lvlohammed Niyazuddin v. The State of Telangana

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 pass a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents as illegal and arbitrary. The Respondent No. 2, tvlunicipal Commissioner, Jagtial tVunicipality, is sought to seek direction from this Hon'ble Court to consider the representations given by the Petitioner dated 06-05- 2024 and 09-08-2024, and take immediate action to address the illegal encroachment as supported by the AD-lnterim Injunction Order dated 06-08- 2024in l.A. No. 302 of 2024 in O.S. No. 203 of 2024. The inaction of the Respondent, despite police acknowledgment JGJAGJGLTLN.JGL.090B24/01 069 dated 09-08-2024, is unjustified and prejudicial, warranting judicial intervention. The Petitioner seeks protection of his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the 69.66 square y,rds open Iand. Any other rerief deemeri fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court is also prayed for to uphold justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2O2s Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High cc t rt nray be pleased to issue an interim din:ction to the Respondent No. 2, the N4ur icipal commissioner, Jagtial Municipality to consicrer and act upon the petitic ners representations dated 06-05-2024 and 09-08-2024 pending the finat dispos,:rt of this writ petition. This direction is sought to address the illegal encroachm: ri on the petitroners 69.66 square yards open rand, as supported by the AD-rnt:rim rnjunctron order dated 06/08/2024 ir l.A. No. 302 of 2024 in o.s. No. 2o3 tt 2024. The inaction despite the police acknowledgment JGJAGJGLTLN.JGL ix)0824/0i069 dated o9-08-2024 necess tates urgent judicral intervention. Thr: petitioner seeks to prevent further irreparable harm to his peaceful possession rnd enjoyment of the property. Any additi,nal rerief deemed fit by this Honble c. r11 is also prayed for to ensure justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MD.FASIUDDIN counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FoR McpL ADMN ArrD uRBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA RE DDy. SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32011 OF 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) Heard Mr. Md. Fasiuddin, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that acting upon the cornplaints of the petitioner, show-cause notice vlde Notice No.UCR.No.G I /MC J /W30 I 7 3 5 12024 dated, 12.07 .2024 w as issued to respondent No.3 to explain as to why the unauthorized construction made by her in the property bearing H.No.5-1-102, Rahamathpura, Jagtiat, should not be removed. Subsequently, speaking order vide UCR.No.G 1 /MCl lW30l7 3 5 /2024 d,ated 08.08.2024 was also passed Further, final notice dated 31.12.2024 was also issued to respondent No.3 directing her to remove the unauthorized construction rnade in the subject property.

3. It is submifted that respondent No.2 addressed letters dated

25.04.2025 and 28.05.2025 to the Superintending Engineer, TSNPDCL, Jagtial, stating that the officials of respondent No.2 have ) inspected ttc subject propefty and found that lhe building W.P. No.320l I of 2025 Dated 24. 10.2025 constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Res rondent No.3 was also directed to submit explanation. As respond,: tr No.3 lailed to submit any t'xplanation, speaking order dated 08.03 2024 !\,as passed and file was fbrwarded to the District Task Forcr: 'l'eam lbr taking necessary acrion. The Superintending Engineer was also requested to disconnect tlrc clectricity connection to respondent l.Jo.3 in respcct of the subject property

4. Griev:,nce ol'the petitioner is that having issued show-cause notice, speaking order and final notice to resp,)rldent No.3 fbr removing uneLrthorized construction in the subject [) opertv, no action has been initrated, as such, he is constrained to appr,t rch this Court

5. [n the above circumstances, the writ petiti()n is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to forthwith implement thr t-inal notice vide Notice No.L:('R..No.G 1,MC J lW 3017 3 5 12024 dated 3 1.12.2024. and remove the unar,rthorized construction made by resprt rdent No.3 in the propefty bearing I{.No.5-1-102, Rahamathpura, Jagtial, within a xe@ry J W.P. No.l201 t of 2025 Datcd 24 .10 .2025 period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As this order is passed without entering into the lncrits' notlce to respondent No.3 is dispensed with. However, if respondent No'3 is aggrieved by this order, she is at tiberty to approach this Court seeking modification of this order' There shall be no order as to As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT EGISTRAR SECTIffiOFFICER To, 1 2 rhe p ri ncipa r secreta ry, LrAun['#J iig'ru'j:i] "&#i' Y:131n ?fJ''o'*" Department, Secretariat' Fl) The Municipal Commissioner' Jagtial Municipality' Jagtial Town and Oistrict' n' Telangana

3. One CC to SRI [/D FASIUDDIN' Advocate IOPUC] 4 One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY' SC FOR MCPL [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV' Hiqh Court for the State of " i;;rs;;";t HYderabad [oUTl 6. Two CD CoPies WBSR HIGH COURT DATED:2411012025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.32O11 of 2025 ==':= o c(-) * ,4 !fi 2025 J- (, t. algrg.r-',/'' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 61 t^ IO