The High Court · 2025

THE HO N'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30485 of 2023 ORDER: This writ petition is Iiled seeking following relief: "For the reasons aforesaid it is humbly prayed that this Hon'blt'Cottrt ma1' be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particularl] in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the actiin of ihe Respondents in interfering \,!,ith the construction carried out by the Petitioner over the propertv benring Plot No. 182, admeasuring 220 Sq Yds situated in Sy Nos 92' 93' 94' 95' 97' and 98 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Man<tal and Municipalit\'' lianga Reddy District, Telangana as being void' illegal' arbitran-' \\ithout iurisdiction' violative of Articles 14 and 3O0A of the Constitution of lndia and pass such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble court may deem tit atrd p|oper in the circumstances of the case." i I I I

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.182, admeasuring to an extent of 220 square yards in Survey Nos.92, 93, 94, 95, 97 and 98' situated at Miyapur Village' SerilingamPallY Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the subject property'), having purchased the same from Sri K.Ganesh Bhoopal Rao through registered Sale Deed dated 13'03'2023 stated that the bearing Document No.3923 of 2023 ' petitioner made an application and obtained the subject property construction over No.2295lGHM C I SLP I 2O23-BP dated 07'O7'2023 and the said building permit order, the petitioner has construction over the subject property' The grievance of the petitioner is uide Permit permission for commenced the It is further after obtaining I 2 that the respondents are frequently visiting the subject properff and interfering ancl causing obstruction over the construction activity'

3. Sri G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6 has submitted that there are boundary disputes in the lands in Survey No.100 of Hafeezpet and Survey No'101 of Miyapur Village. Learned standing counsel further submitted that since there are houndarjz disputes in respect of the above said lands, the respondents have taken up a survey aI1d after conducting survey, they will proceed in accordance with law, if the property of the Government is lound to be in possession of the petitioner'

4. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the parties fairly submit that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by orders dated 18.O2.2025 and L0.06-2024 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.4620 of 2025 and 13978 of 2024 respectively.

5. The operative portion of the order dated 18.02'2O25 passed in W.P.No.462O of 2025 reads as under: '8. In the light of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to request the Surveyor to serve notice on the petitioner and the owners of the plots on the addresses mentioned in the cause title and registered development agreement-cum-irrevocable general power of attorney bearing clo<:ument No.7682 of 2021, daled 09.O4.2021. The petitioner shall (. 3 proceed with the construction, strictly in accordance with the said building permit order dated 29.O3.2022' Till the said exercise is completed' respondent No.2 shall not interfere with the constluction activity being carried out by the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid building permit order dated 29 03 2022' In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs'"

6. The operative portion of the order dated 1O'06'2024 passed in W.P.No. 13978 of 2O24 reads as under: In view of the above, while permitting the petitioner to file his reply to ' 1 1. the notice dated i8.05.2024, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be permitted to proceed with the construction as per the building permission obtained by him from the Municipal authorities as per the permission dated 13.07.2018 at his cost and risk and shall not be entitled to claim any equities in the event of the respondent authorities adjudicating the subject plot as not falling in Sy. No.15O of Hafeezpet village' lt is further made clear that the petitioner shall not encumber the subject property in favour of 3tr1 parties' Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed oI No

12. costs."

7. In view of aforesaid submissions arrd for the rea-sons assigned by this Court in the orders dated 78'02'2O25 and LO'O6'2O24 passed by this Court in W'P'Nos'462O of 2025 and 13978 of 2024 respectively, this Writ Petition is disposed of on same terms and with similar directions. It is needless to observe that the respondents shall issue notice to the petitioner as per the address mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition before taking any action' in accordance with I 1aw. 4 Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed \ There shall be no order as to costs. SD/-P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA GIS //TRUE COPY// To OFFICER 1. The Principal Secreta ry, Revenue Department Se etariat, Hyderabad, State 2 J 4 5

