The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 1si 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 impugned Final Order bearing Notice No.G1/UC/005 lKPRt2o24-2s dated: 16.12.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice and equity Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A.M. QURESHI SENIOR COUNSEL REp SRI MD ABDUL MATEEN QURESHI counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FoR MUNrctpAL ADMrNrsrRATroN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY. S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Ms. SRAVANTHT, AGp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRt FARHAN AZAM KHAN, S.C. FOR TSWB The Court made the following: ORDER I I I ORDER: HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.37OO9 of 2o24 Heard Sri A.M. Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 ald Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standihg Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Ms.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri Farhan Azam Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the record.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the fina-l order dated 16.12.2024 issued by respondent No.2.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is Waqf institution along with its attached properties consisting of five (5) shops situated at KL,J W.P.No.37009 of 2024 2 H.No.20-02, 2O-O3 to 2O-O7, situated at Thimmapur, Khanapur Town, Adilabad Municipality, presently under respondent No.2 Municipality (for short, 'subject property'). They are registered Waqf properties dulY notified in the official Gazette No.46, dated 14.11.20 13. The subject property was constructed after duly obtaining permission from the then Gram Panchayat Secretaqr, Khanapur Panchayat and with the approval of respondent No.4. Petitioners are in possession of the subject property and paying property tax to respondent No.2. trven then, respondents tried to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property without lollowing due procedure laid down under law. Therefore, they have Iiled a writ lretition vide W.P.No.I795O of 2022. When the said writ pt:tition came up for hearing, on 11.04.2022, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Municipalty, on instructions, submitted to this Court Municipality is removing the that respondent No.2 encroachments on the existing 1O0 feet road and they , KL,J W.P.No.37O09 of 2O24 l wilt follow due process of law. Recording the said submission of learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.2 - Municipalitlz, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing respondent No'2 Municipality not to interfere with the petitioners possession over the subject property without following due process of law. Two and half years thereafter, respondent No.2 - Municipality has issued notice, dited tg.ll.2}24 to the Director of petitioners- to submit documents such as Sanctioned Building Permission copy and ownership documents and other documents, if any, in respect of H.No.20-28/C situated at Mahammediya Colony, Khanapur, within seven (7) days' Petitioners have submitted following documents vide its reply, dated

25.1r.2024:

1. Copy of Notice No.G1/OO5/2024, dated 19'71'2024' 2. Order copy in W.P.No. 17950 of 2022 i. Copy of^ Andhra Pradesh Gazettee No'46' dated

14.71.2013.

4. Wakf Board Munthakhab copy, dated 20'09 '2013' 5. Copy of House Tax Receipts from O1'08'1986 up to March 2025 (2O-O3 to 2O-O7l KL,J W.P.No.370O9 of 2024 4

4. ThereaJter respondent No.2 has passed the impugned final order, dated 16.72.2024 stating that petitioners made construction by encroaching 154 Sq. yards of Nirmal to Khanapur Police Station 1OO feet wide road. Report submitted by AD, Survey and Land Records, Nirmal district was relied upon. The site is situated at Mohammecliay Colony, Khanapur and it is, to be removed. Petitioners failed to give valid explgnation to the notice, datcd 19.I1.2O24. Therefore, respondent No.2 - Municipality directed the petitioners to remove the un- authorized construction within 15 days. Challenging the said final order, petitioners filed the present writ petition.

5. Sri A.M. Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel would contend thzLt vide notice, dated 19.11.2024, respondent No.2 requested the petitioners to furnish docutnents and petitioners have furnished documents. But, respondent No.2 did not stated aboLrt the alleged deviated portion or KL,J W.P.No.37O09 of 2024 5 un-authorized construction specilically in the said notice. Without considering the documents and explanation, dated 25.LL.2024 submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has issued hnal order, dated

16.12.2024. The same is in violation of procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. He has placed reliance on the principles laid down in the lollowing two (2) judgments: l. Musununt Rajani a. Vijagautada. Municipal C o rp o r atio n, Vij ag au a dal

2. Common order, dated 25.04.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.272O1 of 2O2l and 1986 ol 2022.

6. Whereas, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has produced written instructions of respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that respondent No.2 has issued notice, dated

19.11.2024 and petitioners failed to submit explaration properly. On instructions, he would further submit that I zoos (l) nlo t7 KL,J W.P.No.370O9 of 2O24 6 entire construction is illegal' Therefore' respondent No'2 has issued notice, dated 19' ll'2o24 ald considered the reply, dated 25.1L.2O24 submitted by the petitioners before passing final order' Therefore' there is no irregularitY.

