Telangana High Court
WP/1585/2015 of Surender Sharma, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, on 19 February 2026
1. Surender Sharma, S/o. Late Prahalad Rai Sharma, Aged about 54 years, Occ Business, R/ o. 2nd Floor, H.No.21 -7-168 to 1 77, Mama Jumla Phatak, Charkaman, Hyderabad-500 002. 2. Hanuman Sharma, S/o. Late Prahalad Raj Sharma, Aged about 44 yearc, Occ: Business R/o. Sth Floor, Jumla Phatak,
[ 348s J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
T
T
N
AN
Between:
Bajrang Lal sharma, s/o. Late prahatad Raj sharrna, Aged about 62 years, occupation Business,' perman;1 Re;ia;ilt- oi E'roInd^Froor, F. trto.z t _z _1 68 to 177, lvlama Jumla Phatak, cJrarkamaq, t-lyo"-{Jbrd- sb"o ooz And presenly residin g at z- 5-18 and 19, Frat-N_o.Q01, 3rd-rioor, Ahrrred nrrr.i"r, M;"i;;6rj'r, rrrr.c. Road, Secunderabad- 500 003.
AND
...PET!T|ONER
1' The Commissioner, Greater .Hyderabad fulunicip_al Corporation, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Tank Bund, HyOeiabaO, i"frnglna State.
2- The Zonar commissioner (south. 4gnu), circ,re v, Greater Hyderabad [lt u n icipa r corporation, sa rda i vitii r, Er,rifi ini r, uyeeiaoad. " *'
3' The Assistant.City Planner, GreaterHyderabad tMunicipal Corporation, circle v' Greater Hyddrabad lvtunicipii c.irp"Ai;;, sardar Mah'al, charminar, Hyderabad.
4- Surender Sharma, S/o. Late_ prahalad Raj sharm4 Age{ about 48 year.s, occupatio.n Business, R/o. 2 Fr_ool, H.r.rz.zl'-z-iod 'tJ rzi"Inr* Jumra Ph atak, Charkama n, Hyderabad_ 500' 00i,2i..- - - 5- Hanuman sharma, s/o. Late prahalad Raj sharmq,^ Aged about 44 years, occupation Business, R/o. 1.q F_r99i. _H.ire ,1-z-iob td-i27, iaama Jumra Phatak, Charkaman, HyderabaO_ SOO OO2. -- - 6' The state:l-I-"]l"glna, Rep.by its secretary, t\runicipal Administration and U rba n Devet op m e nt- Depa rtm'ent, Secieta rial $ if, #:"dA;Ui
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue Writ, order, or direction more particutarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein in not discharging their statutory duties by initiating action for demolition of the )
illegal constructions made by the Respondents No.4 and 5 in House No. H. No.
21-7-168 to 177, Mama Jumla Phatak, Charkarnan, Hyderabad-500002 and raising illegal l:hird floor thereupon as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently rJi1s61 the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to demolish illegal constructions already made by the Respondents No.4 and 5 and ensure that no further illegal constructions irre made in the said premises.
I.A. NO: 1 OF :2OIa(WPMP. NO: 45538 OF 2014)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavir: filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to stop the illegal constructions being made by Respondents l{o. z[ and 5 in House No. H. 21-7-168 to 177, Mama Jumla Phatak, Charkaman, Hyderabad-500 002 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
l.A. NO: 2 OF I!014(WPMP. NO: 46935 OF 2014)
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 permit the petitioner to file the additional material paper in W.P.No. 36370 of 2014 in the intr-'rest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JAYESH BHATT
Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: SRI BALU DEDEKULA, REPRESENTING SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH S.C. FOR GHMC
Counsel for the Respondents No.4 & 5: SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHT
REPRE$ENTING SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI, SENIOR COUNSEL
counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FoR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION &
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WRIT PETITION NO: 1584 OF 2015
Between:
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.
1. surende'sharma, s/o, Late praharad Rai sharma, Aged about 54 years, occ: Bur;iness, S/o, 2"i_flgo-r, H.No.21-7-16g to 177, (tlama Jumli plratik, Charkarrran, Hyderabad-SO0 002.
2. Hanumarr Sharma,_.s/o- Late Praharad Raj sharma, Aged about 44 years, occ: Bus,iness R/o.5'n Floor, Jumla phatak, charkaman, liyderabao-sooboz.
J
2. Hanuman Sharma, Occ: Business R/o. $/o. Late Prahalad Raj Sharma, Aged about 44 years, sth Floor, Jumla Phatak, Charkaman, HyderabaO-SOO'OOZ. .PETITIONERS AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. The Zonal Commissioner (South Zone), Circle V, GHMC, Sardal Mahal, Chairman, Hyderabad.
