Telangana High Court
WP/2445/2013 of Sri Mahavir Pershad (died) Per Lrs 2 to 4 Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 2 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT TflE t"l0NlllJRAELE SRI JUSTICE SUDDAI-,t\ CllAL,r\PAT[-|l F.AO I,!/R|T PETITION N0:2445 OF i1013 Between: 1. Sri Mahavir Pershad
[ 348s ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
TflE t"l0NlllJRAELE SRI JUSTICE SUDDAI-,t\ CllAL,r\PAT[-|l F.AO
I,!/R|T PETITION N0:2445 OF i1013
Between:
1. Sri Mahavir Pershad (died) Per Lrs 2 to 4, S/o. late Sri Suraj Bhan, aged about 75 years. Occ landlord, office at 5-8-623, Abids Road, Hyderabad.
represented by his General Power of Attorney Sri ililanish Kumar, S/o.
Sri lv'tahavir Pershad, aged about 41 years, Occ business, office at 5-8-623, Abid Road, Hyderabad.
2. Sri Anil Kumar, S/o. Late Sri Mahavir Pershad, aged about 52 years, Office at 5-8-623, Abids Road, Hyderabad.
3. Sri Sunil Kumar, S/o. Late Sri Mahavir Pershad, aged about 50 years, Office at 5-8-623, Abids Road, Hyderabad.
4. Sri Manish Kumar S/o. Late Sri Mahavir Pershad, aged about 45 years, Office at 5-8-623, Abids Road, Hyderabad.
Petitioners 2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Petitioner as per C.O. dt.0411212018 in WPMP.No. 57171116
...PETITIONERS
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Circle-V, Sardar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad.
3. The Station House Officer P.S. Charminar, Hyderabad.
4. The Superintending Archeologist, Archeological Survey of lndia, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan bazar, Hyderabad.
5. Sri tVlohd. Mumtaz Ahmed, S/o. Sri Mohd. Pasha, aged about 50 years Occ business, M/s. Shama Bangles Shop 21-2-278, Lad Bazar Charminar, Hyderabad.
---
,,.RESPONDENTS
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 2972OF 20131
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents No.5 not to proceed with any construction activity over his property bearing Municip al No.21-2-278, situated at Lad Bazar, Hyderabad, in contravention of the municipal Bye laws and zonal regulations and all other norms governing the construction and also by encroaching upon and grabbing a part of the property of the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Ma ndamus
i.
Declaring inaction on the part of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not taking action on the complaints of the petitioner, parlicularly dated 07-01-2013
'
ugainst the illegal construction tjeing laised by the respondent No.S on I
the property bearing municipal No. 21-2-278, situated at Lad Bamir, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, against law and rules and norms of construction and consequently.
ii.
Direct the respondent No.2 to demolish structures raised by the respondent No.5 over property bearing municipal No. 21-2-278, situated at Lad Bazar, Hyderabad,
iii.
Direct the respondent No.3 to register the case and take action against the respondent No.5 as per law on the complaint of the petitioner.
iv.
Direct the respondent No.4 to take action against the construction being raised by the respondent No.5 as per law on the complaint of the petitioner.
v.
Direct the respondent No.5 not to make any construction on his property bearing municipal No.21-2-278, situated at Lad Bazar, Hyderabad, in contravention of the municipal Bye laws and zonal regulations and all other norms governing the construction and also by encroaching upon and grabbing a part ofthe property ofthe petitioner.
-
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHYAM S.AGRAWAL
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI R,APiARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GI-IMC
Counsel for the Respondent F,lo.3: SRI SR.[D!-|AR BHUVANAGIRI, AGP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI N.Bl{UJANGA RAO, DEPUI}'SOLICITOR GENERI,AL OF IN
Counsel forthe Respondent No.s: SRI K.BUCHI BABU
The Court made the following: ORDER
t)IA
-
TN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION No.2445 of 2O13
Date O2.O7.2o26
Between:
Sri Mahavir Pershad and others
. . . Petitioners
AND
The State ofAndhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Secretary',
Municipal Administration Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others
...Respondents
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 Mr.Shyam S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.3.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief :- ".. -to pass an order, direction or writ more particularlg one in the nature of utit of mandamus (i) declaing -) inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not taking action on the complaint of the petitioner, partialarly dated 07.01.2013 against the illegal construction being raised bg the respondent No.S on the propertg bearing municipal No.21-2-278, situated at Lad Bazar, Hgderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, against lana and rules and norms of construction and consequentlg. (ii)direct th.e respondent No.2 to demolish structures raised bg the respondent No.S ouer propertA beaing municipal No. 21-2-278, situated at Lad Bazar, Hgderabad, (iii)direct the respondent No.3 to register the case and take action against the respondent No.S as per law on the complaint of the petitioner (iu)direct the respondent No.4 to take action against the construction being raised by the respondent No.S as per la u-t on the complaint of the petitioner (u) direct the respondent No.S not to make anA construction on his propertg bearing municipal No.21-2-278, situated at Lad Baz,ar, Hgderabad, in contrauention of the municipal bge-laus and zonal regulations and all other norrns goueming the construction and also bg encroaching upon and grabbing a part of the propertA of the petitioner, in th.e interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as lhis Hon'ble Court mag deems fit just and proper in th.e circumstance s of the case . . . "
3. The sum and substance of the contentions raised in subject property falls within the prohibited zone of Charminar, wherein constructions cannot be raised within a radius of 20O meters from the protected monument. Despite the same, respondent No.5 is alleged to have the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is that the -- undertaken unauthorized construction activities, compelling the petitioners to submit a representation dated
