High Court · 2025

3. Kum. Kondam Shloka, D/o Sri Ranganadha Reddy, Aged about 13 years, R/o. H.No. 1-7-8811, Nandi Hills Colony, Hunter Road, Hanumakonda. (Petitioners 2 and 3 are minors, and are Represented by their mother, K. Hemalatha, Wo. Kodam Sri Ranganadha Reddy, aged 44 years, 0cc. House Wife, being the natural guardian) ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Administration and Urban Development Department Hyderabad. Secretary, Municipal Secretariat Buildings,

2. The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal. Rep. by its Commissioner, Warangal.

3. Ramidi Raji Reddy, S/o Laxma Reddy, aged not known to petitioners, Rl/o. H.No. 3-1 74, Kamagraphy, Ellantha Kunta, Karimnagar District.

4. Ponaganti Chaitanya, S/o. Shankaraiah, aged not known to the petitioners, R:/o. H. No. 6-1-18, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District.

5. Nalajala Prasad, S/o. Govinda Rao, aged not known to the petitioners, Rl/o. PWD Road, Nanda Nayak Thanda Geesugonda, Warangal District, Rep by his GPA, Ramidi Raji Reddy, Sio. Laxma Reddy,

6. ltha Anil Kumar, S/o. Uppalaaih, aged not known to the petitioners, Rl/o. Perikaid, Rayaparthy, Warangal District, Rep. by his GPA, Ramidi Raji Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy. 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 ...RESPONDENTS to issue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2, in issuing the building permission in Permit Nos. 40838s/GWMC1315912024, Dated. 14-06'2024, 407 1 1 2l GW MC l 30B0 l 2024, Dated. 1 2-06-2024, 41 2520 l GW MC/3368/2024, Dt. 29 - 06-2024, and 409946/GWMC1325112024, Dated. 21-06-2024, respectively, as illegal, arbitrary, un.iust, unreasonable, and violative of Constitutional Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently, set aside the same. 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 suspend the operation of the building permissions issued by the Respondent No.2 in'lt Permit Nos. 408385/GWMC t315gt2o24, Dated. 14-06-2024, 407 1 1 2l GW MCl30Bol2O24, Dt 1 2-06-2024, 41 2520 lcw MC t 3368 12024, Dated 29-06-2024, and 409946/GWMC1325112024, Dated 21-A6-2024. respectively, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PASHAM MOHIT REDDY, SC FOR MCPL The Court made the following: ORDER .TT{E IIONOTTRABI,Ii SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN IIEDDY \\'ltIT PITTITION No.35175 OF 2025 ORDETI (oRAL) I{eard Mr. M. Ivladhava Reddy, leamed coun:el for the petitioner, and Mr. Pasham Mohit Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation, appearing lor respondent No.2

2. It is claimcd that petitioncr No.1 is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring I506 squarc yards in Sy.No.59-3iA2, norv corresponding new Sy.No.593rAi3, situated at Bheenravaranr village, Hassanparthy Mandal, I-lanumakonda District, by virtue ol registcred Gift Deeds bearing document Nos. 16002, 1600i and 16004 of2020. Likewise, an extent o1502 square yards rvas gilied in lavour of petitioner No.2 under Gift Deed bcaring docunrcnt No. 16000 ol 2020 and another extent of 502 square yards rvas gifted in lavour of petitioner No.3 under Gift Deed bearing document No.1600l ol 2020, all executcd by Kondam Jaipal Reddy, father of petitioner No. I and grandfather of petitioner Nos.2 and

3. It is stated that Jaipal Reddy rvas the original orvner of the subject property and was recorded as the pattedar in all concerned revenue records. It is further stated that respondent Nos.3 to 6 purchased neighbouring plots in the year 201 9 frorn third parties, to whom the I I I I I 2 \. g"i"Ii;liiliii'" sisters of petitioner No.1 had earlier sold their respective shares. Rcspondent Nos.3 to 6 thereatier erecuted se lt- rectiflcation d.-t-ds bearing document Nos.5969 o1' 2021 and 6494 o1 2023, altcring thc boundaries of the properry purchased by thern. Based upon such sel{l rectificatirrn deeds, they have obtained building permission lroru respondent No.2. As respondent Nos.3 to 6 allegedll interfered rvith the subject lanci of the petitioners, the petitioners jnstituted a suit in O.S.No.l28 of 2024 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, I{anamkonda, seeking perpetual injunction against rcspondent Nos.l to 6 lor cancellation of the said rectit-rcation deeds. l'he said suit is pending. \Vhile things stood thus, respondent No.l issued building permission to respondent Nos.3 to 6 (Er.P2) rvithoul oroperly verilying the title. The pctitioners submined a representation tlateC Ii. t I .1025 to respondent No.2 requesting cancellation of the bLrilding perrnission granted to respondent Nos.3 to 6. As there was inact;on on the part of respondent authorities in considering their represen tati,rn, thc petitioners rvere constrained to approach this Coun.

3. I-eamed Standing Counsel for Municipal Corpc,ration, appearing for respondent No.2, submitted that representatior o I the petitioners ;. 1 I I I W.P. No.l5 i 75 of 2025 Dated l9.l1.2025 dated 13.1 1.2025 will be considered, and appropriate orders will be passed, in accordance w'ith law,

4. RecordLng the aloresaid submission oi the leamed Standing tlounsel fbr MunicipaI Corporation, appearing tbr resporrdcnt No.2. the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 13.l1.2025 sceking to cancel building permission granted to respondent Nos.i to 6, and to pass orders, in accordance n'ith lau', b1' afprding opportunity ot' hearing to the petitioners, respondent Nos.-l to 6 and all other conccmed/interested persons, within a period of lour (4) rvccks flron.r thc date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.

5. As this order is passed ',vithout entering into the merits, notice to respondent Nos.3 to 6 is dispcnsed ivith. Hor,r,cvcr, if respondent Nos.3 to 6 are aggrieved by this order, ther,'are at liberty to approach this Court seeking modification of this order. 'l-here shall be no ordcr as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed, //TRUE COPY// S - A.sRtrutvnsR Reo DY SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIO N OFFICER To, 1 2 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Adminiskatiqn o"irrttiiSti. b#"i"ii,[ a'lto ingi' Hvderabad State The Commissioner, Greater Warangal Municipal Warangal. and Urban DeveloPment of Telangana. Corporation, Warangal, '= .,<'- - -----i/ .,. -.

3. One CC to SRI [/.MADHAVA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI PASHAM MOHIT REDDY, SC FOR i/CPL IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

6. Two CD Copies BSR d j .t CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 1911112025 ORDER WP.No.35175 ot 2025 Lrtr SIAI A 1 O(, ? 1 ll$I 2s6 .)- ::,:cl -i, I j: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ,\1&t