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 a writ of Mandamus That or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondent No.2 [t/anikonda [Municipality, not to implement the speaking order No.9552/G1IUC/TPS/MNl(2025 dated 1 8.03.2025 or the Common Order dated 25.10.2025 passed in WP No. 10378 of 2025 & 10534 of 2025 for demolition of the property situated at Plot No.210, Sy. Nos. 61, 62,64, 65, 67, 6911, 69, 69/1 ,70, 7011,71,72, 7211, 73, 76, 77, 95, B5/1, 96, 94, 12O to 126, Shambhavi Residency, Ground Floor (Commercial Space) Sriram Nagar Colony, Puppataguda Village, Gandipet [Vlandal, Ranga Reddy District, :-.: €:*.=:llw'-i-- f ,/ - until the expiry of a period of four weeks, so as to enable the tenant to make suitable temporary arrangements. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ABHINAV KRISHNA UPPALURI Counsel for the llespondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the l?espondent No.2: SRI KANCHANI LAXMAIAH, SC FOR MANIKONDA MUNICIPALITY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI RAVI GADEELA The Court made the following: ORDER o HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT ONN OF ORDER (oRAL) Heard Mr. Abhinav Krishna Uppaluri, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Kanchani Laxmaiah, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.2; and Mr. Ravi Gadeela, learned counsel for respondent No'3; and perused the rnaterial on record Z. Leamed counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner herein is a party to W.P. Nos.10378 and 14543 of 2025 and after hearing the matters for a considerable tength of time, the common order dated 25'10'2025 was passed directing respondent No.2 to implement the order dated 15-04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.10378 of 2025. Uo*.r"r, respondent No'2 did not remove the unauthorized construction made in the disputed common passage area.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tenant i'e' Zepto occupying the shops of the petitioner has kept its stock in the common passage area. The tenant was informed to make alternative alrangements for shifting its shop and the tenant requested reasonable time to be granted so that alternative alrangements can be made. Learned counsel submitted that after shifting of stock, internal alterations have to be made and after removing the internal walls for restoring the common passage, new walls have to be ? ,L Ij 1 2 constructed which will take substantial time. Thus, the petitioner may be granted one (l) month time to ensure alternative arrangements are made for shifting of stock

4. However, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submiued that two (2) weeks time is sufficient for the petitioner to make alternative arrangements.

5. This C<>urt heard the matter i.e. W.P. Nos.l0378 and 14543 of 2025 on merits and the common order dated 25.10.2025 was passed. Prior to that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to rvork out settlement. This Court mediated with both the parties, however, the parties were not able to arrive at settlement and in the meantime, the husband of the petitioner by name Mr. V.K.Bhat, who is a party in the above said writ petitions passed

6. As it is submitted that the family of the petitioner had been in bereavement for the last few days and that arrangements have to be made for shifting the stock of the tenant of the petitioner (Zepto) and that alterations/ renovations have to be made in compliance of the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.10378 of 2025, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of the justice would be met if four (4) weeks time is granted to the petitioner. However, respondent No.3 will have to be compensated for the delay in restoring the common passage. According to the learned counsel for /**_ I l I I I i I I I I I I I i ! j ,i ) respondent No.3, rent of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) used to be paid by the previous tenant for the commercial space of respondent No-3.

7. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to shift the stock of her tenant i.e. Zepto and for restoring the common passage in compliance of the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.p. No.10378 of 2025,within a period of four (4) weeks from today subject to the condition of the petitioner paying Rs.25,000/- as compensation to respondent No.3 within a period of five (5) days from today. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this l writ petition, stand closed. \ SD/. U. SUDHA SIST}NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, "ll"Gii'ut' " i,- rrrr a n i (o n d a tr/l u n i ci p a I itv' st't".oi i"t u n g una'' Hyd erabad Deve lo pm" nt, s "c;; t" i ss i o n occupation. nuiii'.j0"s""il;;, R"rilli[i;j'rioi"ti' nl6' i-t0-2' Fla[No' 401' Dream Home, O*"i'kl Ni! ?y?11 1 l.ThePrincipalsecretary.,PejarmentofttlunicipalsAdministration&Urban 2 . T ;; 3. M. Krishna ur,{h"v,'s)Ji;i; rt{' S;;"il';kdsh Rao':aoed aboutTl vears' 4. one cc to snr nii'Hirtriv rlis-FiffA uilPoiy*t Advocate IoPUcI 5, one CC to SRI RXi,ibiiXuirAxr.,r[inu,.sdio.rvrAr.rlkor.t-oh ^ ^FF' n Ar.,ana+a toPl lcl 6. bne CC to SRI RAVI GAD.FF.Lj' Advocate IOPUCI 7 rwo ccs to cp'i6i iliur'rrcllnrXoiirNtsTnnrlbN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High court torin"-diii" ott"trngana' [ouT] 8. Two CD CoPies Dirturtr'nugur' Hyderabad' toPuc] MUNIICIPALITY BN \ \ CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED t2111112025 C) t * 1irE s .a t. 2 ? l|0'l m' * ORDER WP.No.3S502 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t\ v I l