07. O1 .2-Ol3 before the concerned authorities.
4. When the matter was initially posted for admission, this Court uide order 30.01.20 13 directed the Corporation to depute one of its concerned Officers for undertaking an inspection of the premises where the respondent No.S is carrying on construction and in case, if the constructions are carried on unauthorrzedly or illegally, the Corporation was directed to take all necessar5r steps forthwith and prevent such constructions from coming forward. Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India r,'"'as also directed to undertake inspection of the site at which the respondent No.5 is said to be carrying constructions and inform the Court as to the nature of the objections with regard to the same and further even on dated 04.O2.2O13 this Court has directed the Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India to take appropriate steps pursuant to the show-cause notice already issued on 1O.01.2013.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, despite the specific directions issued by this Court from time to time, the authorities have failed to initiate action and respondent No.5 has completed the structures and is presently carrying on business activities therein.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, would submit that, upon noticing that respondent No.5 was undertaking illegal construction within the prohibited limits of the protected monument, namely Charminar, the foremal has issued show-cause notice uide CHAR/ECHRI2Ol3l04 dated 10.01.2013 and respondent No.S has replied to the notice informing that he has no knowledge about the rules of the prohibited limits and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, Itules 1959 and (Amendment and Validation) Act 2O10
7. It is further stated that the construction undertaken by respondent No.5 is unauthorized and that no permission
--t-- could have been granted for such construction within the prohibited area. It is also specihcally asserted that the structui:es are liable to be removed in accordance with the provisions of the AMASR Act. The Corporation has further stated that removal orders are required to be issued under Section 38(1) and (2) of the AMASR Act in respect of illegal structures raised rvithin the prohibited area of a centrally protected monument.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and having regard to the admitted lact that respondent No.5 does not possess any valid permission for the subject construction, this Court is statutory authorities, are duty bound to take appropriate action in accordance with lau,. Respondent No.4, being the supervisory authoritv entrusted with the protection of monuments, has got more onus upon them to protect the said monumenl
9. Accordingil,, respondent No.4 along with respondent No.2 are directed to take appropriate steps, pass necessary of the considered opinion that respondent Nos.2 to 4, being (] orders by forlouring due process of law, and initiate action against the illegal construction raised by respondent No.5, within a period of eight (Og) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that, if required, respondent Nos.2 and 4 o.ay seek assistance from respondent No.3 for irnplementation and removal of the unauthorized structures.
10. Accordingly, the Writ petition is shall be no order as to costs. disposed of. There To, Miscellaneous petitions, Petition sha,ll stand closed. if any, pending in this Writ SD/.P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SEC'flON OFFICER
1. The Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Deputy Commissloner Circle-V, Greater Hyderabad l\4unicipal Corporation, Sardar tt{ahal, Charminar, Hyderabad.
3. The Station House Officer F.S. Charminar, Hyderabad.
4. The Sr.rpbi"intending Archeologist, Archeologicat Survey 6f lndia, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan bazar, Hyderabad.
5. One CC to SRI SHYAM S.AGRAWAL, Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to SRI K.BUCHI BABU, Advocate [OPUC]
7. One CC to SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHfiIC IOPUCI
8. One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA, High Cor.rrl for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]
9. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]
10. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 1 1 . Two CD Copies BSR GJP w
CC TODAY
I HIGH COURT DATED: 0?-10712026 ORDEP. WP.lt8o.2445 of 2013 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ."5ox k-P .es )a /: ,'//,
O9 JUT o t) i/ :y il th Esi'AT(