Telangana High Court
WP/30241/2024 of Amjad Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana on 31 December 2024
Between: Amjad Mohiuddin, S/o. Late Mohiuddin Shareef, Age 60 yrs, Occ - Business, Rl/o. H. No. 11-2-792, Habeeb Nagar, Nampally, Hyderabad- 50000'1 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
[ [3166 ]]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 30241 OF 2024
Between:
Amjad Mohiuddin, S/o. Late Mohiuddin Shareef, Age 60 yrs, Occ - Business,Rl/o. H. No. 11-2-792, Habeeb Nagar, Nampally, Hyderabad- 50000'1
...PETITIONER
AND
1The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Dept. Of MunicipalAdministration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad.Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad.
2The Greater Hyderabad [r,4unicipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, C.C. Complex Tank Bund Road, Lower Tank Bund, Adarsh Nagar Hyderabad -500063.C. Complex Tank Bund Road, Lower Tank Bund, Adarsh Nagar Hyderabad -500063.
3. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Serilingampally Zone, Hyderabad - 500046.Serilingampally Zone, Hyderabad - 500046.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad l\,4unicipal Corporatlon,Serilingampally Zone, Hyderabad - 500046.Serilingampally Zone, Hyderabad - 500046.
5. The Town Planning Officer, Greater Hyderabad [\/unicipal CorporationSerilingampally Zone, Hyderabad- 500046Serilingampally Zone, Hyderabad- 500046
6. Hyderabad lt4etropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its CommissionerSwarna Jayanthi Complex, I\rlaitrivanam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500038.Swarna Jayanthi Complex, I\rlaitrivanam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500038.
7. Sri. V. lt/adan ltrlohan Rao, S/o. V. Krishna Rao, Aged about 70 yrs, OccBusiness, Rl/o. Plot No. 53, Azamabad, Hyderabad- 500020Business, Rl/o. Plot No. 53, Azamabad, Hyderabad- 500020
B. lV/s. Sairam Enterprises, Rep by its A/lanaging Partner Smt. D. SamrajyaLaxmi W/o. Sri. D. K. Rama Rao, Rey Aged about 73 yrs, R/o. B 271F2, fonVidyanagar, Hyderabad- 5O0O44Laxmi W/o. Sri. D. K. Rama Rao, Rey Aged about 73 yrs, R/o. B 271F2, fonVidyanagar, Hyderabad- 5O0O44
9. M/s. Lakshmi lnfra lndia Ventures LLP, Rep by its Designated Partner HycSri. Lakshmi Narayana Gummadi, S/o. G. Hanumantha Rao, Age 49 yrs,Office Address Flat No. C- 103, D. No. 1- 51/Sy. No. 190 and 191/SVE/C-103, lst Floor, C- Block KSKs Springview Elegance, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084Sri. Lakshmi Narayana Gummadi, S/o. G. Hanumantha Rao, Age 49 yrs,Office Address Flat No. C- 103, D. No. 1- 51/Sy. No. 190 and 191/SVE/C-103, lst Floor, C- Block KSKs Springview Elegance, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084
10.Sri. K. Shashi Kumar, S/o. Late. K. N. Rao, Aged about 67 years occBusiness, R/o. H. No. 7- 1- 56/1/8, Shyam Karan Road Ameerpet,Hyderabad.Business, R/o. H. No. 7- 1- 56/1/8, Shyam Karan Road Ameerpet,Hyderabad.
l
1 ['1 ]. Smt. K Satya Durga, W/o.K. Shashi Kumar Aged about 61years occ.Housewife, Fyo. H. No. 71- 5611lB, Shyam Karan RoadAmeerpet,Hyderabad.
