The High Court · 2025

6. Smt. Kalidindi SriVenkata Ramani Karthik, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Apartments, Erramanzil, @ G.S.V. Ramani, W/o .Kalidindi Raja Private Employee, R/o. G-4, Sri Sai ...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 issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of ttlandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in passed the Order bearing No. 18249/TPSISLPZI GHIVIC/2025, dated 30-07-2025, without taking any measurements and without conducting any panchanama against the ill,:gal construction of building by the 6th respondent on the Plot No. 253, admeasuring 330 Sq.Yards or 275.88 Sq.Yards, in Sy.No. 253, situated at Raidurg Nav Khalsa Village, Serilingampally N/andal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy Distrit;t by encroaching the 30 ft. public road, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, and in violation of the Rules and R,-.gulations contained in the GHTMC Act, 1955, and consequently, direct the Respondent No. 4 to initiate actiori against the 6th respondent for encroachment of 30 ft. public road, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 oF 2t025 Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 to take immediate action against the illegal construction rnade by the 6th respondent by encroaching the 16 ft. out of 30 ft. road, pending disposal of Writ Petition, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 oF 1r-o25 Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit I'iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Rer;pondent No. 6 not to proceed with further construction of house by encroaching the 30 ft. public road, on the Plot No. 253, admeasuring 330 Sq.Yards or 275.88 Sq.Yards, in Sy.No. 253, situated at Raidurg Nav Khalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal and t\Iunicipality, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of W rit Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for lhe Petitioner: SRI THIMMARAJU RAMCHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Gounsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY SC FOR GHMC Counselfor the Respondent No.6: SRI K.RAMACHANDRA WRIT PETITION NO: 27159 OF 2025 Between:

1. Dr. Kalidindi Raja Karthik, S/o Sri Ramachandra Raju, Aged . 44 year!, Occ. Doctor in Nephrology, R/o Villa No. 51, 8-1-40, Aditya Royal Palms, 7 Tombs Road, Opp. Azaan lnternational School, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. AND ...PETITIONER

1. The State of Telangana, Secretariat Hyderabad. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (tU.A. U. D.),

2. The Greater Hyderabad [/unicipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner GHMC, Tankbund Road Hyderabad.

3. The Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, Serilingampally Zone, Serilingampally Ranga, Reddy District.

4. The Deputy Commissioner, GHlVlC, Circle 20, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District

5. The City Planner, GH[/C, Serilingmapally Zone, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy Districct.

6. Aileni Vidyadhar Reddy, S/o Late A Buchi Ram Reddy, Aged. 68 years Occ. Retd. Professor, R/o Plot No. 305, House No. 766/3/305, Prashant Hills Layout, Raidurg Navkhalsa, Serilingampalli lVandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...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 issue Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus declaring the impugned proceedings of 4th Respondent / Dy. Commissioner, GHMC passed the Order ylQe Ng 18249fiPS/SLPZ/GH\\4C12025 dated 3010712025 without conducting field survey and not fixed the road affected area of 6th Respondent's house causing day to day disturbance and also not followed this Hon'ble Court's Order vide W.A. No. 732 of 2025 dated 1410712025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice guaranteed under Artilces 14,21 and 300A of Constitutuion of lndia and subsequently direct the 4th to consider the reply letter dated 2410712025. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petitio,r 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 direct the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 not to take any coercive steps pertains to the Plot No. 253 in Sy. No. 66/3, Raidurg Navkhalsa, Serilingampally Nlandal, Ranga Reddy Distri<;t pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. RAMACHANDRA 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: SRI THIMMARAJU RAMCHANDRA RAO The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY BoththewritpetitionsarelaidassailingtheorderNo.ts249l TPS/SLPZIG:II/rcdarcd3o.o7.2o25passedbyrespondentNo.4 theDeputyCommissioner,GHMC,Circle20,Serilingampally,Ranga ReddyDistrict,assuch,theyaredisposedofbythiscommonorder' attheadmissionstageitself,withtheconsentofbothparties.

2.PetitionerinW.P.No.26g53of2025isrespondentNo.6in w.P.No.27159of2o25andthepetitionerinW.P.No.27159of2025is respondent No.6 in W'P' No'26953 of 2025'

3.Forconveniencesake,thepartiesarereferredtoasarrayedin w.P. No.26953 of Zo25which is taken as leading case for disposal of these writ petitions.

4.l.Thecaseofthepetitioneristhatpursuanttotheorderpassedby this courr in w.P. No.1 8249 of 2025 dated 27 '06'2025 and the judgment of aDivisionBenchofthisCourtinW.A.No.T32of2025dated14$7.2025, respondent No.4 passed the i-pugt.a order dated 30'07 '2025' The petitioner submitted detailecl explanation dated 23'07 '2025 to the Page2 of6 B\rR,J WPs_26953_27159_2025 Intimation Letter dated 18.07.2025 issued by respondent No.4. The petitiotrer requested respondent No.4 to conduct field enquiry and take action for demolition of structures raised by respondent No.6 by encroachinl; 30 feet public road to an extent of 14 feet.

