Disposed

Mr. Jasti Madhusudan Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Feb 2025WP/2975/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition alleging unauthorized Ground plus seven floor construction on the petitioner's plot without GHMC permission, despite a show cause notice under the GHMC Act. The GHMC standing counsel stated a speaking order dated 03.02.2025 directed removal. The court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.3 to take further steps, including seizure, within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to take further steps including seizure of the building per speaking order dated 03.02.2025 within four weeks; liberty to respondent No.4 to challenge it; no costs.

Mr. Jasti Madhusudan Rao Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA [^316E ] AT HYDERABAD^'---'-.. (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUETDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTTCE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:2975 oF 202s

¶6

Between:

¶7

$ift"i1jiil{#:;H![# ii.",^{i,tr;,f;%Tos,pr,,?i#snr:;}

AND

...PETITIONER

Iliu:.i?ff "f,'.T:",H!31';"T5Bo#",'B",?xHll"il.."??!",:ila11,11?331

¶12

2 Ei-r"r!,.8fl^:% l'fl ;:10;3"y'^{^'cipa I co rporatio n, Rep. bv its commissioner,} 3 ,iffi"r?B:E'^{commissioner, chandanagar, serilingampafiy Zone,} GHMC, 4 H:s"d{f,1i!'Jfl^{,T'6il,'lt36"ilB:#y,"":i,gHS;j,,11?:"ji*ff} ,}I,?ti

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High cou,, may be pleased to issue writ, order of Direction more particurarry one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring the action of the Respondent No. Sin not taking necessary steps to demorish the unauthorized construction consisting Ground plus Seven Floors being made in plot No. 603, adrneasuring 300 Sq. yards equivalent to 2s0.83 sq. mts, part of sy. Nos. 11l.14, 11t1s, 1ir16, 11r1r, ;1/|8, situated at Khanamet Vi age. Rajendra Nagar, Mandar, R.R. District in spite of issuing show cause notice vide Notice no. r)cr92rc-2lirpscHM./20 24 Dt. 23_ 12-2024, under section 451(1) and 461(1) of GHMC Act, 195S tothe Respondent no' 4, as being iregar. arbitrary and viorative of Articres 14, 19, 21and 300-4 of the constitution of India and arso in gross vioration of principres of Natural Justice and consequen,y seeking a direction to demorish the unauthorized

¶15

I ] t I i l l l

¶16

construction b::in1; made in Plot No.603, admeasuring 300^{Sq. '/ards equivalent} to250.83Sq. mts,Partof Sy.Nos. 11/14, 11115,^{11116,11117,11118,situatedat} Khanamet Villag,-. Rajendra Nagar, Mandal,^{R.R. District} lA NO: 1 OF 202!5

¶17

Petition un,l-.r Section 151 CPC^praying that in the oircurnstances stated in the affida'vit fi €^(l in support of the^petition, the High^Cou 1^{maybe pleasedto} direct the Rr:sporCent no. 4 to stop the building constructio'l^{aclivityundertaken} in Plot No. 603. ri^jmeasuring 300 Sq.^yards equivalent lo 250-83 Sq. mts, Part of Sy. Nos. 1li14 11115, 11116, 11117, 11/18, situated a Khanamet Village, Rajendra Nag;:rr. Vlandal. R.R. District as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 111. 2'l and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. NARAPARAJU AVANEESFI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMII\IISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMEI'IT

¶20

Counsel for ther Respondent Nos.2&3: SRI G. MADHUSUT)AN^IREDDY, SC

¶21

Counsel for the Ilespondent No.4: SRI P. NAGESWAR RAo

¶22

The Court marje the following: ORDER

¶23

I I

¶24

¶25

TITE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE I( LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2975 of 2025

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri Narapraju Avaneesh, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Sri G. Madhusudan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri P. Nageswar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶28

Petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessOr ofplot No.603, admeasuring 300 sq. yards, in Sy.Nos.l l/14, ll/l5,ll/16, ll/17 afi I 1/18, situated at Khanamet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.345 of 1984, dated 19.01.1984. Respondent No.4 is proceeding with construction in the said property, which belongs to the petitioner, without obtaining prior permission from GHMC. The said construction is unauthorized construction. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 18.12.2024 to respondent No.3 with a request to take action against respondent No.4. On receipt of the said representation, respondent No.3 has issued show cause notice dated 23.12.2024 to respondent