12.DItaOgnOel 9abu, S/o. not known Aged not known Occ Business, Rl/oHNo. 7- 1- 5611lB, Shyam Karan Road Ameerpet, Hyderabad.No. 7- 1- 5611lB, Shyam Karan Road Ameerpet, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue any order or orders or direction, writ or writs more particulartyone in the nature of a wRIT oF MANDAMUS declaring the action of theRespondent No.2 to 5 in not taking any action on the representation dated16.08.2024 vide corresponding No. t62s6st2o24tclNwRD2(Ho) is as illegat,arbilrary and violation of the principles of natural justice declare andconsequently to direct the Respondent No. 2 to 5 to consider the representationdated 16. 08. 2024 and to take action against the Respondent No. 7 to [.12 ]as perthe rules and regulations of the GHI\,4c Act, ['r ]955 forthwith in the interest ofJustice and equity.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased todirect the Respondent No.2 to 5 to consider the representation dated16.08.2024 and to take action against the Respondent No. 7 to [.12 ]as per therules and regulations of the GHMC Act, 1955 pending disposal of the petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.JANARDHAN REDDyCounsel forthe Respondent No.1: cp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEVCounsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: SRI RAPARTHI VENK,ATESH,SC FOR GHMCCounsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: SRI RAPARTHI VENK,ATESH,SC FOR GHMCCounsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDACounsel for the Respondent No.9: SRI M.V.PRATHAP KUMAR
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMARW.P.No.3O24l of 2024
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned GovernmentPleader for Municipal Administration & Urban DevelopmentDepartment appearing for respondent No.1, Sri RaparthiVenkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondentNos.2 to 5, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counselappearing for respondent No.6, Sri M.V.Prathap Kumar, learnedcounsel appearing for respondent No.9, and with the consent of thecounsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition istaken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that on noticing theunofficial respondents making unauthorized and illegalconstruction of compound wall by encroaching into his property insurvey No.35 situated at Madinaguda Village, SerilingampallyMandal, without obtaining any permission/ sanction from therespondents-authorities, he had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a representation, dt. 16.08.2024, seekingfor initiation of action against the aforesaid unauthorized andillegal construction.
3. It is thefurther case of the petitionerthat despite hesubmitting theaforesaid representation, noaction has beeninitiated againstthe unauthorized and illegalconstruction ofcompound wall being made by the unofficial respondents, whichaction on the part of the respondents_authorities it is contended ashighly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the GHMCAct, 1955 (for short .the Act) read with TG-bPASS Act, 2020 andthe rules made thereunder
4. Per contra,learned Standing Counsel appearing on behaif ofrespondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that initially authorities themselveson noticing the unauthorized and illegal construction of compoundwall being made by the unofficial respondents, have initiated actionby issuing a shou-cause notice, dt.2g.Ol.2024, and in themeantime, the authorities have received representation from thepetitioner on 16.Og.2024
5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that theauthorities thereafter have issued another show_cause notice,dt.28. 11.2024, calling upon the unoffrcial respondents to submittheir explanation within the time prescribed therein and in spite ofbeing afforded with sufficient time, as the unofficial respondentsdid not reply to the aforesaid l:-"", show_cause notice, theAuthorities have passed a speaking order, dt.20. 1 2.2024, hordinc
the aforesaid construction of compound wall around the plot ofland in survey No.35 situated at Madinaguda Village,Serilingampally Mandat, being made by the unofhcial respondentsis without obtaining any permission/ sanction from the GHMC, andthus, the said construction is unauthorized and illegalconstruction.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that theauthorities by the Speaking Order passed had called upon theunofficial respondents to remove the unauthorized and iliegalconstruction of compound wall within 15 days from the date ofreceipt of the said order, failing which the unofficial respondentswere informed that necessary action will be taken by theauthorities under Section 636 and 461A of the Act.
7 . Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the copy ofthe aforesaid speaking order has been served on oneN.Hanumantha Rao, who while acknowledging the receipt of thesaid speaking order had affixed his signature and also mentionedhis mobile number, and thus, the speaking order has been servedvalidly as prescribed under the Act.
8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as theauthorities have passed a speaking order holding the aforesaidconstruction of compound wall by the unofficial respondents to be I
an unauthorized ald illegal construction and having directed theunoffrcial respondents to remove the said compound wall within 15days, and as the said period of 15 days is yet to expire, theunoffrcial respondents to remove the said compound wall within 15days, and as the said period of 15 days is yet to expire, theauthorities would take further action on expiry of the periodprescribed under the Act for enforcing the speaking order.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficialrespondent No.9 on the other hand while disputing the claim of therespondents-authorities of the unofficial respondents not hling anyreply to the show-cause notice dt.2g. 1 1.2024, would submit thatthe said respondent had submitted reply to the aforesaid show_cause notice on 09.12.2024, and as such, the finding recorded inthe speaking order is an incorrect finding.
