WP/1374/2014 of S. Koteswara Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration on 13 July 2026

ORDER:

1 . The present Writ Petition has been hled to declare the inaction of respondents, particularly the 4th respondent in initiating action for the removal of the unauthorized construction made by the Sth respondent on plot No. 154 in Sy.No'69, Sapthagiri Colony, Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, within the purview of the GHMC on the complaints made by the petitioners on 15.01.2013 and 18.11.2013, as illegal, arbitrar5r ald against the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and consequently to direct the 4rh respondent to remove the unauthorized construction made by the 5th respondent on Plot No.154 in Sy'No'69, Miyapur Village, -

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District(Sapthagiri Colony) forthwith.

2. Heard learned counsel for the p':titioners, Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Coutrsel for GHMC appearing for respondents No.2 to 4, and Sri ,\kkam Eshrvar, learned counsel for unofficia-l respondent No.5

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that despite the specific direction issued by this Court, dt.24.Ol.2Ol4, in the presont Writ Petition directing the GHMC to undertake an inspection of the disputed site in question belonging to the petitioner in WF.No.233 of 2Ol3 and dra'*, appropriate proceedings as to the extent of the structures standing thereon rn'hich are in conf ormity with the building bye-lau,s and regulations arld/or approv'rd building plan. The respondents were directed to deal with the same strictly in accordance with law duly following the proce dure prescribed under Section 452 read with Sections 461 rrnd 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the HMC Act')and submit a compliance report before this Court.

Z )

4. By the said order, it was also observed that in case the petitioner in WP.No.233 of 2013 files a valid proceeding for consideration, the same should a,lso be taken into account for consideration and the Corporation was further directed to keep in view the orders passed by it on 15.12.2012 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner in WP.No.233 of 2013 under the Building Penalization Scheme and also the order passed by the Appellate Committee, dt.06.05.2013.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that despite the respondents having knowledge of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, strangely have not taken any action nor filed compliance report, ald thus the action of the respondents arnounts to willful violation of the orders of this Court and are liable for penal action.

6. Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondents No.2 to 4, would contend that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the procedure under Section 452 of the HMC Act was followed and the entire illegal construction was demolished, as such there is no willful disobedience of the orders of this Court.

-

7 . In rep1y, learned counsel for the petition(lrs vehemently contended that the authorities though claimed to have demolished the construction, had, in fact, not even demoltshed 10% of the unauthorized construction and only to avoid the contempt proceedings, have stated that the entire construction had been demolished, which is nothing but misleading the Court.

8. The learned Standing Counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that the 5'h respondent herein has approached the Hon'ble Lokayuktha and filed a complaint against the Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad, in u'hiclL, the Hon'ble Lokayuktha passed order dt.05.02.2014 directin6S to main status quo w'ith regard to the existing construction of the sth respondent / complainant til1 the said case was tlisposed of, and subsequently the complaint of the 5'h respo:edent ended in dismissal and thereafter, the respon'1ents-authorities implemented the orders passed by this Court by demolishing the unauthorized construction, and therefore conterrds that there is no u.illful disobedience of the orders of this Court,

9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.s, reiterating the contents of the counter, would contend that in a writ petition Zf uide W.P.No.242lO of 2079 Iiled by the 5th respondent against the 1st petitioner herein, this Court by order dl.22.l1.2011 gave a clear direction to the Corporation to see that there shall not be any encroachments on the road margin and if any such encroachments a-re made, to register criminal case against the encroachers and land grabbers. It is further contended that the 5th respondent has also raised objections for the LRS proceedings issued by the Corporation in favour of the petitioners and also made representations about the illegal encroachment and occupation of the road margin by the petitioners herein.

10. In the instant writ petition, the Srt' respondent did not produce copy of the approved building permission ald sarctioned plan to show that the construction raised by her on the subject site is legal and valid. 1 1. Further, though it is stated by the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC that the entire unauthorized structures were demolished, it appears that such a statement was made only as an eyewash to avoid the contempt proceedings, for the reason that, though this Court has specifically directed the respondents to file a compliance report, no such report is placed before this -

Court to support their contention that they had demolished the entire unauthorized constructions duly following the procedure contemplated under Sections 452 read with Sections 46 1 and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955

12. Hor;r'ever, the fact remains that since the unofficial respondent No.5 approached the learned Lokayuktha and obtained status quo orders, it has contributed to the delay in implementing the interim order of this Court. Thus, taking into consideration of all the above circumstancrls, this Court considered it fit to dispose of the main writ petition.

13. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents No.3 and 4 to complete the process of inspection and take action in terms of Sectior 452 read with Sections 461 and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, by implementing the orders of this Court dt.24.Ol.2Ol4, with due intimation and noljce to the sth respondent, to ensure whether the structures standing thereon are 1n conformity with the building bye-laws and regulations andlor approved building plan and take appropriate action within E

a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

14. It is made clear that if the respondents-authorities fail to deal with the representations/complaints of the petitioner by taking appropriate action against the illegal construction made by the 5e respondent, within the stipulated period, the same will be viewed seriously As a sequel, miscelianeous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-AHMEDABDULLA||KHAN ;-;' AS ISTANT REGiSTRAR--- //TRUE COPY// \sEcTroN oFFlcER \

1. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Ad ministration, and Urban Development Department, Hyderabaci.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad IVlunicipal Ccrporation, Hy-dei'abad.

3. The Chief City Planner, Town Planning Section, 1-10, GHMC, -Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. -

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-Xll, Serilingar+rpaiiy, West Zone, G.H.tv1.C., Hyderabad.

5. One CC to SRI A.RAVINDER, Advocate. [OPUCI 6'oneCCtoSRlG.MADHUSUDHANREDDY,SCFoRGHMC.[oPUcJ

7. One CC to SRI AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate [OPUC]

8. Two CD Copies. To, BSK TKS 4h

HIGH COURT DATED: 1310712026

ORDER

WP.No.1374 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIOi{ WITHOUT COSTS { CC TODAY HE S14 14: 21 luL2n6 (r 1 r) k o,J ( .\) * I o.^ s-.' ,,ac, p $l+l%