High Court · 2025

lmsa:::xrug::1i"x'(H8il"8,il,?:T:l?["''tf ;m T3:: f ,[i1:? :'i,3 !'YS'31:ST3'"": J335uu': "o TheZonalCommissioner,CCComple^x,LowerTankBundRoad,Adarsh N;A; iid",;uio, t"t'ns'na 5ooo63' The Director General, Telangana Fire' Disaster Responses' Emergency Civil Defence DePartment' Nil/S. Shreemukh Namitha Homes Pvt Ltd ' Rep by its Managing Director' B- z-248tPtAt1t2tc-r, ru'm'tnaiSiE' n"Iii'r" o' 'aanjara Hills' Hvderabad - 500082 .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS I.A.N O:'l OF 2025 Petition Under Section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay alr further construction of Respondent No. 6 for the "Namitha 360 Life,, project situated in Survey No. .12lp and 13/p of lzzathnagar Village, Serilingampally lMandal, Ranga Reddy District during the pendency of the writ appeal. l.A.NO:2 oF 202s 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 set aside the order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated o2log/2o2s in w.p. No. 21699 of 2025 and consequenfly allow the writ appeal. COUNSEI fOr thE APPEIIANT : SRI I YIVEK REDDY, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL SRI K.PRATIK REDDY 3:ill".fllffJl"rRespondent No.1 : Gp FoR McpL ADMN AND URBAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.5 :'G.p FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent_No.6 : SRI V.RAVI KIRAN RAO, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI T.SANInubi.iiijoY The Court made the following JUDGMENT : - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE VEXTTT RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.992 o E 2025 UDGMENT: (t'e'r I loritrle Sri f ustice Abhinancl Kumar Shavili) I This Writ Aprpenl is filecl aggrieved by the orcler' dated O2.Og.2[25,passecl in t A.No'2 of 2025 in W'P'No'27699 of 2025 by a learnecl Single Juclge of l-his Court' whereby' the interim order' clated 26.O8.2075,prassecl in tl.re s:ric'l Writ Petition was recalled upon contcst'

2. Hearcl Sri K' Vivek Redcly' learned Senior Counsel representir-rg the appellant' Sri K. Pratik Retlclv' lcarrnecl counsel f:t sri G. Maclhusuclhtrn Rc.clcry, learned stancring Counser for GHMC, appearing forucsl'o'rtlent Nos'2 to 4 and Sri V' Ravi Kiran Rao' Iearnecl Senior Cottnscl represcnting Sri T'S Anirudh Reclcly, learnecl counsel fnt '"t!"'ntl"nt No'6'

3.LearneclsetriorCout-rselappearingfortheappellantlracl contended that the appellant L'ras 25% share in respondent No 6- company. Responclent No 6 l-ras started a pro.iect for construction of a multistoriedresitlcntialbuitclingbvnameandstyle'Namitha360Life' i1 Survev Nos. l2(l') ancl l3(I']) situatecl at Izzathanagar Village' \ I 2 AKS,J & VRKR.J W.A.No.992 of 2025 Serilingampally Manc{al, Ranga Rc.dcly Dis tric t, after obtaining necessary permission fronr GHIVIC on 30.05.2019. Initially, respo,crent No-6 has obtaineci buircli^g pcrmission for construction of multistoriecl residential building consisting of 2 Cellars + 3 stilts + 25 upper froors' However, witrri^ the 'arliclity .f trre permissio^, responcient No.6 could not contplete thc. cntirc pro;ect and there were also certain deviations ir.r the co.structio'. tvrrire so, respondent No.6 is making efforts to construct .r.other. trrree extra froors and rras appliecl for buirding permissiorr, btrt trre GHN,rc l-ras creclined to gra,t revised sanction pla. for thrce ;rcrc.riii.r.r froors. .frrc GHMC a,/e procecdings' dated 03.12.2024, .ras i.formccl iesp611clsn1 No.6 trrar there are 14 shortfars from tr.re origi.ar sa.ctiorrecl prar.r ancl untir and unless responclent No.6 rectifies the shortfalls u, Ol,nr"O out in the proceeclings, ciated 03.12.2024, trrc' GHMC r,virI not co.sicrer the case of responclent No.6 for grarrt of revisccJ s.r,cti.rr pran for constructio. of three adclitional floors. 4' Learned senior counscr aprpreari.g for the appertant hacl further co.tencled that GHMC has ..ce as;ri, i.lsp.cted trre subject pre,ises AKS'J & VItIiR,.J W A No'992 ol2025 reiterating its stancl clatecl 1L.05.2025, and issued Procecdings' that respondent No'6 mr-tst complv with thc shortfalls and this time' the GHMC has pointecl out t8 shortfalls' Instead of complying with/rectifying the saicl shortfalls' responclent No 6 is proceeding with construction aucl i[ the cbrrstruction is macle contrary to thc sanctioned plan, the appellant woulcl also be Put to irreparable loss and hardship, as aclmittetllv' hc is also one of the share-holclers in respondent No'6-comPurut''

