The High Court · 2025

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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly, one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, predominantly respondent No.3, for non-consideration of my representation dated 06/10i2025, whilst issuing a speaking order vide notice no. 2409M- 139/TPS/C-28ISBZ|GHIVIC|2O25 dated 2411012025, in respect writ scheduted property, as unwarranted, illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300- ' A of Constitution of lndia and also in violation of GHMC Act, besides being in violation of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents to not take any coercive steps against this petitioner on the writ scheduled property in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 set aside the impugned speaking order vide notice nr>. 2409M-139/TPS/C- 28ISBZ/GHMC/2O25 daled 2411012025 in respect of writ scheduled property, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in tht: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cr)urt may be pleased to stay the impugned speaking order vide notice no. 240gAlV-13g/TPS/C- 28|SBZ|GHMC|2025 daled 2411O12O25 in respect of writ s<;heduled property. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHAIKH CHAND AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No 1: GP FOR MPCL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondents No 2 and 3: SRI G MADHUSiHAN REDDY SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY wRlT PETITION No.33879 OF 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) Heard Mr. Shaik Chand Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and perused the material on record.

2. Petitioner claims to be owner of the property bearing H.No.25-40/1/1 (Old H.No.27-6211), admeasuring 264 square yards or 220.7 square meters, in Survey No.56B, situated at Anantha Saraswathi Nagar, East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri. lt is stated that in the year 1992, the petitioner applied for building permission for entire extent of 264 square yards. However, he was able to construct building only in an extent of 195 square yards for the reason that high tension 1 1 KV electricity wires were passing through part of his property admeasuring 69 square yards. lt is stated that out of total extent of 264 square yards, the area of 69 square yards was kept vacant by the petitioner. Recently, upon several representations made by the colony residents, the Electricity Department removed the high tension u\- \ 2

3. lt is further stated that there were de,riations in the building constructed by the petitioner in 1992 an,J by availing Building Regulation Scheme (BRS), the petil oner got the structures regularised by BRS proceedings No.1/09/l/98 dated

15.02.2001 . The petitioner decided to extend his hrtuse in the left over space of 69 square yards by combining the e:<isting building and he approached respondent No.3 for grant of building permission. However, the application of the pelitioner was not received and he was orally informed that the subject land is notified as wakf property.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrr itted that the existing building of the petitioner was extended ir the left over space of 69 square yards within the premises of the petitioner and without causing any inconvenience to the neighbours or public in general. Respondent No.3 issued show cause notice No. z+OgtW -1 39l f PS/C-28ISBZ/GHMC12OZS dared 24.09. 2025, to which the petitioner submitted reply dated 06.1O.2O2S.lt is further stated that without considering the detailed reply sukrntitted by the petitioner, the impugned speaking order dated 24.1X.2025 was passed. L 3

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that during routine check, the site of the petitioner was inspected by the GHMC officials and it was found that he was constructing building without any sanctioned plan. Show cause notice dated 24.09.2025 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply, but as it was not satisfactory, speaking order dated 24.10.2025 was passed. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the existing building of the petitioner consisting of Stilt+Ground+1 upper floor was regularised by BRS proceedings No.1709/l/98 dated 15.02.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner extended the building in the left over space of 6g square yards upto 2 upper floors and raised 3'd floor pillars by combining the existing building. The site of the petitioner is notified as Wakf Board land, as such, the GHMC officials stopped the construction work being undertaken by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submitted that reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner so that he can apply for regularisation of the extended building under Sections 455A and 455AA of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal \ \ Corporation Act, 1955 (for short'GHMC Act'). I t 4

7. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner, admittedly, does not have building permission for extensicrr of existing building and that the building now raised in lhe open area of 69 square yards is without permission, the impugned speaking order dated 24.10.2025 cannot be interfered with. Howerver, to enable the petitioner to apply for regularisation under Sections 4554 and 455AA of the GHMC Act or for revised buildirrg plan, the impugned speaking order dated 24.10.2025 is keprt in abeyance for a period of six (06) weeks from today. Subject to result of such regularisation application or revised building aprplication, the speaking order shall be implemented. Till then sfafus guo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained in rr:spect of the subject property. The petitioner is also directed no.. 1o make any further construction until his regularisation application or revised building permission is favourably considered.

8. With the above directions, this writ petition it; rJisposed of No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicar:ions, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed I Sd/.C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, The Principal Secretary. State of Telangana, Municipal /\dministration and Urban Development Dilpartment, Secretariat Buildings,'1'lderabad. The commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund road, HYderabad. The Deouty Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation iCUlttCl Malkaigiri Circle - 28, . Medchal Malkajgiri District. .One CC to SRI SHAIKH CHAND AHilIED Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI G MADHUSHAN REDDY (SC FOR GHMC) Advocate toPUcl Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD CoPies 2 J 4 5 6 7 D.N PMK HIGH COURT DATED:1 111112025 ORDER WP.No.33879 ot 2025 .l: f .il SIA ,A' . 9 li|Itj zIIfi /. ll, { DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \