Disposed

Santok Singh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025WP/3185/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging proposed demolition of the petitioner's pent house for unauthorized construction, without deciding his explanation to the show cause notice. The court directed GHMC to consider the explanation along with regularization proceedings, pass a speaking order after notice and hearing to the petitioner and complainants, within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

GHMC directed to consider petitioner's explanation dated 23.01.2025 and regularization proceedings, hear petitioner and complainants, and pass orders per law within four weeks; no costs.

Santok Singh Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR TH STATE OF TELANGANA AT ERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3185 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Santok Singh,. S/o. Tara Singh, Aged about 67 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. H.No.1-2-4121612, Ftat No.6 BIGaginmahat, OomjlguOd, Hvd erabad.

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

'l . The State of Telangana, Principal Secretary, r^rMunicipal

¶12

Administration and Urban^Rep Development^{by its} Department, Sdcretariat at Hyderabad. , I[9,:":l:,^Ilg-"fb.qo jr{ulicinpr Corporation, Represented by its Deputy uommtsstoner, urrcte No..l5, Musheerabad GHMC, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus to decraring the action of the Respondent No.2 herein in seeking to demolish Premises No.1-2-412t6t2, Frar No.6-8, Gaganmahar, Domarguda, Hyderabad, without considering petitioner expranation dated}4-o1-202 s against show cause notice dated 20-01-202s as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Arts.'14, 21 and 300(4) of the constitution of lndia and as also the provisions of GHMC Act

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

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 direct the Respondents not to take any coercive steps particularly without considering the explarration of the Petitioner dared 24-01-2t02s against notice dated 20-01-2025 in respect of Premises No.1-2-412i612, FIat No.6-8, Gaganmahal, Domalguda, Hyderabad

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VIJAY ASHRIT

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNIC|PAL ADMtNISTRAT|ON AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN tREDDy, SC FOR GHMC

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

a'ry

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSTIMAN

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.3185 of 2025

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

¶27

Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel tbr Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing lor 2nd respondent.

¶28

Petitioner is claiming that he is the absoiute owner and possessor of premises bearing No.1-2-4121612, flat No.6-B, Gaganmahal, Domalguda, Hyderabad, having acquired the same under the builder's ratio as per registered agreement bearing document No.387l of 2007 dated 17.11.2005. He has obtained regularization proceedings in respect of the said building. He is residing in the pent house since last 17 years. In the meanwhile, on the cornplaints of Sri Y. Pavan Kumar and others, dated 02.1 1.2024 and 02.12.2024,2"d respondent - GHMC, rep. by its Deputy Cornmissioner, Circle No.15, Musheerabad GHMC, Hyderabad, has issued show cause 1 notice tated 20.01 .2025 to petitioner stating that he has

¶29

--....-*4.

¶30

I I I I

¶31

2 KL, J w. P.No 3l8s of 2025

¶32

constructed pent house (flat No.6B) unauthorizedly at terrace floor by cJLosing access to other flat owners and has erected 2"d gate on the westem side in violation of the sanctioned plan Seven (7) days' time was granted to petitioner to submit explanatiorr. He has submitted explanation on 23.01 .2025. Without considering his explanation, 2nd respondent is trying to demolish the subject property. Challenginl; the said action of 2nd respondent, petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Leanred Standing Counsel appearing for 2''d respondent has produced written instructions of the Assistant City Planher, Crrcle-15, Musheerabad, wherein it is stated that the Assistant City Planner will consider exlrlanation dated 23.01 .2025 submitted by petitioner to the sh,rw cause notice and. pass a speaking order strictly in accordance with the procOdure laid down under the law, by putting the petitioner and^,the said Y. Pavan Kumar & three others on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing.

¶33

/
/
I
-cl

¶34

3 KL, J W.P.No.3l85 of2025

¶35

In the light of the above, this Writ petition is being disposed of in the absence of complainants, viz., Sri y. pavan Kumar and three others.

¶36

5 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing nd 2 respondent to consider explanation dated 23.01.2025 submitted by petitioner in response to show cause notice dated 20.01.2025 and also the regularization proceedings submitted by petitioner and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordaqce with law by putting petitioner and Sri y. pavan Kumar & three others on notice and affording them an opportunity ofhearing. He shall complete the said action within four (4) weeks fiom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscelianeous applications, if- any pending, shall stand

¶38

closed.

¶39

\ To,

¶40

SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIST RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶41

'1 The PrincipaLSecretary, Municipar Administration and Urban Deveropment z^^{p.eO1tment,T.S.,} rne Deputy commissioner,Greati;r Hyoerabad Municipar^{Secrbtariatat'HyderabaJ.-' ""} corporation, circre ^^{No lQ,MuiheerabadGHMC,HyOerabLO.} ?. 9n"^{CC to SRt. V|JAYASHR|T,navocaie} tOpUCl 4. Two CCs to GP FoR MUNICIPAL ADMINISiRTiiou Rruo URBAN DEVELOPMENT Hioh Court for the Staie o] t"ri1g{q, at Hyderabad [OUTI 5. one cc to SRr. c MADHUSUDAAT.T iiioiiv, it"FoR'ci_idiidpiltt,""' Two CD Copies "6.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 51021',2025

iP.E S14
t
\r
(r)'
06 fiA0 2025
c.
t t)
ispATCH€1')

¶46

ORDER

¶47

WP.No.3185 oil 2025

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

o))r
W

Santok Singh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santok Singh 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

Mr. Jasti Madhusudan Rao 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. Hemlata Sharma Vs The State of Telangana

Mogili Kinnera Vs The State of Telangana

Shiva Reddy Vs The State of Telangana