5. Learneci se.ior C.u.ser;r;rpe.ring for t['re appetlant hacl further contended that GHMC lras rcvaliclated the permission' which was earrier grantecr to responclcnt No.6, r,rrre proceedings, dated \1'06'2025' without ensuring u'hethcr respotlclent No'6 has rectified' the shortfalls as pointed out in thc'procccclir.rgs' clatecl 03'12'2024 and tl'05'2025' In those set of circr-r mstance's' challenging the proceedings' dated 11,.06.2025, the appellant has approachecl this Court by filing the subject W.P.No.2169 L) of 2025' lnitially' the learned Single Judge afule interim order, clatccl 26'08'2025 ' wt'rs pleast'cl to grant interim direction directing responclent No 6 not to 1rrocc'ecl with further construction till 4 the next cla te of lrearing. Seeking to AKS..I & VRKR,.' w.A.No.992 of 2025 ',,acatc the saicl order, dated 25.08.2025, respondent No.6 filecl vacatc st;rv apr;-r[i<a[ion i.c. I.A.No.2 of 2025 a.c1 upon co.test, the learrnec.l Si.1;tc f uclgc rv^s plcased to vacate tlre irterim orcrer, dated 2(t.0g-2025, n,it^out a,prer:iati.g any of the contentions raised by the appellarrt. 6 Learnerl Senior Counsel appearing for tht a;.rpsiln111 had further contendec{ that though GHMC h;rs issuecl proc€.edings, dated 03.12.2024 ancl 71.05.2025, clirecting rcsponrit nt No.6 to rectify/comply with the shortfalls r.t,hich vrtelc 1-rei11[1'1'l orr t ir-r thgse proceedings, respondeut No.6 without rectifying the s^'rtfalls is proceecling n,ith construction. Learrred Scr.rior Counsel had further conte,ded that trre learned si.gre Juclge courcl ..h.a'e perrnitted respondcnt No.6 to go aheacl n,ith .thc corsh.uctiorl. If the consLructiorr is co.trary tc the sarctio.ecl pr411, trre'c.tire'roject wi, collapsc. This issuc was clearly ciealt r,vith [,rv the IJor-ro urabie Suprerne Court in Rajendra Kumar Ilarjatya ancl another v. U.p. Avas Evam Vikas parishad and othersl, r.t,hercirr the Honourable supremc Court has categoricaily rreld trrat evc. if trrc. constructions 'Civil Alrpcal No.l-160,1 of 2024, clatc,cl 17.12.2024 ) AKS,J & VRKR,.' W A No.992 of 2025 are as old as 24 years and if those constructiorls are found to be conrrary to the sanctioned plan' the arutl.rorities can always take action against those illegat constructions' lrl thc instant case' respondent No.6 is proceeding with the construction conhary to the sanctioned plan. Therefore, the learnecl Single Juclge' coulcl not have vacated the interim order grantecl in favour oi the appellant' Therefore' appropriate orders be passecl in the Writ Aprpcal by setting aside the impugned orcler, clatcd 0209'2025' passccl in t'A'No'2 of 2025 in W.P.No'21699 of 2025 ancl allow the Writ Appeal ancl further' direct respondent No'6 not to proceecl n'ith the construction' unless and untilrespondentNo.6rectifies/cornprlieswiththeshortfallsaspointed out by the GHMC zrir'le proceeclings' clatccl 03'12'2024 antl Ll'05'2025'

7. On the other l'rancl' Ieartlecl Ser.rior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 had contencled tl.rat i[ resptlnclent No'6 is prcvented from going aheacl with the cotrstructiotr' rcsPonclent No'6 would not be in a position to clear the shortfalls as pointecl out by the GHMC aideproceedLngs,clatedo3.-L2.2o24ancl11.05.2025.LearnedSenior Counsel [-rad further contcnclecl tl'rart responclent No.6 undertakcs that 6 it would sh.ictly comply with the original AIiS,.J es VRIiR.J U A No.992 of2025 sanctionecl plan, dated 30.05.2079, ancl also the proceedings, datecl ll .06.2025, revaliclatirrg the perrnissiotr atrcl o.rly thereafter, it would seek rc'is.cl L,r, ilclirrg permission for construction of three additiorar floors. [,ea'rcd s.er-rior Counser had furtrrer co.tended that let GHM. Right Certificate, if the building is consfructetl corrtrarl. to ihe sanctioned plan issuc occuparrcy ^ot Io

