Disposed

Mr. Radhe Shyam Bung v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Aug 2024WP/18088/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing municipal authorities to remove illegal construction deviating from sanctioned plans. Court noted authorities had issued show-cause notices and speaking orders, directing them to take further action to conform with building permissions. Writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to authorities to take further action to bring construction in conformity with building permission.

Mr. Radhe Shyam Bung Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

IUONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND IWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 18088 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mr. Radhe Shyam Bung, S/o Late Ramprasad Bung Aged 62 years, Occ, Business, Rlo 3-2-722 lo 724, Cenrent Nala Road, Chappal Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rqp. by its Commissioner, Basheerbagh, Tankbund, Hyderabad

¶14

3 The Zonal Comissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Marredpally, Secunderabad.

¶15

4 The Section Officer, Circle 16, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad

¶16

5 lvlr.Ramesh Kumar Parikh, S/o not known To the petitioner, Aged Major, Occ.Business, No 3-2-762, Cement Nala Road, Chappal Bazar, Hyderabad

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia piaying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the act of Respondents no.3 and 4 in not taking any action in pursuance to the complaints dated.'10.05.2024 and 06.06.2024 lodged by the petitioner in respect. of illegal construction raised at the property the bearing municipal 3-2-762, situated at Cement Nala Road, Chappal Bazar, Hyderabad by Respondent No.5 as totally illegal and arbitrary thereby directing the Respondents No.3 and 4 to take appropriate action for r<:nroval of the illegal construction raised at the property bearing municipal 3-2-762, srtuated at Cement Nala Road, Chappal Bazar, Hyderabad, without leaving mandatory setbacks as per GHMC Rules and Regulations by the Respondent No.5

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.3 and 4 to stop and renrove the illegal conslruction raised by the Respondent No.5 in the property bearing munrcipal 3-2-762, situated at cement Nala Road, chappar Bazar, llyderabad, without reaving mandatory setbacks as per GHIVIC Rules and Regulations pending disposal of writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. DAMODAR MUNDRA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent NOs.2 to 4: SRt K. RAVINDER REDDy SC FOR Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent NO.5: SRI B.V.V.S MURTHY

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRJT PETITION No. 18088 of2024

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urbal Development appearing for respondent^No. l, Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, Sri B.V.V.S.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, and perused the record.

¶29

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondents-authorities are not taking any action pursuant to the complaints lodged by the petitioner, dt. 10.05.2O24 and dt.O6.06.2024, in respect of illegal construction raised in the premises bearing Municipal No.3-2-762 situated at Cement Nala Road, Chappal Bazar, Hyderabad, which action it is contended as being illegal and arbitrary

¶30

-'{4-*'

¶31

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4, on the other hard, submits that one Smt. N.Anupama and Sri S.Naveen Chandra had obtained building permission, dt.29.OI.2020, in respect of the subject premises bearing H.No.3-2-762 for construction of arr individual residential building consisting of Stilt + 2 Upper floors; that the rcrspondentsauthorities on receiving the complaint/ represen tation from the petitioner have caused verification and found deviation in the setback area; and thus, issued a shou, czruse notice, dt.29.O5.2024.

¶33

4 . Learned Starding Counsel further submi ts that the authorities thereafter passed a Speakir.rg Order, dt.2o .06 .2024, wherein it has been noted that the owner/occupier of the subject premises neither submitted any reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice nor stopped the construction work, and thus, directed that the construction made in deviation of the sanctioned plan should be removed within 15 days from the datr: of receipt

¶34

¶35

was of the notice, failing rvhich the owner/occupier informed that further action would be taken in the^matter.

¶36

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the respondents-authorities thereafter initiated^proceedings under Section 461A of the GHMC Act, 1955 and^{seized the} subject premise preventing the owner/occupier of^the subject premises to proceed with the further^{construction.}

¶37

¶38

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the authorities would take steps lor removal^ofthe construction made in deviation of the^{sanctionedplan in} order to bring the subject construction in^{conformit5r with} th. building permission granted.

¶39

7 . I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

¶40

Having regard to the submissions made as above, and since, the respondents-authorities have initiated action, lrrstly by issuing show cause notice,^{dt.29.O5.2024,} and thereafter by passing a Speaking order, dt.20.06.2024,

¶41

¶42

--r

¶43

with regard to Lhe conslruction being made ir r the subject premises ir-r deviation of the sanctioned plan, this Court is of thc vieri, that the respondents_authoritie s are to be directcd to take further action to bring the construction made in the subject premises in conformitv with the building pcrmlssion granted by the authorities.

¶44

Subject to the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of- No order as to costs.

¶45

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly, shali stand closed.

¶46

SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶47

//TRUE COPY/i

¶48

fi .t SECTIQN OFFICER

¶49

To,

¶50

The Principal Secretary, l.4unicipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶51

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad tvlunicipal Corporation, Basheerbagh, Tankbund, Hydera bad

¶52

The Zonal Comissioner, Greater Hyderabad [Vlunicipal Corporation, Marredpally, Secunderabad.

¶53

The Section Officer, Circle 16, Greater Hyderabad lrlunicipal Corporation, Hyderabad

¶54

One CC to SRl. DAIVODAR IVIUNDRA Advocate [OPUC]

¶55

One CC to SRI B V.V.S TMURTHY Advocate IOPUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP FOR [\4CPL ADIMN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶57

I One CC to SRI K. RAVINDER REDDY SC FOR Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation [OPUC]

¶58

o Two CD Copies

KKS

CJP

CHV

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510812024

ORDER

o R lHli St4
(
o
U
14 fieT at n
o ,
9r,,' p

¶66

WP.No.18088 of 2024

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Mr. Radhe Shyam Bung v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Radhe Shyam Bung 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

Adapala Sandeep Vs Chevula Janga Reddy

Smt. Shantam Padma Vs The State of Telangana

Annamma Koshy, Vs The State of Telangana

Roop Karan Sanghi, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,rep.by its

Dwarapogu Prabhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Murtuja Khan Vs State of Telangana