6. ga Redd y District of Telangana. District Collector, Ran Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendra Nagar Division, Ran gia Reddy District Tahsildar, Serilin gampally l/andal, Ranga Reddy District The Zonal Com mrssioner, Greater H yderabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampa lly Zone Ranga Re ddv The Ciiy Pian ner, Serilingampal ly Zo Corporation, H derabad Y One CC to SR I\,1 NAGA PEEPAK Advocate [O I Two CCs to GP FOR REVEN UE, H Hyderabadlo Q to SRI CD Copie S 8'lruonuru DAN REDDY, QQ FOR GHMC TQPUC] igh Court for the State of Telangana, at ne, Greater Hyderabad Murlicipal PUCI 7 8. L One lo Two (Along.with.a. copies of the qrders dated 1L.OL.ZQZS and 10.06.2024 passed by this court in Wp.Nos.4620 qfZO2Sind i3918 otZQ24 respectively) PSK BS fntC,. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.462O OF 2O25 ORAL ORDER Heard Mr.V.S.R.M.V.Prasad Sanaka, learned counsei for the petitioner, learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1 and Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2

2. The petitioner herein has entered into a registered development agreement,cum-irrevocable general power of attorney with regard to the plot bearing Nos.365, 366, 367 and 368, admeasuring 222 square yards each, in total admeasuring 888 square yards, in sanctioned layout plan by HUDA vide File No.5424/MP/HUDA/gt in Sy.Nos.92 , 93, 94, 95, 97 and 98, situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, within GHMC limits.

3. The petitioner has obtained building permit order dated

29.O3.2O22 for construction of I stilt + 5 upper floors over the subject property. According to the petitioner, it has commenced the construction and it is at the footing stage. 2 The petitioner is proceeding with the construction, strictly in accordance with the said building permit order dated

29.O3.2022. Even then respondent No.2 is interfering with the construction wit hout following the due procedure laid down under the larv. Challenging the said action of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Whereas, Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, learnecl Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that there is a dispute with regard to the lald in S1,.No. 100 of Hafeezpet and Sy.No. 1Ol of Miyapur Village ol' the same Mandal. In compliance with the order of this Court, respondent No.2 has already requested the survey authorities to conduct surwey for the purpose of demarcation of the aforesaid land to frx the boundaries. Survey was almost complete, however, respondent No.2 wili be requested to serve notice on the owners of the plots and afford them an opportunity of hearing.

5. Similar issue fell for consideration in W.P.No. 13988 of

2024. Yide order dated 06.06.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.2 to get the land .,1 J surveyed and dema,rcate the same by fixing the boundaries through the officials of Survey, Settlement and Land Records after putting the petitioner and all other cohcerned parties on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. This Court also directed respondent No.2 not to dispossess the petitioner therein lrom the subject property and that both parties shall maintain Status quo.

6. Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, would further submit that except conducting survey, respondent No.2 never interfered with the possession of the subject property. On completion of survey, if the construction is within the aforesaid four plots, respondent No.2 will not interfere with the construction activity being carried out by the petitioner and the possession of the petitioner and the owners of the plots. Otherwise, respondent No.2 will take action against the owners of the plots and the petitioner herein, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the law,

7. As per the said building permit order dated 29.O3.2O22, the petitioner has to commence the construction on or before I 29 .Og.2O22 and complete the construction on or before 2g.O3.2O25. The petitioner is contending that it has already commenced the construction on or before Z9 'O9 '2022' but the constrLlction is at footing stage and the petitioner has to complete the construction on or before 29 'O3 '2025 ' failing which it will be treated as illegal construction The petitioner has to necessarily approach the GHMC authorities seeking extension of time for completing the construction' In the light of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of 8. d.irecting respondent No.2 to request the Surveyor to serve notice on the petitioner and the owners of the plots on the addresses mentioned in the cause title and registered development agreement-cum-irrevocable general power of attorney bearing document No'7682 of 2021' dated Og.O4.2O2l.'The petitioner sha1l proceed with the construction, strictly in accordance with the said building permit order dated 29 -O3.2O22 ' Till the said exercise is completed, respondent No.2 shall not interfere with the construction activity being carried out by the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid building permit order dated a 5

29.03.2022. In the circumstances of the case. there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneod! petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. February L8,2o25 K. LAKSHMAN,J :

4., THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 1 3978 0F 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for issualce of a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in interfering and attempting to demolish the buiiding on the subject properly without issuing any notice or affording al opportunity for hearing and without following ary procedure contemplated under law, as being illegal, arbitrary .a_nd unconstitutional and with a consequential direction to respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with the subject property without following due process of law.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learnqi Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, ald with the consent of parties, the Writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission. I )

3. The facts of the present case are more or less identical to the facts of that case have fallen for consideration by this Court in W.P. No.13988 of 204 with regard to the development of the layout and plot being sold therein as failing in Sy. No. 15O of Haleezpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, while the 4th respondent is that the subject land whereat the petitioner is undertaking construction falls in land in Sy. Nos. 1O0 and 1Ol of Miyapur village. 4 . Though the respondent authority in the aforesaid Writ . Petition had contended of the authorities issuing notice in Form-A dated 18.05.2024 as also in this case by affixture and this Court having held that the service of notice by affixture is by foliowing the procedure prescribed, the claim of the 4th respondent of serving notice on petitioner by affixture cannot be accepted as a valid defence for it to be sustained.

5. This Court, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, while noting that the petitioner has rejected/denied to take notice whereby the authorities have resorted to serving the notice by affixture, however, taking note of the fact that the husband of the petitioner therein who was present in the Court and was willing to accept the same directed the respondent to serve a copy of the notice on the husband of the petitioner who had .|\ 3 acknowledged the same. In the facts of the case, the same said person who had accepted the notice on behalf of his wife is the petitioner herein and the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been instructed by him to receive the notice on his behalf for him to submit an explanation thereto within the period indicated therein.

6. Upon the aforesaid statement being made to this Court, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 had handed over a copy of the notice in Form-A dated 18.05.2024 to Mr. Karthik Madhalu, leamed Counsel representing Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner who had acknowledged the receipt of the same.

7. Since the notice as issued by the 4th respondent has been served on the petitioner through learned Counsel today and a time period of ten (10) days is provided therein, this Court is of the view that. the respondent authority should be directed to take further action in the matter, after considering the explanation/ reply if any liled by the petitioner.

8. Since, the respondent on the basis of the notice in Form-A dated 18.05.2024 clairrrs to have semed by a_flixture have resorted to partly demolish the subject construction and the I 4 said service of notice by afhxture has been hetd as invalid service,thisCourtisoftheviewthattherespondentauthorities are to be restrained from taking any further action in the matter, till such time the authorities shall consider the Iiled by the Petitioner to the explanation/ rePlY that maY be notice dated LA.O5-2O24. g. Further, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is in the process of construction and intended to proceed with the construction, in the mean time even before the authorities considering the explanation that may be submitted by him to the notice dated 18.O5.2024, this Court directed the petitioner tolrleanaffidavitundertakingnottoclaimequitiesintheevent theclaimofthepetitionerthatthesubjectpropertyfallsinSy. No. i 5O of Hafeezpet village as against the claim of the 4th respondent that the subject property as falls in Sy' Nos' 1OO and 101 of Miyapur village fails, in order to proceed with the construction

10. Pursualt to the aforesaid direction of this Court' the petitioner has filed the undertaking affidavit' uide l'A' No'2 of 2024 winerebY the Petitioner had undertaken not to claim anY equities by proceeding with the further construction in the event 4- 5 of the authorities not accepting the contention of the petitioner as may be raised by its reply to the notice dated 18,05.2024 and also subject to the survey directed to be _undertaken by this Court in the order passed in W.P. No.13988 of 2024. 1 1. In view of the above, while permitting the petitioner to file his reply to the notice dated 18,05.2024, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be permitted to proceed with the construction as per the building permission obtained by him from the Municipal authorities as per the permission dated l3.O7.20la at his cost and risk and shall not be entitled to claim any equities in the event of the respondent authorities adjudicating the subject plot as not falling in Sy. No. 150 of Hafeezpet village. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not encumber the subject property in favour of 3rd parties.

12. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shatl stand closed. Date:10.O6.2024 MRKR T. VINOD KUMAR, J HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 \ ORDER WP.No.30485 ot 2023 In5 SLI /4. ? J grry Zozs (( 2 .l.i \i.---:-:---:-.-j- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4ntq, "-lslN