4. The Assistant City Planner, GH[/C, Circle V, Sardar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad.
5. The Bajrang Lal Sharma, S/o. Late Prahalad Raj Sharma, Aged about 60 years, Occ Business, R/o. Ground Floor, H.No21-7-168 to 177, [\4ama Jumla Phatak, Charkaman. .RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court rnay be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by calling for the records relating to connected with proceedings notice No. 168/ACP/C5/82IGHIVICl2014, dt.18.12.2014 received on 19.12.2014 and set aside the same as wholly illegal and arbitrary in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 2107 OF 20151 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 direct the respondents not to undertake demolition of any constructions made in the property bearing municipal No municipal No.21-7-168 to 177, Mama Jumla Phatak, Charkaman, Hyderabad-s00 0O2 pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for tfte Petitioners: SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI REPRESENTING SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
l counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI BALU DEDEKULA, REPRESENTING SRI RAPARTHT VENKATESH S.C. FOR GHMC Counset for the Respondent No.5: SRI JAYESH BHATT The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
"/. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON,BLE sRI .IU'TI.E 'UDDALA .HALAPATHI RAo wRrr *ETITION Nos.3 6370 0f 2,,r4and 15g4 0f 2015 I .P.No. f c 20t4 Between: Bajrang Lal Sharma Between: Surender Sharma and another AND ...Petitioner ...Respondents ...Petitioners ...Respondents AND The Commissioner, GHMC, at Hyderabad and 5 others .P N
The State of Telangana, R"p. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others I 'i I
\ w.P.No.3637 o of 2ot4* ,.u*:FrT'r{
N since both the writ petitions are pertaining to the very s€une prr:mises and in that view of the matter, both the writ Petitions are taken up together, heard together and dispose of by wa]' of common order. 2- w.p.No.363zo of 2o14 is fired declaring the inaction of the Resp,ndent Nos.l to 3 therein in not discharging their statutory duties by initiating action for demolition of the illegal co,structions made by Respondents Nos.4 and S therein in House bearing No.2 r-T-16g to rzr,Mama Jumra Phatak, charkaman, Hyderabad-500002 and raising ,regal third flo cr thereupon as being illegar, arbitrary, unconstittrtionar and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act r gss and consequently direct the Responde,ts Nos. I to 3 therein to demolish ilegal constructions already made by the Respondents Nos.4 and 5 therein and ensure that no further illegal constructions are made in the said premises and pass such other order.
SCR,J W.P.No.3637O of 2Ol4 & 1584 of 2O15
3. W.P.No. 1584 of 20 15 is filed challenging the proceedings notice No. 168/ACP/C5 I 32lGHMC l2Ol4, dated 18.L2.2O14 received on L9.L2.2O14 and set aside the sarne as wholly illegal and arbitrary in the interest of justice and pass such other orders in the circumstances of the case J
4. Heard Sri Jayesh Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.3637O of 2OL4 and respondent No.5 in w.P.No.1584 of 2015, Sri Avdesh Narayan sanghi, learned counsel representing Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in w.p.No.1584 of 2OI5 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P.No. 36370 of 2OL4, Sri Balu Dedekula, learned counsel representing Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC-appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in w.P.No.3637O of 2Ol4 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 in W.P.No.1584 of 2015. Perused the record.
SCR,J W.P.No.3637O ol2014 & 1584 of 2Ol5
5. whr--n the matters are taken up for hearing, learned Standing counsel for GHMC submitted that respondent No.2 in w.P.ltto. 1584 of 20 15 on receipt of a complaint from respondent No.5 therein and after conducting physical inspection of the subject premises has issued Show cause Notice dated 06.12.2oL4 to the petitioners therein. On receipt of the szune, they have submitted reply to the said show cause Notice on 17.12.2oL4. Thereafter not satisfying with the reply submitted by the petitioners therein, respondent No.2 in Iil/.P.No.1584 of 2015 has issued impugned notice dated 18.12.2014, wherein it is observed as folows: "Irr the Ground Floor and First Floor set back is covered against the sanction plan so also disnllowed portion is also constructed in by covering the rear side mandatory portion i.e., sel back in the second floor."
6. on perusal of the record it is observed that both the writ petitioners are real brothers and adjudicating their rights before th:.s court by way of filing separate writ petitions. w.P.No.3(i37o of 2or4 is filed by the elder brother
SCR,J W.P.No.3637O of 2Ol4 & 1584 of 2015 complaining the illegat construction being made by the petitioners in W.P.No.1584 of 2O15, who are younger brothers in the subject premises. Admittedly, respondent authorities by following due process of law and after conducting physical inspection of the subject premises have issued notice bearing No.168/ACP/CS l82lGHMCl2OL4, dated L8.12.2O14 to the petitioners in W.P.No.1584 of 2015.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.36370 of 2014 submitted that the ingress and egress of the petitioner is blocked by the petitioners in W.P.No.1584 of 2O 15 and they are not permitting proper acess to the petitioner in W.P.No.3637O of 2OL4, who is their elder brother.
8. In that view of the matter, though the litigation is pertaining to real brothers, it is suffice to direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 in W.P.No.1584 of 2015 to inspect the subject premises once again and if the petitioners in W.P.No.1584 of 2015 in any way blocking the ingress and egress of petitioner ) * {
\V. P.No.3637O of 2014 & 1584 of 2O 15
in W.P.No.3637O of 2014, they shall forthwith remove the said illegal construction by following due process of law. In so far as other issues are concerned, if the petitioners in both the writ petitions €Lre still aggrieved, they can approach competent civil Court seeking appropriate relief by way of filing a suit
9. with the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Misr:ellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petit:ions, shall stand closed. SDi-A. SRINIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To
1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Mun Corporation, Hill Fort, Adarsh Nagar, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, Telangana
2. The Zonal Commissioner (South Zone), Circte V, Greater Hyderabad l\Iunicipal Corporation, Sardar tvlahal, Charminar, Hyderabad.
3. The Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle V, Sarciar Mahal, Charminar, Hyderabad.
4. The Secretary, MunicipalAdministration and Urban Development Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
5. One CO to SRI JAYESH BHATT, Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CO to SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, S.C. for GHMC [OPUC]
7. one co to sRl AVDESH NARAYAN sANGHl, Senior counsel [OPUC]
8. Two CtSs to GP forl/unicipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court f<rr the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI
9. Two Ct) Copies'wo, I I N4P I}S
HIGH COURT DATED:19/0212026
COMMON ORDER
WP.Nos.36370 of 2014 AND 1584 OF 2015 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS Jrs ,lrlu ' 1 2 i,,(R 2[|2fi (i * s *