High Court · 2025

1. The State Of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretarv Department of ' ii;";ii;;i idmi;Giriiffi ,n.l Uiurn Deveiopment secietariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Having is.Office at ' c,c.dffip6i, tanr euil'RoJd, Hvoei'u'd Represented by its 3. The Dpputy Qommissioner,, Greater Hydel?bad Municipal Corporation' " Sli.ri.6iri'piilv circle-Xxl. Ransa Reddv District' ' 4ThezonalCommission,GreaterHyderabadMunicipalCorporation, Sbrilingampally Circle Ranga Reddy IJtstrtct' 5. The Assistant city Planner, Greater Hyderapad Municipal corporation' " s'.iii ri,i"g-;"i[iir/ C1 rcre-xxt, Ra nsa Redd v D istrict 6. V.SRI Rama Raiu, S/o: V Bhagavan Raju' Aged about 61 vears' occ: Business, R/" Fi"t'N;.90'{ iigrlrZToti l'kshmi Nildvam' Avvappa 6oil"iy, trrtrOnrpur, Ranga Reddy District' occ: Busi ness, nr" i;r Ji iril. I-"oolorl C ri" no i Navar" N asar, Mad h a pu r' T.MadireHariShankar,S/oMadirePrabtruLingamAoed40Vears' HYderabad. a RaiivDuqvala,sio:D.SudhakarRao,AgedMajor,occnotknown,R/02.2- 2olEt&b%sh hmberpet, Hvderabad - 500 013 ...RESPONOENTS Petition undr:r Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia pray'ing that in the circumstances stateC in the affidavit filbd therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass arr :rder, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus Ct:claring the action of official Respondents in rrot considering the Complaints Dated 2710812024 submitted by the Petitioner wherein he requested to visit the site and take 'appropriate action against the illegal constructions over he Plot Nos.420 and 427 , admeasuring 1000 sq.yds in Sy.Nos.11119, 11121) and 1'l121, situated at Survey of lndia Co.op Housing Limited, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District thereby to remove the illegal constructions carried by the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 as illegal, arbitrary, against tc the law and also againsl to the provisions of GHMC Act and consequently direct the officiql Rgspqndents to take action against the illegal construction$ of Reslrondent Nos.6 and 7: thefeby to remove the illegal structures over the above said prroperty. IA O:1 OF 024 Petitiqn gnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be plqased te DIRECT the official Respondents to consider the Complaint Dated 2710812024 submitted by the Peti':ioner. Counsel for the Petilioners: SRI P. ACHUTHAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1; GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI c. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, sc FoR GHMCIOPUCI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 8:--- The Gourt made the'Following: ORDER -5.w.,/ / I 1 i n i I I , l I HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE I( LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.3 1355 0F 2024 ORAL ORI)ER: Heard learned counsel for the petltloners and Mr. G Madhusudhan Reddy Ieamed Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behatf of respondent Nos'2 to 5' In compliance with the order dated 11.11.2024, leamed counsel for the petitioners filed proof of service in respect of respondent Nos 6 to 8 vide USR No'112667 of 2024, dated 18'11'2lz4along with postal tracking report' Perusal of the same would reveal that the notice sent to respondent No 6 was returned un-served with an endorsement 'addressee left without instructions'; the notice sent to respondent No'7 was returned un- served with an endorsement 'addressee cannot be located" while notice sent to respondent No'8 was retumed un-served with an endorsement 'addressee moved'' As per Section - 27 of the General Clauses of Act, 1897, sending notice to the address of party available is suffrcient.

2. The petitioners herein have entered into an agreement of sale dated24.|2'2022withrespondentNo.6forpurchaseofPtotbearing No.420, admeasuring 500 square yards in Survey Nos 11ll9' 11120 ari_ll/2|,SituatedatSurveyoflndiaCo-op.HousingLimited, 2 KL,J W.P nio 31355 of2024 Khanamet \ illage, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy I)istrict, on the specifir: terms and conditions mentioned therein. l.hr: total sale considerati,rr agreed was Rs.3.60 Crores, and the petitioners l_rave paid an amounl ol Rs.50.00 Lakhs towards advance. Respondent No.6 is not receivinpr balance sale consideration and executing a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners. However, the petitioners are initiating step,s against respondent No.6 seeking specific perfbrmance olthe said agr.eement of sale.

3. In ttre meanwhile, respondent Nos.6 to g are proceeding with construction including the construction in the aforesaid plot without obtaining pornission from the GHMC. Therefore, the pctitioners have submin.e,l a representation dated, 27 .0g.2024 to responc.ent No.2 with a requcst to take action against respondent Nos.6 to g. Despite receiving ancl acknowledging the said representation, respondent No.2 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inacrion of respondent No.2, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

4. On I .Il.2024,leamed Standing Counsel for the GFIMC, on instructions. submitted that respondent Nos.6 to g are proceeding with construction rvithout obtaining any permission, and respondent No.3 will take actic,n against them strictly in accordance with the procedure Iuh go*., under law. Even today, learned Standing Counsel for I i l i I 7"/ I i i ;1 I 3 KL-J w P. No.i1355 of2024 n GHMC is not in a position to get instructions as to whether any action has been taken by respondent No.3 against respondent Nos'6 to 8 0r

5. ln the light of the above submissions' this writ petitton rs disposed of directing respondent No'3 to consider the representation dated 27 .0g.2024 submitted by the petitioners, inspect the site, and if the allegations made by them are found to be correct' he shall take action against respondent Nos'6 to 8 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under GHMC Act' 1955 by putting the petitioners and respondentNos'6 to 8 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing' However' it is made clear that respondent No.3 shall not consider and adjudicate the disputes between the petitioners and respondent No'6 with regard to the aforesaid plot pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 24 '12'2022' He shall complete the entire exercise within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order' ln the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitlons' if anY, Pending l );*-.-- '-'- To, I this writ Petiti on shall stand closed' SD'.V. KAVITHA ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ cTlON OFFTCER 'llii:ffi BiiE?:EEIdff f, :H"1l'Sl$ili'JXX'i1Tllli':e'i"ol""o:::"^" ,llfJ"#88.ffi ;*"t:ntil'lk**"xrrQerporation'Havingis ' u?-,.;:[ ;;,H;;* : sl*[!J:;'31'#' " - -F-**'"*****=1t*'*-*xu'**** *'1" " "'' o' o' * 1 : ***- "n*X'f6'XXir<;ftf'f&g 7 4 .."',,",r", The Zonal Conmission. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. benrrngampiat y Circte Ranga Rediy pi.in"t JH ffi:ffi :f 8,n|,3ffi :, One CC to fir p. Achuthar .y: c9: to Gp ror r,,4fril*,il'ffi:i,L":';'"f",",rnenr, tor the State ct felangana, at ilyO"rrOrJjOr;J".,' -" One CC to Sri G. Madhusur two QQ Copies VL jhan Reddy, sc for GHMCIQPUCJ ^",'.";:"liJi;B:?fll1,nicipa, corporation, 5 6 7 8 9. T J BS High court I I I : \ HIGH COURT DATED:21 t02t2O2S ORDER WP.No.313S5 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COIiTS P ",+ +M -i r,.: STri /.(_ ii':c i.) 0 5 lAf, 2025 (;.. ) C * Iqr ,.. .S .-_a ,,sr) *