4.2. Grievance of the petitioner is that construction activity is being carried on by respondent No.6 by encroaching public road and without considering his representation dated 23.07.2025, impugned order was passed by respondent No.4.

5.1. The case of respondent No.6 is that his wife is owner of Plot No.253, admeasuring 330 square yards, in Survey No.66l3, Raidurgam Navkhalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. As there v/as title dispute in respect of their plot No.253 with the Government, respondent No.6 got the said plot regularized and the Governmen- has executed registered Conveyance Deed bearing Document No.84 l8 of 2021 dated 24.08.2021 in favour of his wife. Respondent No.6 has applied for and obtained building permission on 28.03.2025 and started construction. BVRJ WPs 26953 27159 2025

5.2. The petitioner is owner of Plot No.305. He was issued building permission in 2018 for construction of four (4) upper floors. He has completed the construction as per the building permission. There is 30 feet wide public road on the northern side of his PIot No.305, but on ground, physically, only 18 feet public road is available which shows that the petitioner has encroached 30 feet wide road by constructing compound wall.

6. Heard Mr. T. Ramchander Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Ramachandra, learned counsel for respondent No.6; and Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC - respondent Nos.2 to 5; and perused the material on record.

7. As seen from the above referred pleadings, there is claim and counter claim by the petitioner and respondent No.6 making allegations against each other. That both of them have raised construction in their respective plots by encroaching public road. On considering representations and written submissions along with documents, impugned order dated 30.07.2025 was passed by respondent No.4 recording that respondent No.6 has obtained building permission for construction of stilt + four (4) upper floors in respect of Plot No.253 in Survey No.66l3 of Page4 of6 BVRJ WPs_26953 27159)025 Raidurg }{ovkhalsa village, Serilingampally Mandal vide permit No.013354,/GHMC16L23/5LP212024-BP dated 28.03.2025 duly showing the road afl'ected area of 14.52 square meters out of the Ptot area of 275.g3 square meters and commenced construction activity by excavating earth work. Furlher, it was recorded by respondent No.4 that respondent No.6 left the road affected area as insisted in the sanctioned plan. It was also recorded that the petitioner has obtained building permission for construction of stilt + four (4) upper floors in respect of plot No.305, admeasurin,g 292.41 square meters, vide Permit No.1/C20ll6238l2OlB dated 11.1(1.2018, and constructed the building and thereafter obtained Occupancy Certificate vide Proceedings No.2/C2011168312019 dated

30.07.2019. tt is funher recorded that if the GHMC observes any deviations or violations during construction activity by the petitioner and respondent No.6 in respect of setbacks and the leftover road affected area, GHMC auttrorities will initiate further action as per the provisions of TG- bPASS and the GHMC Act.

8. It is thus clear from the impugned order that the allegations and the counter allegations made by the petitioner and respondent No.6 against each other v/ere found to be not correct. Both the petitioner and respondent No.6 have r:onstructed ground * four (4) upper floors and as of now it BVRJ WPs_26953-27159-2025 appears, there is no encroachment of public road during construction of the respective buitdings by the petitioner and respondent No.6. g. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that physical inspection of both the properties was not done and that there is , encroachment of pubtic road which is evident from the Google location pictures between 2012 and2024.

10. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid contentions of the leamed counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.6 cannot be appreciated in this writ petition as the writ Court is not a fact finding Court and cannot conduct roving enquiry. Moreover, the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.4 by giving opportunity of hearing and considering the detailed explanations submitted by the petitioner and respondent No.6. Thus, there are no merits to entertain both the writ petitions and are liable to be dismissed. ll. Therefore, both the writ petitions are dismissed, at the admission stage itself. However, the petitioner and respondent No.6 are at liberty to approach Civil Court for redressal of their grievance, if they are so advised and if cause of action still survives. No order as to costs. BVRJ WPs_2695i1_27159]025 As e: sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions stand closed. SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ OFFICER To, l.OnecctoSRlTHltvlMARAJURAIVICHANDRARAO,Advocate[oPUC]: 2. One C:C to SRI K. RATUACHANDRA , Advocate [OPUC] 3.oneC;CtoSRIG.MADHUSUDHANREDDY,SCFoRGHI\IC[oPUC]

4.TWOC;CSTOGPFORMCPLADI\NNURBANDEV'HighCOUTIfOTthcStAtEOf Telant;ana at HYderabad - [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies PMK TKS Pc4(\ HIGH COURT DATED:ll9/0912025 r O THE S tA t 2 4 rr8 tritfi ",!. * TCH.ltrq ,\:, j' ;:: COMMON ORDER WP.No.26953 & 27159 of 2025 DISMISI}ING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS @o* ,-t\-l*