¶29

No.4 directing to stop the unauthorized construction and submit

¶30

¶31

explanati,lrr^{\vithin 7 days. Petitioner has alsolodlled} "r^complaint before thr:^{\lrrdhapur, Police Station, againstrespondernt I'lo'4'who in} tum regii;tcrred^{the case in Crime No.l317 of 2024, dated 0'1 '102024} against r,:spcndent^{No'4 for the offences punishableunrler Sections} 447,406.4i.(t,41g,465,46'7,468and471ofIPCTht:investigationis pending [r',r:n then,^{respondentNo.3 is not takinqfu rther action} against lespc'ndent^{No.4 and resptndent No'4is pro')eedjng with the} constnlclic,t '.^{Aggrieved by the said inaction of resprlnde nt No.3,the} petition('r h,r'; filed the^{presentwrit petition'}

¶32

\'hereas, Sri G' Madhusuqn^{RedOy, leamed SitandingCounsel} appearir,g lrr^{respondentNos..2} 1qd^{3, on instructions' v ould submit} that dr:sfite receipt^{of showcause notice dated 23 12 2024 , respondent} No.4 dirt nor submit^{any explanation. Therefore,respond':ntNo'3has} a[ read,v r:^s sed speaking^{order dated 03.02'2025dirt:cti nrl rcspondent} No.4 to rcrrove^{the unauthorizedconstruction'He has rot removed} rhc saicl^r.rtr tuthorized^{construction.RespondentNo - w'il L takefurther} sleps^a u;ⁱ rst^{respondentNo.4 strictly in accordan':ewith the} proceJr re ,aid down^{under the Greater Hyde-aba'lMunicipal} Corponrtt,r^{I Act,1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955'),}

¶33

¶34

! I I I ! I I i I

¶35

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to take further steps against respondent No.4, including seizing of the building, etc., pursuant to the speaking order dated 03.02.2025 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act, 1955. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four⁽⁰⁴⁾ weeks from the date of^receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is^granted to respondent^No.4to challenge the speaking order dated 03.02.2025.^{Thereshal[ be no} order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

SDI.V.KAVITHA ,/ ANT REGISTRAR^/

/TTRUE^COPY//

ECTION^OFFICER

Urban^Development

To, 1. The^{PrinciPalSecretaryMuniciPalAdministrationan} Dep artment,^{Secretariat Buildings , Secretariat,HYde rabad}

¶42

1. The Com^{missioner'Greater HYderabadMuniciPalCorporation, GHMC} Bhavan,^Hyderabad. Chandanagar,^{SerilingampallyZone' GHMC'}

¶43

1. The^{DePutYCommis sbner,} Hvd erabad.

¶44

1. One CC^{toSRI. NARAPARAJUAVANEESH,AdvocateIoPucl} E Two CC^{sto GPFORM UNICIPALADMINIST RATION AN} te of^{Telangana, aDURt HyderabBANad [oUIl} Co urt^{for theSta}

¶45

1. DEVELOOne^{CC to} PMENTSRI.^P. ,HNA^igh GESWAR^RA o, Ad vocate [O^PUCI One^{CC toSRI. GMADHUSUDDANREDDY, SCtoPUCl}

¶46

Two^{CD CoPies} BM

¶47

GJP (P-

HIGH COLIR

DATED:04'102,12025

ORDER

o r(_-
I C,^
l -'
/--
r.l
lo 2 h JUll 206
.T
I
.i- ,i-o

¶53

WP.No.29'75 ot 2025

¶54

DISPOSIilIG OF THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT' C OSTS ?r I ar5 ;(a

Mr. Jasti Madhusudan Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Jasti Madhusudan Rao 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

Mohammed Adil Vs State of Telangana

Smt.B.Pushpalatha Vs The District Collector, R.R.District, Lakdikapool

Smt. Sabera Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Ramanaji Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana

Sri K. Mohan Reddy, Nagarkurnool Dist Vs the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and 9 Others

Smt. Indira Kiran Mayi Chintha Vs The State of Telangana