High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 3 I!fi ,f.'f, :1,"3iJ,""J:HT*rJffi ,.JJ.*8,.*,"&:13?lr??J:l3ryo(Municioa, Ih" Municipal commissioner, /special officer, Turkayamjal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. The Town Planning officer, office of the Turkayamjal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONER ...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 a writ, order or direction more.particularly ong in the nature of WRIT OF, MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents are issued a impugned Notice No.G1l683/Tps/TyMCt2ozs, dated.04.0g.2o2s despite explanation along with building permission with sanction plan dated .21.02.2O2s in respect of Plot No.666, 661, 672 and 673 (each plot 200 sq.yards) totally admeasuring 800 sq.yards, or equivalent to 66g.gg sq.mtrs, in sy.No.4g5 part and 510 Part, situated at Turkayamjal Revenue Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District without following due procedure of law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Art.14,300-4 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequenly direct Respondent No.2 and 3 not to demolish the compound walt and sheds in the petiticner prot premises prot No.666, 667, 672 and 673 (each prot 200 sq'yards) totally admeasuring 800 sq.yards, or equivalent to 66g.Bg sq.mtrs, in sy.No.49ri Part and slo part, situated at rurkayamjal Revenue Vilage, Abdullapurrmet Mandal, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. lA NO: 1 OF 2o2s - - Petition under Section 151 CPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affirjavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No.2 and 3 not to demolish the compound wall and sheds in the petitic,ner plot premises plot No.666, 667, 672 and 673 (each plot 200 sq'yards) totally admeasuring 800 sq.yards, or equivalent to 66g.gg sq.mtrs, in Sy.No.495 Part and 510 part, situated at rurkayamjal Revenue Vilage, Abdullapurmet Mandar, under Turkayamjar Municiparity, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI M.RAMESHWAR RAO counset for the Respondent No.1: Gp FoR McpL ADMN URBAN DEV counsel fc,r the Respondent No.2 & 3: sRl KANCHANI LA)(MAIAH, SC FOR MCPL The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY ORDER: (ORAL) Heard Mr. M. Rameshwar Rao, rearned counser for the petitioner, and Mr. Kanchani Laxmaiah, tearned standing counset appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and perused the material available on record.

2. Petitioner is the owner of plot Nos. 666 , 661, 672 and 673 (each plot admeasuring 200 square yards), total admeasuring 800 square yards or equivalent to 66g.gg square metres, in survey Nos. 495 Part and s10 part, situated at rurkayamjal Revenue Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of the registered sale deed bearing document No-11392 of 2024 dated 30.12.2024. The vendor of petitioner ,the obtained building permission in the year 201g, for construction of Ground Floor, from the then Raagannaguda Gram panchayat, Hayathnagar Mandal. on such permission, the vendor of the petitioner constructed compound wall and asbestos shed. while so, one Md- Gouse Pasha and others tried to interfere with possession of the petitioner. A suit in o.S.No .29 of 2024 on the file of the l-Additionat Junior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar, was filed by 2 -- \. 't . -' ':- the petitioner for declaration and title. Ad-interim injunction was passed on 09.01 .2025 in r.A.No.1g of 2o2s and l.A.No.19 of 2o2s against the defendernts therein. The suit is pending adjudication. subsequenfly, the defendarnts trespassed into the ptots of the petitioner and parfly demolished the structures during the midnight hours on 06.02.202s. ln that connection, the petitioner rodged a compraint with Adibafla porice station and it was registered as FlR.No.gs of 202s, which is under investigaltion

3. lt is submitted that Mr. Md- Gouse pasha lodged a complaint before respondent No.2 on 13.02.202s afieging that the petitioner made unauthorised construction. Notice dated 14.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner without following the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. The petitioner fired w.p.No.4632 of 2o2s challenging the said notice. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 18'02.2025 directing the petitioner to submit explanation to the notice dated 14-o2-2o25 and respondent No.2 was directed to consider such explanation and pass orders by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4- Learned counser for the petitioner submitted that in complian<;e of the order dated 1g.02.2025 passed in w.p.No .4632 ot 2025, the petitioner submitted expranation dated 21.02.202s. However, w 3 without considering the explanation of the petitioner, notice No. G1I683/TPS/TYMC t2o2s dated 04.09.2025 was issued cailing upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days as to why unauthorised construction made by them in the subject property shat! not be demolished. The grievance of the petitioner is that even before expiry of seven days, final order vide letter No.G1/6g3/Tps/TyMct2o2s dated 04.09.2025 was passed directing them not to take any construction activity in the subject plots and to obtain fresh building permission from the Municipality. lt is stated in the said order that there is title dispute between both parties and the Municipality cannot permit any construction until the dispute is resolved. Learned counsel \ submitted that in the guise of impugned finat order dated o4.og.2o2s, the respondent aufhorities are trying to demolish the structures made \ in the subject property

5. Learned standing counser appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner nor their vendor have any building permission. The alleged building permission dated 12.06.201g is not a genuine document.

6. However, without entering into the merits of the case and in view of the order dated 18.02.2025 passed in w.p.No.4632 of 202s, respondent No.2 is directed to pass orders on the petitioner's 4 r- \'.^ --'':- _t\ representation/explanation dated 21.02.2025 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Mr. Md. Gouse Pasha and other concerned/interested persons. Pending consideration of such representation/explanation, sfafus quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained in respect of the subject property.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to COSTS As a sequet thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed SD/- A. SREENIV ASA REDDY SISTANT REGI /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ), Dr B. R. Ambedkar uniciPal Ad ad, State of Telangana' oal Secretary (M Tha Princi 'Buitding, HYderaor Secretariat The Municipal Commissioner' /Special n..g, ReddY District' Tfre Town Planning Officer' Office of the Rr:d dy District. Officer, Turkayamial Municipality' TurkaYamjal MuniciPalitY' Ranga M.RAMESHWAR RAO' Advocate [OPUCI Ore CC to SRI One CC to SRI KANCHANI LAXMAIAH, SC FOR MCPL [OP UC] T'wo CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl Two CD CoPies To,

7. BSR BM HIGH COURT DATEET: 2310912025 ORDEFI WP.No,,28867 of 2025 THE S ( (.:) * 1 6 t: Bt: 2{]26 * DISPO$ING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOIJT COSTS roftJt 10 s'r*