1 t. Narasimha Rao v. The State of Telangana

Petition under section.151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suooort or_ftre petiti#, tii""uigt'iorrt may be preased to direct Respondent No.2 not'to interfere *i*tir',i i;J,iii"1i"r. house bearing H. No.20_6_ 25, admeasuring2z2.2s sq. yds., sitratea in sr-.Jy No. a17, a;;d;;J;"r"*"y, Palvancha, Kothaqudem Di-slrict, oursua"t t" tn"'"ii.r tiaed as Notice in Roc No. c1115Ot2025, dated 22.oB.2OZS. p."Oi"S di;p"."i.iin" above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners: SRl. K. RAJASHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt KRTSHNA REDD' SC FOR MC The Court made the following: ORDER 'UTTA l I I i l I i : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRITPETITI ONN o.26614 0F 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief: '...to grant an order' direction or writ more so in the nature of wii 3i r.a*O"mus declaring the action of respondent No'2 in aited zt'ol-2025 under Section 185 of the tr*il;;il i;i;;""; Mr"icipalities Act, 20 I 9 and passing consequential oJ".' ,irf"O as Notice dated 22'08'2025 in ROC NoiflrSolzOz5 directing the Petitioners to remove alleged .nr-u"tt n"n, of 42.75 Square Yards as illegal' arbitrary' ii"f,f,".a.O, violative ol principles ol natural justice' contrary i;i;;;i,n"rilG.oi"tion and violative or Articles l4 and loOa lf the Constitution of India and consequently set aside ;;'orde; titled as Notice RoC No'G1/150/2025 dated 22.08.2025...', 2 Heard lWs. K.Rajashekar, leamed counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that' without conducting any enquiry, the impugned notice dated 22'08'2025 has been issued to the petitioners directing them to remove the alleged encroachments in an area of 42.75 square yards. Though it is styled as notice, it is an order directing the petitioners to remove the encroachments. The allegations in the impugned notice are incorrect and 2 'i.; a, -! it is issued in violation of principles of natural justice. The building was constructed by the pedtioners in the premises bearing of H.No.20_6_25, admeasuring 272.25 square yarils, in Survey No.g 1 7, Contractors Kothagudem District, about 40 years ago and the building arong with the compound wall are in existence since more than Colony, palvancha 40 years. Municipal e petitioners

4. Leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Corporation submitted that the allegation levelled against th in the impugned notice is that they have constructed compound walr in an extent of 315 square yards, though as per the registered document No.232/79 the site area is 272.25 square yards; the petitioners have encroached 42.75 square yards by constructing building/compound wall. 5. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the subject property, having acquired the same under a registered sale deed vide document No.232 of 1979, dated 12.11.1979 fromthe previous owner Shaik Meera Saheb; the petitio.ers constructed house surrounded by compound wall about 40 years ago and the impugned notice was issued directing them to remove building/compound wall constructed by encroaching an area of 42.7 5 square yards which is-in excess to the extent of 272.25 square 3 // yards owned by the petitioners. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned notice is issued by respondent No.2 without conducting any enquiry and in violation of principles of natural justice.

6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to submit explanation to the impugned notice dated 22.08.2025 treating it as a show cause notice within a period of seven days from today. On receipt of such explanation, the respondent No.2 shall conduct enquiry by affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with law. Till such exercise is completed, statw quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained in respect ofthe subject property. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed SD/. K .BHAVANI SWAMY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

2. q 4 The principal Secretary MA and UD Department' Secretariat' Hyderabad' The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhadradri Kothagudem. one CC to SRI K RAJASHEKAR Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR MC [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR fvfCpL nOft'fftf URBAN DEV 'High ielangana. [OUT] Court for the State of 6 KKS LS Two CD CoPies {k' ) i i l t I i I I I I i i I I I I I ccroDAy * i\L STATE c,J * IESTP ?$6 f,) * HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 ORDER WP.No.26614 ot 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS qcod.)t \+_ (1+f