of the GHMC, and on completion of construction, it has obtained occupancy certificate. The GHMC had also executed re-conveyance deed pursuant to the mortgage deed. Even then, the Ciry Planner, GHMC has submitted the aforesaid information to the Station House Officer, Miyapur police Station and the same is without any basis.

13. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that Mrs. K. Radha and others are the absolute owners and posse'-ssOfs of thc land 6,876.46 square meters in Survey Nos.6l , 62, 7 KL.J W P Nos 27144 of2024 & 992 of202i 6j, 64, 66, 67 and 68 of Miyapur Village. They have entered into a Development Agreement-cum-Power of Attomey with the Developer for development of the said properly. They have also obtained building permit order dated 09.07.2017 for construction of multi- storied residential-cum-commercial building: 2-Basements for parking, Partly Ground floor for amenities and partly for shops + 14 Upper Floors for residential flats. Therefore, according to the developer, it has completed the construction strictly in accordance with the building permit order. The said building permit order includes construction of multi-storied residential and commercial building. 'Iherefore, the City Planner, GHMC, Serilingampally Zone, cannot submit letter dated 02.12.2024 to the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station stating that the developer made the construction in violation of the building permit order dated

09.09.2017. He cannot refer the letter dated 13.05.2023. He cannot decide the disputes between the developer and the society. Therefore, the letter dated 02.12.2024 of the City Planner, Serilingampally Zone, GHMC is without any basis.

14. Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC, on instructions, would submit that the Zonal Commissioner, f' !*fi w' !r F !: h 8 KI,.J W.P Nos.27l44 of2024 & 992 of2025 GHMC, Serilingampally Zone, will inspect the site and consider the online complaint dated 17 .05.2024 and the representation dated

01.06.2024 submitted by the petitioners in W.P.No.27344 of 2024 and take action, il'.any, against the developer and society strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the GHMC Act, 1955. He will not consider inter se disputes between them.

15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, letter dated

02.12.2024 of the City Planner, Serilingampally Zote, GHMC submitted to the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the Investigating Officer in Crime No.l93 of 2024 of Miyapur Police Station, to conduct investigation in the said crime strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under law. He is at liberty to obtain fresh information from the GHMC Officials and he shall consider the same during investigation.

16. The Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, Serilingampally Zone - respondent No.3 in W.P. No.992 of 2025, is also directed to consider the online complaint dated 17.05.2024 and the representation dared

01.06.2024 submitted by the petitioners in W.p.No.27344 of 2024. He shall inspect the site. and if the allegations made by the petitioners in 9 (t.,J W P No6 27344 of2024 & 992 of2025 / W.P. No.27344 of 2024 are found to be correct, he shall take action against respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P. No.27344 of 2024 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the GHMC Act, 1955 by putting the petitioners, respondent Nos.5 and 6 and all interested parties on notice and allording them an opportunity of hearing. However, it is made clear that he shall not adjudicate or consider the disputes among the petitioners. respondent Nos.5 and 6 and other flat owners. He shall also consider the contentions of the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.s and 6. He sha[[ complete the entire exercise within eight (08) weeks lrom the date of receipt of copy of this order.

17. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances of the case. there shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the writ petitions shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/. L, LAKSHM BABU STRAR ASSISTANT R SECTION FFICER To, 'l . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development' Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad

3. The Zonal Commissioner GHMC, Serlingampally Zone. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No. 21, GHMC' Chandanagar. 5. The Deputy Commissioner GHMC, Circle No. 20, Serlingampally. 6. The Chief City Planner, Town Planning, GHMC' Hyderabad. CNt \

7. The City Planner, GHMC, Serlingampally Zone Circle No. 20, Serlingampally. B. One CC to SRI M.LAYEEQ KHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI VISHAL KUMAR JAIN, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to SRI G.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate [OPUC]

11.One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 12.Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for tlle State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

13.Two CD Copies BSR HIGH COURT DATED: 1810212025 CC TODAY HE STAI1- I k :) () I'J \\-.r \ z 1 tiB ?1\[ -:/ COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.27344 of 2024 and 992 of 2025 DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS I,O