Bandlapelli Narsaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of tlte constitution of lndra praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewrth, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring lhe notice dated 01 .09.2025 issued by the Respondents No.2 directing the petitioner to stop the construction of the petitioner building situated in open plot admeasuring 214.00 sq yards in survey No 409/AA situated at ward No. 3 of Armoor Municipality, stating that the petitioner is deviating the construction permission granted by the lvlunicipal Authorities though the petitioner did not deviate the sanctioned plan as per building construction permission granted as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the notice dated 01.09.2025 issued by the Respondents No.2 directing the respondents No. 2 to not to interfere with the construction of the petitioner building. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Ser:tion 151 CPC praying that in the circr mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m;r be pleased to the suspend the notrce dated 01 .Og.2025 issued by the Responde r ts No.2. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHINCHU SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AN ) URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA Rt:l )DY W.P.NO:32938 OF 202s Between Bandlapelli Laxmi, W/o. Bandlapelli Narsaiah, Age 46 years, (), c . Housew fe, R/o H- No. 1-17-7912, Rangachari Nagar, Armoor [Vunicipality, Nizarr abad District. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by lts Principal Secretary, r the Municipal Administrative Department, Secretariat Telangana.

2. The Armoor It4unicrpality, Rep. by its Commissioner Armo, r Proper and Mandal Nizamabad District. ....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndr;r praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the l- igh Court may be pleased to rssue an order or direction more particularly one in .he nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the notr ; : dated 01 .09.2025 issued by the Respond,:nts No.2 directing the petitioner to i lp the construction of the petitioner building situated in survey No 409/AA, adrr rasuring 213.99 Sq yards, situated at ward No. 3 of Armoor tt4unicipality, stating hat the petitioner is deviating the construction permrssion granted by the Municip: I Authorities though the petitioner did not deviate the sanctioned plan as per b tilding construction permission granted as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and r nconstitutional and Consequently, set asido the notice dated 01/09/2025 issued )y the Respondents No.2 directing the respondents No. 2 to not to interfere with the construction of the petitioner building. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to the suspend the notice dated 01 .O9.2025 issued by the Respondents No.2. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHINCHU SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY The Court at the stage of admission made the following COMMON ORDER n THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAY!; ]N RE,DDY WRIT P ETITION Nos.32834 AND 3293E (t t 2025 COMN{ON ORDER (oRAr.) Since common issue is involved in both the r,+ r t petitions, rvith the consent of both sides, they are being disposed ol b y this comrron order, at the stagc of admission itselL

2. W.P. No,-rl8l4 ol 2025 is taken as lead czrsc lbr disposal ol these writ petitions

3. Brielfacts in W.P. No.32834 of 2025 are as unl:r

3.1. l'his vn'rit petition is filed by the petit r ner seeking to declare the actiotr of respondent No.2 in issuing noti: : No.G lfuC/32 /ARMR/2025-26 dated 01.09.2025 to the petitioner. r irecting him to stop the construction in the opetl pJot admeasuring .) 4 square y'ards in Sun,er' 5s {QI)/AA situated at Ward No.3 of Arnro ,r Municipality, z\rmoor, as being illegal and arbitrary l 2 l-earned counsel for the petitioner subnr ir ,ed that rvithout - the petitioner, issuing priol ntrtice and seeking explanation o impugned notice dated 01.09.2025 was issued b1'r:spondent No.2 2 ! directing him to stop the construction activity, in contrary to the provisions of the 1'elangana Municipalities Act 2019.