7. As discussed supra, vide order dated 1l'O4'2O22 in W.P.No.17950 of 2022 this Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession over the subject properties wilh<lut following due process ol law. Therefore, respondent No'2 has to follow the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 by specifically mentioning the deviatecl portion of the construction in the notice' dated 19.11.2024. Without mentioning the deviated portion or un-authorized construction specifically in the notice' dated lg.lt.2024, respondent No'2 requested the petitioners to furnish certain documents' Petitioners have submitted copies of notice, dated 19'll'2o24 issued by / KL,J W.P.No.37OO9 of 2O24 1 respondent No.2, order copy in W'P'No' 17950 of 2022 Gazette No.46, dated 14' Il'2OL3' Ownership certificate of Wakf Board copy, dated l5'lO'2O12 and house tax receipts from 01.08'1986 up to March' 2024 to respondent No.2. In fact, petitioners have to submit permission obtained by them from the then Gram Panchayath. Even now, they have not filed the permission obtained by them from the then Giam Panchayat, Khanapur' They have filed oply renewal proceedings.

8. Though the Petitioners are contending that theY from the then Gram have obtained Permlsslon Panchayat, Khanapur, they have not submitted the same to respondent No.2 along with their reply' 25.11.2024 and they have not Iiled copy of the before this Court. g. As discussed supra, respondent No'2 - Municipality did not specifically mention the petitioners have made KL,J w.P.No.370O9 ot 2024 8 (--' construcl ion by encroaching into 154 Sq. yards in the notice, dated 19.11.2024. Now, in the final order, dated

16.12.20')4, respondent No.2 - Municipality directed the petitioners to remove the un-authorrzed construction made by the petitioners encroaching 154 Sq. yards i.e., Nirmal to Khanapur Police Station. There is also reference to the report submitted by AD, Survey and Land Rec >rds, Nirmal district.

10. It is the specific case of the petitioners herein that the said report was behind back of the petitioners and while conducting the alleged survey no opportunity was given to them.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the entire action of respondent No.2 in issuing notice, dated 19.11.2024 and final order, dated 16.12.2024 is in violation of principles of natural justice, also the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 and also the principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two

1. KL,J W.P.No.37009 of 2O24 9 (21 judgments. Therefore, both the notice, dated

19.1L.2024 and linal order, dated 16.12.2024 of respondent No.2 are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. L2. However, liberty is granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to conduct survey afresh by putting the petitioners on notice and alfording them an opportunity. Liberty is also granted to respondents to issue fresh notice to the petitioners specifically mentioning the details / particulars of the un-authorized construction and deviated portion, granting seven (7) days time to the petitioners to submit explanation. Thereafter take action, il any, against the petitioners herein. Respondent No.2 shall complete the aforesaid entire exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order.

13. Accordingly, this Wirt Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. KL,J W.P.No.37OO9 of 2O24 l0 (a As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO //TRUE COPY// ASQftSTANT j\i'; REGISTRAR ON OFFICER /"' T.G District, T.Ci. Department. Secretariat, Saifabad, T.S., Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secretary J\rlunicipal Administration and Urban Development Z I|g . . Commissioner, Khanapur Municip-ality, Office at Khanapur, Nirmal 3. Th^e District Collector, Nirmal District, Office at Nirmal Town, Nirmal District, 4. The Chief llxecutive Officer, Telangana State Wakf Board, Having Office at _ Haj House, Razzaq Manzil, Nampally, Hyderabad, T.G. 5. Two CCs tr: GP for Municipal Administiation and Urban Development. Hioh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. Two CCs to GP for REVENUE High Court f<jr the State of Telangana, at 7. One CC to .SRl FARHAN AZAM KHAN, S.C. for TSWB [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRTSHNA REDDY, S.C. for Muriicipatities [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI MD ABDUL MATEEN QURESH|, Advocatd tOpUCl 10.Two CD Cooies Hyderabad [OUT] BM MP w HIGH GOURT I DATED:0210112025 ORDER WP.No.37009 of 2024 ,de siq 1 .? 2 2 ttB 2U5 * flr. Spn-reu .-t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\.!PQL s-"