High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed theiewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of fVlandamus, declaring lhe action of the Respondent No.2 issued speaking order No. Lr. No.G 1/537/TPS/NIVC/202 5 dated 24.O9.2025 in view of the complaint of Respondent No.3 directing the petitioner to remove all deviation structu res/co nstruction s in the schedule property within(1s) days from the receipt of this speaking orders, failing which further action will be taken i.e_ removed under TS-bpass act by collecting labour charges from you in respect of the all that the H.No.3-83/2/4lAl1, on Plot No.24,25 and 26 in Sy.No.254, Bandan Layout, Nizampet village, Bachupally mandal, Nizampet Municipal Corporation, lVled ch a l-l\4a lkajgiri dist, Telangana State is wholely illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A - of Constitution of lnd a and consequently this Hon'ble Court dir -.ct to set a side the speaking order No.Lr.No.G1/537/TPS/NMC12O25 dated 24 0().2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu rsitances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court mz y be pleased to suspend the speaking order No.Lr.No.G1/537/TPS/NlVtClz}ZS cttte:d 24.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 in respect of all that the H.No )-ti,3l2lAlAl1, on Plot No.24,25 and 26 in Sy.No.254, Bandari Layout, Nizampet village, Bachupally mandal, \izampet IVlunicipal Corporation, lrrledcha -lr,lalkajgiri dist, Telangana State pencing disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitirner: SRI B.MAYUR REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. FOR SRI V.S.R.M.V.PRASAD SANAKA Counsel for the Resp,rndent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAil DEV counsel for the Resp,rndent No.2: sRl PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -- The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.310 88 0F 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) Heard Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel' appearing for Mr. V.S.R.M.V. Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel for the petitioner' and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned speaking otdet vide Letter No.G1/S37/TPS/NMCl2O25 dated 24'09'2025 was passed directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction atPlotNos.24'25and26inSurveyNo.254situatedatNizampet Village,withinl5daysorelsetheunauthorisedconstructionwillbe removed bY resPondent No.2.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No'2 submitted that on complaint lodged by respondent No'3, action was initiated against thepetitionerforremovalofunauthorisedconstructioninthesubject was issued show cause notice dated property. The Petitioner submitted explanation daled 28'10'2022' 21 .1O.2O22, to which he Later, respondent No.3 filed W'P'No 1621 of 2025 and the same was disposed of by order daled 22'01 2025 directing respondent No'2 hereintoconsidertherepresentationdated30.09.2023ofrespondent No.3 herein within a period of four weeks' lt appears' pursuant to the .- \ -=-.! -\l 2 said order ir W.P.No.1621 of 2025, respondent No 2 passed the impugned speaking order dated 24.09.2025, wherein t is held that the petitioner ha; constructed Cellar + Ground + 4 uppet f oors and pent house unauthorisedly at Plot Nos.24, 25 and 26 in Survey No.254 situated at N zampet Village.

4. Learr ed Senior Counsel submitted that buildinl; permission was granted to the petitioner by the erstwhile Nizampet tlram Panchayat vrde letter No. G. P. N./B P I 34 I 2O1 B-1 I daled 1 7 .OS -20 1 t, for construction of Ground + 2 upper floors. lt is stated that there is a re,medy of appeal under Section 252 oI the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Act') and the petitioner is taking necessary s teps to file the statutory app,eal. However, there is threat of demoliti >n of the subject property, as r;uch, the petitioner is constrained to approar:h this Court.

5. Learrred Senior Counsel further submitted that slafus quo order was passed on 19.09.2019 in l.A.No.B3O of 2019 in O.S.No.128 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, l'4edchal, Ranga Reddy Distrir:t, instituted by the petitioner against respondent No.3.

6. This,lourt is not inclined to express any opinrorr on the building permission is;sued by Nizampet Gram Panchayat and slatus quo order passed by the trial Court. However, as the petitioner i; intending to file the statutory appeal under Section 252 of lhe Act, tie writ petition is \ l disposed of directing respondent No.2 not to give effect to the impugned speaking order dated 24.09.2025 for a period of six weeks. Within this time, the petitioner is directed to take necessary steps for filing the appeal or regularisation application, if any, in accordance with law. As innocuous order is passed, notice to respondent No'3 is dispensed with. However, if respondent No.3 has any grievance, they are at liberty to seek modification of this order. No order as to costs' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed //TRUE COPY// '"''^XE,I'+f,?,EtT'THiH / SECTIb/N OFFICER To, ,, u',ba n Devero p ment *;, g""i"rT:l3[],Y H!,';y;l,t: $;i:':1\%1,"T,1, Municipal Corporation, Nizampet, Bachupally 2 The Commissioner, Ntzampet - - rrlti"oii, Medchal-Malkajgiri dist 3. One CC to SRI V S R M V PRASAD SANAKA' Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY' SC FOR NICPL [OPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADI/N URBAN DEV' High Court for the State of " i;;.s;;";t HYderabad [our] 6. Two CD CoPies BSR 4v HIGH COUR T DATED: 1311012025 CC TODAY " ...-. C,. t\s \ Ct l> -l. - (:,.1) I'r t'. :(.Y 1/ 'ua-l, \ {11'-. ' i.r- t/] . I ORDER WP.No.310tl8 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS $rt , -,J\1(