8. Learnecl Senior Counsel appearing for respor.rclcnt No.6 lracl frrrtl.rer contencicc.l that rcspondent No.6 is lvillinir rcctif,v the shortfalrs' so that GHMC can reconsider the case of rc.spo.ae..t No.6 for conskuction of three additional floors bv granting .rppropriate pernrissio.' Therefore, the rearned singre Judge lrvars justified in vacating the interim order and permitting resporrcleni No.6 to go aheacl with thc. construction. Tl-rerefore, therc are no r-ncrits in the Writ Appeal and the sanre is liable to be clismissec.l

9. Learnccl Senior Counsel appearing for rc.51.re11dsut No.6 had further contenciecl that the appellant lras filecl ci,,,,il casc agar nst responclcnt No.6 and therc litigation going on betlr.c-en the IS 1 1 AI{S,.J & VRI{R,J W A No.992 o12025 appellant and resPondent No'6' Only to harass respondent No'6' the appeltant has filed the subiect Writ Petition The appellant has also got interest in respondent No'6-comperny' which means' he has rival interest in the case' Therefore' the subiect Writ Petition could not have been filecl by the appellant On this count also' the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed'

10. This Court, having consiclerecl thc rival subtlissions made by the learned counsel for tl-re parties' is of the view tl.rat responclent No'6 has given an undertaking before this Court that it would rectify the slrortfalls as pointed out by GHMC 7'lls proceeclir.rgs' clated 03'12'2024 and 11 .05.2025, andonly thereafter' it woulcl sec'k revisecl building permission for construction of three aclr-litional floors' When respondent No'6 gives such an unclertakir-rg before this Court' this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Appreat can be clisposecl of with an observation that respondent No'6 shall make encleavour to rectify/compty with the shortfalls as Poir.rtecl out b1r GHMC zddrr proceeciings, c'latccl 03'12'2024 ancT 11'05'2025' ancl thereafter only' respondent No.6 shall take stePS for ser:uring revised building a ; I 8 pL-rnrission for construction of three additional intcncis to cons Lruct AXS,.l 3,1 vRI\lt..l U/.A.No 9i_r2 ot 2025 floors, u,hich it

11. With the. above observations and reccrrc{irrg the unclcrtaking given by responclent No.6, the Writ Appeal is disposecl of. It is macle_ clear that occuprancy Right Certificate sr'rall .ot be issucrl tc) responcle^t No.6 unless a.cl u.tir it compries with trre sa^ctio.ecl plau ancl t^e GHN4. officiars s.alr ,ronitor trre constructio^ r.vork .f res1.ro11dg111 No.6 from time to time. There shall be no orcler as to I\,Iiscellarreous Applicatior-s, if any, pending in tit is ap;'rs;11 5hall s tanc{ closcd. SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Urban Development //TRUE COPYII To

1. The Principal Secretary, [/unicipal Administration (IUAUD) Telangana Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Telangana Planning Section (HO), GHIUC, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lrrlunicipal Corporation, Town 3. The Chief City Planner, GHMC CC Complex, Tank Bund Rd, Lower Tank 4. f he Zonal Commrssioner, CC Complex, Lower Tank Bund Road, Adarsh Bund, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063. Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500063. Defence Department.

5. The Director General, Telangana Fire, Disaster Responses, Emergency Civil 6. The lvlanaging Director, Ivl/S. Shreemukh Namitha Homes pvt. Ltd., 8-2- 24BlPlAl1l2lc-1 , Namitha ISIE, Road No. 3, Banjara Hiils, Hyderabad - 500082. 7. Two CCs to GP FOR IVCPL ADIVN AND URBAN DEVELOP|\/ENT, High 8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 9. One CC to SRI K.PRATIK REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI '10.One CC to SRI T S.ANIRUDH REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 1 '1 . One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate (OpUC) 12.Two CD Copies Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Hyderabad. [OUT] SA C -d (;' .s q: 'it ' ;a, .J.: . e lJ_ t-& ,. f".'ttt >--.':-.a1-- | \L. \.: /-,' ^1"::''."./ HIGH COURT DATED:0 4t09t2O2S JUDGMENT WA.No.992 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS. t \