Disposed

Mohammed Ashfaq Ahmed v. The State of Telengana and 4 Others

Telangana HC18 Oct 2022WP/30546/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed mandamus against municipal respondents for alleged inaction in demolishing illegal construction encroaching on a road margin. Court directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation and issue appropriate notice orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct Respondent Corporation to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Mohammed Ashfaq Ahmed Vs The State of Telengana and 4… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 30546 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohammed Ashfaq Ahmed, S/o. Mohammed Haneef Ahmed, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Business, Rlo. 17-1-1B2lSl'10, Salauddin Nagai, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State o{ Telengana, Rep, by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and urban develcipment, S6cretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

Greater HyderqPad.Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 9teqtq Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by the Zonal Commissioner, Circle 7, Phool Bagh, Hyderabad.

¶15

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by the Assistant City planner, Circle 7, Phool Bagh, Hyderabad.

¶16

lr/r. Mohammed Haneef, S/o. Shaikh Bikkan, Aqed about 65 vears. Occ. Business, Rlo. 17 -1-18215,/9, Salauddin Nagar,-Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one, in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in taking action on the petitioner's representations dated 20/06/2022 (Annexure- 1) and not demolishing the illegal structure in pursuant of the notice issued under 636 of HMC Act in respect of property bearing Rto. j7-1-1B2tS/9, Salauddin Nagar, saidabad, Hyderabad to stop illegal 'unauthorized construction of Ground plus upper floors without leaving set-backs, encroaching of road margin in respect of property bearing H.No. 17-1-182/5/9, Salauddin Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad as

¶19

illegar, arbitrary, urtravires against the intents and objects of section 636 0f GHMc Act 1955 and consequenry direct Respondents No 2 to 4 to remove the iregar constructions which are made by Respondent No 5 herein forthwith and report compliance to the Honourable court.

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF ?022

¶21

Petition under section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondents Nos- 2 to 4 to consider petitioners representations dated 2010612022 (Annexure-1) and to demorish the iilegar structure in pursuant of the notice issued under 636 of HMC Act in respect of property bearing R/o. 17_1_ 1821519, Salauddin Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad to stop illegal unauthorized construction of Ground plus upper floors without leaving set-backs, encroaching of road margin in respect of property bearing H.No. 17-1-182lsig, salauddin Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶22

Counset for the petitioner: SRI SyED MOUNIS JAFER ABIDt Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: sRr N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No. S: NONE APPEARED

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

! l

¶27

MIT PETITION No. 30546 OF 2022

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶30

to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of Respondents No. 2 to 4 in taking action on the petitioner's representations dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure-1) and not demolishing the iUegal structure in pursuant of the notice issued under 636 of HMC Act in respect of property beadng R/o l7-1-lS2/S/9, Salauddin Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad to stop illegal unauthorised construction of ground plus upper floors without teaving setbacks, encroaching of road margin in respect of property bearing H.No. 17-1-182lS/g, Salauddin Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, ultra uires against the intents and objects of Section 636 of QHMC Act, 1955 and consequently, direct Respondents No. 2 to 4 to remove the illegal constructions which are made by Respondent No.S herein forthwith and report compliance to the Hontrle Court and pass such other order or orders as are deemed ht and proper in the circumstances of the case.'

¶31

Sri Mounis Abidi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner gave a representation on 20.06.2022 stating that the unofficial respondent is making illegal construction and no action has been taken by the official respondents till now.

¶32

karned counsel for the unoflicial respondent submits that the petitioner has no loans stand.i and a show

¶33

)

¶34

cause notice is issued to the unofficial respondent and he has already submitted explanation.

¶35

¶36

Sri V.^praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that after receiving the representation of the petitioner dated 20.06.2022, the respondent officials have already issued notice to the unofhcial respondent and they will consider the explanation of the unolficial respondent and pass appropriate orders.

¶37

Recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20 .06.2022 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with raw, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly putting the unofficial respondent on notice. As this Court is directing the oflicial respondents to issue notice to the unofficial respondent, this Court is not proposing to issue notice to the unofficial respondent There shall be no order as to costs. 6. The miscellaneous Applications, if any sf6l1 stand closed.

¶38

To,

¶39

SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// | -lL. SECTION OFFICER

¶40

1 The Principar Secretarv I/rrnicipar Administration and urban deveropment, State of Telengana Setretarrs .tjyderaOaj.^*

¶41

2 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶42

l C.JJ--

¶43

The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle 7, Phool Bagh, Hyderabad.

¶44

Tlrc Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle 7, Phool Bagh, Hyderabad.

¶45

One CC to SRI SYED MOUNIS JAFER ABIDI Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

One CC to SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES IOPUCI

¶47

Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶48

Two CD Copies.

¶49

One spare copy.

NPJ

kGJP

! !

I I

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811012022

ORDER

WP.No.30546 of 2022

-i,'\E -c, i ^\ l-t' L)
(
c- ]
-)
o 2 B !til! 2m2
i)
* .,- i:

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶61

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶62

v
-\ t<br>Ilt t 0

Mohammed Ashfaq Ahmed v. The State of Telengana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ashfaq Ahmed v. The State of Telengana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kolanu Rukma Reddy, Rukka Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Kolanu Rukma Reddy, Rukka Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Vijayagiri Shivaji Vs The State of Telangana and another

Mrs. Naheed Nazeer Vs Telangana State

Smt. Kumkuma Rani Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Ashfaq Ahmed Vs The State of Telengana