Mohd. Abdullah Khan v. The State of Telangana

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 order, direction or a Writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 against Respondent No. 4, by riot considering the Representation made by the Petitioner dated 9-10-2024, 18-10-2024 against the illegal construction on the property with Plot No. 136 and 137 in survey no. 182( part), 183 (part) and 142 (parl), admeasuring 492.92 Sq. Yards, situated at Saidabad village and Mandal, Hyderabad, Telangana as arbitrary illegal unfair and consequently direct the Respondent No. 3 to take immediate and necessary action against Respondent No. 5 considering Petitioners representation, to cancel the said permit on the said schedule property. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2,3 and 4 to take action against Respondent No. 5 and make sure that the construction on the said property bearing lrlunicipal No. Plot No. 136 and 137 in survey no. 182( part), 183 (part) and 142(paft), admeasuring 492.92 Sq. Yards, situated at Saidabad viltage $ffandat, Hyderabad, Telangana be halted immediately. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AASHIR MEHTAB KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.l : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV counsel for Respondent No.2to4:SR'fftfifllH vENKATESH, Counsel for Respondent No.S : The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JTJST'TCE K. LAKSHMAN wRIT PETITION No.31778 OF 2024 ORAL ORDER: Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raparthi Venkatesh, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The petitioner is claiming that he is the legal heir of the owner where his late father purchased the property which spans up to 34 acres under a registered sale deed bearding document No.785, dated 1347 Fasli. Plot Nos.l36 and I73 in Survey Nos. t 82 (Part), 183 (Part) and 142 (Part), situated at Saidabad, Charminar Zone falls in the said 20 acres of land. There are multiple disputes over the said property. There is a crime registered against respondent No-5 i.e., Crime No.243 of 2019 by CCS, Hyderabad. Respondent No.5 claims to be owner of the part of the said property with Plot Nos. 136 and 137 in Survey No.l82 (Part), 183 (Part) and 142 (Part)' admeasuring

492.92 square yards. She has obtained building permit order by way of misrepresentation of facts and proceeding with construction. Therefore, he got issued a legal notice dated 10. l0-2024 to respondent No.3 with a request to take action against respondent No.5. Despite 1 KL.., u/ P. No 3 t778 ofl024 receiving and acknowledging the said legal notice, respondent No.j did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction ol respondent No.3, the petitioner filed the present u,rit petition.

3. Perusar of said legal notice wourd revear that there are disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.5 with regard to the subject propertv. Respondent No.5 is not a party to the suit o.S. No.456 ol20ll and A.S. No.l 14 of 2024. The petitioner herein is not even a party ro the W.p. No.29024 of 2009. The petitioner did nor specificatly me,tion the afleged misrepresentation of facts and false statemenr, if any, made by respondent No.5 in the legal notice dated 10. 10.2024. On the aforesaid grounds, respondent No.3 cannot cancel the building permir order obtained by respondent No.5. Respondenr No.i will consider misrepresentatior/suppression of fact and fblse staternent, il an,v, made by respondent No.5 while obtaining building pernrit order in terms of Section _ 7 (ll) of the Telangana State Buitding Perrlission Approval and Self Certification Slzstem (TS_ bPASS) Act, 2020. [Je cannot consider the inter se disputes berween the petitioner ancl respondent No.5.

4. As discussed above, without specifically stating the atteged tn isrepresentatio n/suppression of fact and false statemeltt rnade bv KL.J W.P. No 11778 of2024 respondent No.5, the petitioner cannot issue a legal notice dated

10.10.2024 to respondent No.3 and file a writ petition complaining non-consideration of the same. Therefore, this writ petition is misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed.

5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail altemative remedies. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSIST N REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER 1 The Principal Secretary,lVlunicipal Administration department, State of Telangana, Hyderabad, Telangbna. To,

2. The_Commissioner,.Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, having office at, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabid, T.S.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Malakpet Circle 6, Hyderabad,Telangana 4. The Deputy_Commissioner GHMC, Santosh Nagar Circle 7,Baba Nagar, Hyderabad,Telangana.

5. One CC to SRI AASHIR MEHTAB KHAN, Advocate. [OpUC] 6 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] One CC to SRI RAPARATHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC. [OpUCl \ Two CD Copies. 8 BSK PSK ) HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ORDER WP.No.31778 of 2024 J o U t- 1$E S r4I ,(\ { 2 0 tEB 20[ D4.spaTaue .:a t DISPOSING CIF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS bil*tv