3.3 Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel lbr respondent No.2 f umished written instructions and submitted that the petitioner and his u,it'e i.e., Mrs. Bandlpelli Laxmi (peritioner in W.p. No.32938 ol 2025) obtained two individual building permissions in F i I e Nos.,lO2 789/ARMO/02 I 81 2024 and 4O2B I 7 I ARMO I 02 I 8 / 2024, both dated 08.07.2024 respectively for construction of independent residential houses on their respective portion oflands. However, they violatcd thc building permission and consrructed single building. Tlrerclore, irnpugned notice dated 01.09.2025 was issued directing them to stop the construction activity immediately and remove the deviated portions constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan. i.4 l-camed standing counsel further submitted that responde nt No.? received a complaint from Mr. J. Ramakishna on

01.09.2025 stating that petitioner and his wife, Smt. Bandlapeili Laxrni, atc proceeding with the construction activity in the land admcasuring 506.00 square yards in Survey Nos.409 and 412 situated at Annoor, based on disputed and false registration documents 7 -) The said property is under litigation before the le r ned Junior Civil Judge, Armoor (for short 'tnal Court') in O.S. ,lo.l61 of 2020. Subsequently. another notice dated 19.09.2025 * rs issued to the petitioner and his wife i.e., Smt. Bandlapelli Lax ni (petitioner in W.P.No. 32938 of 2025) directing them to srr' ,mit explanation regarding the unauthorized construction and als I regarding the construction ol single building instead of two buill ngs, in deviation of the sanction plan. The petitioner and his wift: were directed to fumish relevant ownership documents, building perr .issions and were also directed to stop construction activity. In resp,r rse rhe petitioner and his wife submitted their ownership documents i nd informed that O.S. No. I 6l of 2020 was disposed of by the trial Cor rt.

3.5 Learned standing counsel stated that he complainant, Mr. J. Ramakrishna, Ilted another suit in O.S. No. l(6 ol'2025 before the trial court rclating to alleged double registrati,r r of the disputed property. Subscquently, respondent No.2 addres;:d a letter dated

14.10.2025 to the Tahsildar -cum- Sub-Registrar, I rmoor, to verify ownership details of the petitioner and his wife r respect of the 4 disputed propefty, and the report of Tahsildar-cum-Sub- Registrar, Armoor is awaited

4. ln response, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Show-cause notice dated 19.09.2025 has not been served on the petitioner and his wife, however, they have submitted reply dated

25.10.2025 to the impugned show-cause notice dated 01.09.2025

5. In view o[ the above submissions, these writ petitions are disposed of, directing the petitioners to approach respondent No.2 to receive show-cause notice dated 19.09.2025, within a period of three (03) days from the date ol receipt of copy of this order. Respondent No.2 is directed to fumish copy of show-cause notice dated

19.09.2025 to thc petitioners. On receipt of such notice, the petitioners are directed to submit explanation to the show-cause notice within a period of seven (07) days thereof. On receipt of explanation to the show-cause notice dated 19.09.2025, respondent No.2 is directed to conduct enquiry pursuant to show-cause notice dated 01.09.2025 and 19.09.2025, and pass orders, in accordance with law, by issuing notice to the petitioners, the complainant, Mr. J. Ramakrishna, and all other concerned/interested persons, and 5 by affording them an opportunity of hearing, withir a period of four (04) weeks thereof. There shall be no order as to cos s As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicatior;. if any, pending in these writ petitions stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- C.DEEPIKA AS$ ISTEUT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To Thp Princioal Secretary to the fvlunicipal Administrativer )epartment' i;;;i;ill State of reiangana at Telansana The Commission"|.' A|.'oo|.' M-''ni"iiuriivJ A|.*oor Prope ' and N4andal |fftfil?F'it* r"tt ADN/N AND uRBAN DE\'r:LoPIr4ENr' Hish ciJritir. tii state of relangana at Hvderab€d, t9u]] X""I'Uc'til'sniEurr'rcnu dCnAN kuH'rnn Advoca ' t-of qcl EnE;6 i" EHi FuirA r<nr'silin nroDY' Advocate I )PUC) Two CD CoPies 1 2 3 4 t) SA TKS I HIGH COURT ) DATED:31 11012025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.32834 AND 32938 of 2025 /l 14 [a[ 20m ,j t ., -.,'. l. \,. : ,,. DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COIJ IS. o