High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHET,' Between flffi x]:ifl ffl i,,ilff.]ii,H:]jrnr:,r#":ritsilL,::r?ft ,?ni:

1. The State of Telanoan.a pa^ r.., 'Alru[1[:311"Ji:',rffi AND .PETITIONER s;,'J,H*?Bs:',,"f3;?1g;xg',:'is;i,*nss, ^ff 2' 3 4 Sffiililf,tt'#o1o Municipar corporation, Rep. bv its commissioner, rank I$,TSfJ:r_",fJ[",?EI]*oo::,?,,:.. Hyderabad Municipar corporation circre_ lf:ffi t':',ii 3t1[j?:L";,3 !?il,3r H vd era bad M u n ici pa r co rpo ra rio n c i rcre- ...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 pass an orders, or issue any directions or issue any appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the show cause Notice vide Notice No. 1g4/TPS/Dclc1}lt<ZtcHMctzo2lDated 06.o8.2o25 illegat, high-handed action of the respondent No. 3 in respect of property situated at H no g-2-2g3tN1152 & 11521A, Road no 57, Jubilee hills, Hyderabad accordance with building permission permit No. 0081/GHMC/SWBP/KHB p2t2025 Dated 22.05.2025 and permit no 0084/GHMC/SWBP1KHBP211OZ1 dated 22.OS.2OZS as iuegat, arbitrary, uniustandillsoagainsttheprovisionsofHMCActlg55andTS-bpassAct z2z1andviclationofArticlesl4'lgand2lofConstitutionoflndia' NO: 1 OI= 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to 2g3tfil115'.2 &1152tA' Road no 57' Jubilee hills' Hyderabad in-spite having directtheRespondentsnottodemolishthepropertyisituatedatHnoS.2- buildingpermissionpermitNo.00Bl/Gl.lMC/SWBP/KHBP2t2o25Dated 2025 dated 22'05'2025' 22.05-2025 and permit no 0084/GHMG/SWBP/KHBP2/ pendingdisposalofmainWritPetitionintheinterestofJustice. Counsel lbr the Petitioner: SRI G' VENKAT RATNAM GOUD Counset ,ior the Respondent No.1: GP FoR llJlCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV CounselfortheRespondentsNo.2to4:SRtM.ARUNKUMAR,SCFoRGHMC The Court made the following: ORDER TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISI{ETTY ORDER: No' I 94/Tps/Dc/crg/Kz/GlMc/2025, This writ petition is fired to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in issuing show cause notice dated 06.08.2025 in respecr of rhe properries bearing H.Nos.g-2 -2g3/NrL52 & rr'2/A,Road No'57' Jubilee H,ls, Hyderabad, as ,regar, arbitraryand against the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipar corporation Acr, 1955 and TS-bPASS Act,2020. 2' Heard Sri G.venkat Ratnam Goud, rearned counsel for petitioner, and sri M.Arun Kumar, rearned Sh.ding counser for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute lessee of the subject plots having enrerccr inro rease agreement with the owners thereof and that the owners have obtained valid building permissions and handed over the subject plots to the petitioner. He fuither submitted that the petitioner, being absolute lessee of the subject plots, starred developing the same by constructing a play zone for business purpose and while So, respbnclcnt No.3 issued show cause notice to the original G{, 2 LNA, J WP.No-29440 of 2025 owners, but, no such notice was served on the Petitioner and as such, he never had an opportunity to submit reply thereto' Learned counselfurthersubmittedthattherespondent.authoritieshave stoppedtheconstructionworkonthesubjectplotsandtheyare trying to demolish the structures, without following due process of lawandhence,petitionerapproachedthisCourtbyfilingthe present writ Petition. By submitting thus, leamed counsel prayed to a[[<lw the Writ Petition' 4. Learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has placed on record the Action Taken Report, as per which' the respc'ndents have issued notice dated 06.08.2025, under Section l0 of the TS-bPASS Act, 2020, to the owners of the subject prop,:rties, aflorded opportunity of personal hearing to them on 2O.Oil.2O25 and thereafter, passed speaking order on 22.09.2025 direc,ting them to remove the unauthorized construction.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 subnritted that the petitioner is only a lessee under an unregistered leasr: agreelnent deed and therefore, he has no locus standt to file the ,rresenr writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated against the owners of the subject properties 3 tr?Na2e140:f*; separate permissions/pran

6. perusal ofrecord discloses that one M.Deepa Reddy and one M'Ram Reddy, owners of the subject properties, have obtained approvars for construction of residential building consisting of stilt * three ,nnar n^_ rnree upper floors for two separare prors, bur, con,. : :^;^ rtrary to the approved plans, a shed has been constructed combining both the plots, which is unauthorized and contrary to the permissions granted by the respondents. The petitioner is said to be the lessee of the aforesaid prots under an unregistered lease agreement dated 01.04.2025, Further, a bare perusar of the lease agreement indicates that the same is executed on a white paper and not even on stamp paper. Therefore, no right or interest over the subject plots accrues to him based on such unregistered lease agreement. Except the lease agreement, no material whatsoever is praced on record to show that petitioner has authority/power or that he is entitled to chalrenge the proceedings initiated by GfUf,fC in respect of the subject plots. 7 ' In this context, it is apt to refer to the judgmenr of the High court of Judicature at Bombay in writ petition No.13254 of 2022 {vivek Krushno Dode vs. The state of furaharashtra}.lt is a case where the petitioner therein, a tenant of the subject premises, t 1 ) 4 LNA, J WP.No.29440 of 2025 challenl3ed the notices issued under Sections 52 and 53 of Maharzrshtra Regional Town Planning Act' 1966' and the High CourtrlfBombayheldthatatenantofastructurecannotchatlenge thenoticeunderSections52and53oftheMRTPAct,onlythe landtord can challenge the same' 8. Thus, the opinion of this Court that the petitioner has no locusstanditofitethepresentWritPetitionchaltengingthe proceedings initiated by the respondents-GHMC against the owners of the subject plots is fortif,red by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court of BombaY' In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed' g. 10. Miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shatt stand closed' No costs. SD'. B.REKHA RANI ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER t \ I To, ., 1. one CC to SRI G. VENKAT RATNAIVI GoUD, Advocate [oPUC] of Te,langana at Hyderabad . [OUT]

2. rwo ccs to Gp FoR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High cOUrt fOr the statg 3. one oc to sRt M.ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC. tOpUCl ^- -1. Two CD Copies PMK TKS NT HIGH COURT DATED:16/1 025 I oR THE S o(-) ! )t 1 6 !:[8 2{i2[ t * ORDER WP.No.29440 of 2O2S .?l:+,lt_sstNc rHE wRtr pEilfloN WITHOUT COSTS ,$ ,Nv