10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
1 1. While the petitioner claims of he approaching therespondents-authorities respondents-authorities bringing to their notice of theunauthorized and illegal construction of compound wall beingconstructed by the unofficial respondents by encroaching into hisland in survey No.35 situated at Madinaguda Village,land in survey No.35 situated at Madinaguda Village,serilingampally Mandal, it is to be noted that the said dispute ofencroachment cannot be gone into by this court in a writ petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for the said I
purpose, the petitioner is required to approach the competentCourt of Civil jurisdiction for such determination.Court of Civil jurisdiction for such determination.
L2. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner of the unofficialrespondents undertaking construction of compound wall withoutobtaining any permission or sanction from the respondents-authorities, it is to be noted that the term 'building' is defined inSection 2(3) of the Act and includes kall', and thus, the unofficialrespondents are required to obtain permission for undertakingconstruction of a compound wall.
13. Since, it is not shown to this Court of the unofficialrespondents obtaining any permission/ sanction for undertakingany such construction and also taking note of the fact thatinitially, the respondents-authorities themselves having noticedsuch unauthorized construction, by issuing show-cause notice,dt.28.O5.2O24. and thereafter once again having issued notice on28.11.2024, and having passed a Speaking Order on 20.12.2024holding the said construction of compound wall by the unoflicialrespondents to be an unauthorized and illegal construction, thisCourt is of the view that the grievance of the petitioner with regardto the respondents-authorities not initiating action against theunauthorized and illegal construction of compound wall made bythe unofficial respondents stands redressed.
I,
14. However, having regarci to the directions issued by the Apexcourt in Rajendra Kumd, BarJdtga d.nd Another a. (J.p,AaasEoam vikas parishad & orsr, this court is of the view that therespondents-authorities having passed a Speaking Order are dut5rbound to enforce/ implement the provisions of the Act by initiatingstem action against such unauthorized and illegal construction, in terms of the Act.
15. Subject to the above observation and direction, the WritPetition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
16. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in closed._ [these ][writ ][petitions shali ][stand ]Ah [L ]n"lrr* Hf / +4 dr W-D2r/whz2+sD/_ K.sI ASsrI //TRUE COPY//
K.sREERAMA MURTHYASsrAT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//'i\'.SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The PrincipatSecretary, Delt. Of Municipal Administration and UrbanDevelopmentuepanment, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State ofTelangana.Developmentuepanment, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State ofTelangana.2 The. c-ommissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipar corporation, c. c. comorexTank Bund Road. Lower Tank'Bund, noaiin r.r5gar Hy'o-,,rio"j _toid#'."'''"Tank Bund Road. Lower Tank'Bund, noaiin r.r5gar Hy'o-,,rio"j _toid#'."'''"3. Serilingampally Zone, HyderibaO - The Zonal Commissioner, . GI"qJgl SOOO+O'. - Hyderabad Municipal [- ][-' ][----]Corporation,4 Deputy Commissioner. Greater Inq. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Serilingampatty Zone, HyderabaO - SOOO+O]4 Deputy Commissioner. Greater Inq. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,Serilingampatty Zone, HyderabaO - SOOO+O]
5. The Town Plannino Officer, Greater Hyderabad i'vvrsvu!I\,4unicipal CorporationSeritingampally zone] nyoerioao_ sorjoao' Seritingampally zone] nyoerioao_ sorjoao'
6. The commissioner. Hvderabad Metroporitan Deveropment Authority, swarnaHvderabad Metroporitan Deveropment Authority, swarnaJayanthi Comptex, Mairrivanam, Am;;H;i. Hy;"ii'LLo _ s000387. One CC to SRt CH.JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI
B. One CC to SRt M.V.PRATHAP KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]
9. One CC to SRt RAPARTH| VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC tOpUCl
10. One CC to SRI V.NARASIIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA [OPUC]
1 1. Two CCs to cp FOR MCPL ADMNURBAN DEV, High Court for the State ofTelangana at Hydebad o UT]
I
l
HIGH COURT
DATED: 3111212024
rlty{fS$eIjAt(2t75CZdzIcQ t)ESltr CsORDERWP.No.30241 of 2024DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS(\I