Bommareddy Siva Kumari v. The State of Telangana

51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn supp^ort of tne pelitro'n, in" ligh Court may be pleased to direct the Resp.ndent Nos.2 & s to ror-tnwiin inliilt" i..nr"arrte a,rtion against the 4th respondent in constructing G+5 upp"r' tr"".."*ithout having vatid buirding permission in plot No 116, situated ,i 'f [\,4iyapur Villag., Serlingampally,^frrfanOaf, -narija nOra- n"OOy _Cotony, {Allwyn Colony), Reddy District by duty considering the R epresentationi/compraints oi ine petitioner dt.o3/01/2024, 0810112024 & 22t11t2023, pending disposat oi tf," Writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI MEGHANA ADDLA SUNEEL Counsel for the Respondent No..l: Gp FOR MUNICI'AL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC Counset for the Respondent No.4: SRI BANDI SAI VAMSHI The Court made the following: ORDER i i J .I'HE I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No. 30271 of 2024 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Raparlhi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing fbr respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Sri Bandi Sai Vamshi, learned counsel {br respondent No.4.

2. Petitioner is claiming that shc is the absolute owner and possessor of plot No.ll5 situated in Indra Reddy Colony (Atlwyn Colony), Miyapur Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under a registered document bearing No.257 of 2000 dated 13.01.2000. Respondent No.4 is her neighbour. He has obtained building permission for construction of Ground + 2 floors and he has constructed third floor in deviation to the said building permission or-der Therefore, she has submitted representation dated 03.01.2024 to respondent No.3 with request to take action against respondent No.4. Despite receiving and acknowledging the same, respondent No.3 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.3, petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. i i. I

3. Sri I{aparthi Venkatesh, leamed Standing Counsel \\ l' :.r.l0,lt'1 ot202.1 x appearing t,lr respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, would subrnit that respondent No.3 has already issued show cause notice to respondent No.4 and passed a speaking order dated

13.12.20).3 directing respondent No.4 to remove the utrauthorizcrl construction. Instead of removing the said unauthorrzerl const[uction, respondent No.4 has subrnitted representatior/application dated 10.12.2024 seeking regularizirtion of unauthorized construction in terms o1- Section 455,4' o1'Crr:ater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (fbr short 'the 1955 Act'), but the same was not cotrsidered. Therc{bre, h,: has filed Writ Petition vlde W.p.No.880 of 2025. Vide ordcr rtated 09.01.2025, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petirion directing respondent No.2 to consider the said representiLtion submitted by respondent No.4 herein and dispose of tlre same in accordance with law, within tour (4) weeks liorn i.he date of receipt of copy of the said order. Till thcn, this Clcurt directed respondent No.3 therein not to take any actlon against respondent No.4 herein. This Courl also directed rcspondent No.4 not to proceed with construction till l ,l 7 thcn. Any deviation to the atbresaid order will be viewcd seliously.

4. Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for rcspondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, would further submit that respondent No.2 wilt examine the apptication submitted by respondent No'4 under Sections 455,A and 455AA of the t955 Act in detail and dispose ol the same in accordance with taw. He has produced written instructions of respondent No.3. The same are placed on record.

5. In the tight of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to comply with the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 09'01'2025 in Writ Petition No.880 of 2025 within the time mentioned therein' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications,, if any pending, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD ANT REGISTRAR AS SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department' The State of i"ir"gini S""retariai' HYderabad' {".1J- I

2. The comrnissioner The Greater Hyderabad Municipar coroor.ation, Adarsh - NaS{. Lower'Tank Bund Road Hyderabad, T.S. 3 The Deputy^Cigln1igsiolgJ, GH-MC, Chandanagar, Hyderabad, T.S. 4 one CC kr SRt TVEGHANA Ap.q!4_S_U_NEqL, Advocite topuil - 5. One CC b SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FoR crI,ic roFi;cr - L-' --J 6 One CC kr SRt BANDT SAt VAIUSH|, Advocate IOPUCI 7 lvo CCs to Op FoR MUNtCtpAL ADI/tNtSTRATION ii URBAN ^ DEVELOPME:NT, High Court for the State of Tetangana. IOUTj 8. Two CD Copies BN GJP g %, HIGH COURT DATED:2710112025 \ \ tE t q o 1t\E S TI, c C,^ , t 30 r.J ll I I t DESP/ r ORDER WP.No.30271 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Q,*'^ 5vl. - 6rw