✦ High Court of India · 23 Dec 2025

Samudrala Bharathi v. The State of Telangana

Case Details High Court of India · 23 Dec 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
23 Dec 2025
Length
1,339 words

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cor- r may be pleased to direct the Respondents to stay all further proceedings inc uding any coercive steps vide Order Notice No. 1OBB0AIV. NO.i.l4lClR-2i\,<ZlcHMCl2O2S dt. 05-012-2025 U/s 461-4 of GHTMC Act, 1955 against tl-r building premises bearing Plot no. LIG-457 (15-13-Vll-L-457) situated at 7th F,t ase, KpHB Cotony, Kukatpally, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Dr. J.VIPLAV BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN Ull 3AN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI K.RAVI MAHENT ER, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT P ETITION No.39355 0F 202s DATE: 23-12-2025 Between: Samudrala Bharathi AND The State of Telangana, 3"p, !V its principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, and three others. ORDER: (ORAL) .. Petitioner .. Respondents This writ petition is filed to declare notice No.1Ogg0M.No.114l CIR-23|!<ZIdHMC\2O2S dated 05.12.2025 issued by respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner, Circle_23, Moosapet, under Section 461A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'GHMC Act'), to seal the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner in her plot admeasuring gg.66 square yards situated at KPHB Colony ph-Vll, Kukatpally, Moosapet Circte 23, Medchal_ Malkajgir District, without giving an opportunity to prefer the statutory appeal as mandated under Section 461-A (2) (3) of the GHMC Act, as being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia )

2. Heard Mr. Dr. J. Viplav Babu, learned r ounsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned Stanc ing Counsel for -i GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, et d perused the material available on record

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submil:d that building permission was granted to the petitioner for constrt ction of stilt for parking+2 upper floors vrde permit No.32374218,',85/GHMC/2023 dated 05.09.2023, as against that the petitioner co tstructed stilt+S upper floors. One person of her locality by nam,: Mr. P. Abilash Reddy, having political clout, had been harassing tr.' petitioner and also he had been extorting money from severa ceople of their Colony. At his instance, the GHMC authorities issue i the impugned notice. Later, the petitioner came to know that sirr w-cause notice daled 14.07.2025 was issued and subsequently th,: sp"r*'nn ord"|. (demolition order) dated 31 .07.2025 was passed. lt i; submitted that the show-cause notice and the speaking order are nr t served on the petitioner

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respond: rt Nos.2 to 4 produced written instructions along with building per mit order dated

05.09.2023, show-cause notice dated 14.07.2025 speaking order dated 31.07.2025 and also the photographs of the u r jer construction building of the petitioner. i lkr:--=- _::E , a'Z 3

5. lt appears, the show-cause notice daled 14'07'2025 was issued to the petitioner directing her to explain as to why unauthorized construction (deviations made to the sanctioned plan) shall not be removed. Thereafter, the speaking order dated 31.07.2025 was passed.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that the watchman of the petitioner has received the show-cause notice and his mobile number was also noted on the show-cause notice' However, there was no response from the petitioner and the speaking order dated 31 .07.2025 was passed.

7. ln the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner as admittedly 3'd' 4th and 5th floors are unauthorisedly constructed by the petitioner in the subject property' L Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if necessary, revised plan or regularization application will be submitted by the petitioner under Section 455A/455AA of the GHMC Act' Further, the petitioner is also taking steps to file statutory appeal under Section 461-A (2) and (3) of the GHMC Act. \ t

9. However, as it is stated that the show_caus e notice and the speaking order are not served on the petitioner and, irt the same time, the petitioner is taking steps to prefer statutory appe ar under Section 461-4 (2) and (2) of the GHMC Act, the impugr.,d notice dated 05.12.2025 is kept in abeyance for a period of one month. status quo' obtaining as on today, shafl be mainta r ed in respect of the subject property for a period of one month from l< day. Within this time, the petitioner shall take necessary steps for I ling the revised plan/building regularization apprication/appear as prc,r ided under sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 461-4 of the GHMC \ct The GHMC authorities are at liberty to take action after expiry c,r one month. At the same time, the petitioner is also directed not to r ake any further construction in the subject property.

10. Accordingly, this writ pelition is disposed cf No order as to As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// ,/ IiD/- B.REKHA RANI s II |TANT REGISTflAR SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Principal Secreta ry, Municipal Adminiskati Department, Telanga nqSecretariat, Hyderabad, 2. The Commissioner, Grelier ftyderabad Munici TC nd Jrban Develo pment o-'-elangana sr\e pal bor1 cration, Hyderabad, 3 The Deputy.Commissioner, Circle No.23, Moosapet, Kul:i tpally Zone, Greater Hyderabad IMunicipal Corporation, Hyderabad, T5. ' I -r-L- ,, . E1E--1fE;'i.

4. The Gre€ter fV{grqOaq . Municipal C_orporation, Town planning Section _ Kukatpally Circle No.23, Hyderabad, TS.

5. One CC to SRI Dr. J.V|PLAV BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI K.RAV| MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC tOpUCl 7. Two CCs to GP FOR MCP_L 4DMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of / I Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. .Two CD Copies \ BSR M \ \*1-' :="1&fr'SEEffid*,Jls - -! -. : ix.r -. ,'- -r lir---'*jF: 'r'i+.-i: t CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2311212025 \ \ o tr- I i : 1EL4 .$ *tt \ \ri \ 1 /r' ,.tt:.\.j.t''' ORDER WP.No.39355 of 2025 I I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I I I r1 \7

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments