Disposed

Mohammed Mustafa Khan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Oct 2024WP/16201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought enforcement against the Municipal Corporation for inaction regarding illegal construction by the 5th respondent. The Court noted that while a speaking order was passed, action had not been taken. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the authorities to take strict action within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent No.3 to take action pursuant to speaking order dated 28.06.2024 against 5th respondent strictly in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks.

Mohammed Mustafa Khan Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAYOF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENWFOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK.LAKSHMAN}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^{162010F 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

MohammedMustafaKhan,s/o.LateMohammedLutfullahKhan,Agedabout. ii1 ,;;;;:;diltnioi citiren, R/o. H. No.^{B-2-334t10,Road No 3, Banjara} Hills, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

TheState of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Prl. Secr.et.ary,} .Municipal^{Administration} andU rban Developirent Department,^{Secretariat, Telangana,}

¶12

Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal corporation, Rep By its commissioner, Tank} Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

3_ Greater Hvderabad Municipal^{corporation,Representedby its Deputy} Commissio-ner, Circle^{No. 18; Khairtabad,Hyderabad}

¶14

Greater Hvderabad Municipal^{Corporation,Town planning.section'} Representea by its^{Asst. City planner,circle No.'18, Khairtabacl,Hyderaoao.}

¶15

5.MohammedSalahuddin,s/o.MohammedShareef,Agedabout'63years' - Oic. euJiness, Rl/o. H. No. 8-2-334111 ,Baniara Hills, Hyderabad

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ or^{order or direction more particularly one in} the nature of writ of^{Mandamus declaringthe actionof respondent Nos.2 to 4 in} not taking any action^{for demolition of the illegal and unauthorized constructions of} additional floors in deviation^{of the approvedplanin permit No. 1O31glDClCZCn-} 1O12O12, dt. 241o2t2o12 as^{mentioned in the sale deed being constructed by the} 5th respondent over^{the house property bearingH.No.8-2-334l11, RoadNo. 3} Banjara Hills, comes under the^{circle 18 GHMC,withoutconsideringthe}

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMI\N

¶19

WRIT PBTITION No.16201OF 2024

¶20

ORDBR:

¶21

Heard Sri Thomas George, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶22

Sri K.Siddharth Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing lirr respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Mr. Thomas Lloyd, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5

¶23

The pctitioner is a resident of house bearing No. 8-2-334110, Road No.3, Banjara lJills, Hyderabad. He is 81 years old super senior citizen. According to him, 5th respondent IS making an illegal construchon

¶24

3.5th respondent has obtained permission for construction of Ground + 2 Upper Floors and constructed Third floor contrary to the said permission and there are deviations. He is making construction during night tinre rvhich is causing disturbance to him and he is unable to sleep properly. Therefore, he has submitted several representations including reprcsentations dated 29.04.2024 and 21.06.2024 to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 with a request to take action against 5th respondent. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said written representations, respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not act upon the same.

I I

I I I

latx{: ' '

Aggrieved by the said.inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 4, the petitioner fi1ed the present writ petition.

¶30

In the light of the same, this Courl directed

¶31

Sri K.Siddharth Rao, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 to get specific instructions. On instructions, he would submit that 3'd respondent has issued show cause notice, dated 03.05.2024 to 5th respondent granting seven days time to submit explanation. According to 3'd respondent, 5th respondent has not submitted explanation to the said show cause notice. However, leamed counsel for 5'h respondent, on instructions, would submit that the 5'h respondent has submitted explanation, but the same was not considered. Without considering the said explanation, 3'd respondent has passed speaking order dated 28.06.2024.

¶32

Learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on further instructions, would further submit that the respondent No.3 has passed speaking order dated 28.06.2024 and will take steps in accordance with law pursuant to the said order dated 28.06.2024

¶33

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is 8l years old super senior citizen and 3'd respondent is making construction during night time which is disturbing the petitioner's sleep. Therefore, he sought liberty to approach police

I I

concerned to submit a Complaint and a direction may be given to the police to consider the same.

¶38

In the light of the said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to take action pursuant to the speaking order, dated 28.06.2024 against 5'h respondent strictly in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks. I-iberly is also granted to the petitioner to lodge a complaint with the police concerned complaining about illegal construction being made by the 5'h respondent during night time and upon filing of such complaint, it !s for the said police to take action in accordance with law. Liberty is also granted to the 5th respondent to challenge the speaking order dated 28.06.2024 if he

¶39

desires so.

¶40

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall sland c Iosed.

¶41

Sd/. N. SRIHART ASSISTANTdTEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// )--' SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The Deputy commissioner,^{Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation, circle} No. 18, Khairtabad,^HYderabad.

¶44

One Cb to Sri^{ThomaSGeorge,Advocate} [OPUC] - 3. iwo CCsio Cp tor^{trltunicipainOministration Urban Development, High Court} forthe State ofTelangana,^{at Hyderabad} tO-UIl^ -^-

¶45

4 on" Cc to Sri K.^{siddlharthaRab,s C. for GHMC[oPUC]} 5 One CC to Sri Thomas^{Lloyd, Advocate} [OPUC] 6 Two CD Copies

TJ MP 1---'

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711012024

ORDER

1HE t;t4
k oR
$l'
O
0
a
t
D..
sD/ -.lrEO

¶51

WP.No.16201 of 2024

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶53

WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

q /.b 4 7

Mohammed Mustafa Khan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Mustafa Khan v. The State of Telangana

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

Sajid Hussain Vs The Commissioner

Dalit Sankshema Sangam (Regd.) Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

G.Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana

Antharam Anitha Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Mekka Madina Trust for Education and another Vs Union of India ans 2 Others

Mohammed Faqruddin Vs The State of Telangana