Dismissed¶51

Smt. Zakiya Sultana v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC10 Sept 2025WP/33119/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court; WP.No.33119 of 2014; decided 10-09-2025; writ petition dismissed as infructuous without costs; GHMC; Section 636 HMC Act 1955; demolition notice dated 29-10-2014; removal of 2nd and 3rd floors within 24 hours; Old Bowenpally; Kukatpally circle; Balanagar Mandal; Ranga Reddy District; Survey No. 01; premises No. 8-1-69/1A; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ of mandamus; principles of natural justice; penalization and regularization scheme under HMC Act 1955.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, recording learned counsel for the petitioner's submission that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication; there shall be no order as to costs. ¶36

Smt. Zakiya Sultana Vs Greater Hyderabad… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶3

(SPeciat Original Jurisdic'tion)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE^{TENTHDAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENW FIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

' THE HoN'BLE sR!^{JUsrlcELAXMINARAYANAALISHETw}

¶7

WRIT PE :33 oF 20

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Zakiva Sultana^{Wo Mohd.Altaf, aged about 33 yegrs,.R/gpOp.H} ryg^e1;9.9/9 Near Govt. School, Old^{Bowenpally,under 'Kukatpally Munlclparry',l-"'t''} Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1-TheGreaterHvderabadMunicipalCorporation,RepresentedbyitsMunicipal Commissloner. G.U.UC'^{TankblndRoad,H$erabad}

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner,^{G.H.M.C. Kukatpally,Hyderabad'}

¶14

The Chief City^{Planner, Greater HyderabadMunicipal, CorporationTankbund'} Hyderabad.

¶15

T.Ramulu, S/o^{LateBalaiah,aged About 51.years,. H'No' 8-1-69/A'Beside} Got( Crimary School,^{Old Bowenpalli,Secunderabad'}

¶16

Pankai Aoarwal. S/o Late^{Ved Prakash,aged about 58 yegrsrH'No' 8-1-69/A'} - eesiOd G6vt. primary School, Old Bowenpally, Securderabad'

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under^{Article226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order^{or direc{ion more partiallarly one in the nature of} Writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe lmpugned trlotice underSec' 636 of HMC Act} 1 955, vide Notice^{No.o 1 /uclw.No. e1 rclR-14hN?rel-MC/1 4 dated29-1 0-201 4,} where under directing^{the petitioner to remov€the 2nd and 3d floors within 24} hours is violative of^{principlesof natural justbe and set-asi&the same and} consequently^d irect^{the respondents 1 to 3 to stop the dernolitionof 2nd floorand} pillars raised in 3rd floor house^{bearing No. 8-1-69/1Aon plot No'4' in Survey} No.0ladmeasuring2S0Sq.yards=20gSq.Meters,situatedatOldBowenpally

4, 24 nd and^.

rvey ally

Reddyge,District, after under G.H.M.C. demolisKukatpally Mrn,",O"lity circle Balanagar Mandal, Ranga hing required settack by accepting penalty under penalizat,on a,1d regularizatio n scheme under HMC Act 1955.

¶23

P. 4 10F 14

¶24

: the affidavit Petition rrnderSection 15, CpC Praying that in the circumstances stated in floor the respondof ho ents filed 1 in to 3 to stop support of thethe demolition petition the of High2nd Court may be pleased direct 250 Sg .Yards1209 use bearing Sq. No. Meters8_1_69/1 A on plot No.4, in Survey floor and pillars No.01 admeasuraised in 3rd situated at Ob B ring Kukatpally Municipality circle owenpally Village, under GHMC. Balanagar Mandal disposal of the Writ petition. Ranga Reddy District, pending

¶25

Counsel fior the petitione

¶26

RAu K,MAR

¶27

counser forrhe Responr""l1,l-" ents No.l to 3: SRt K. RAV

¶28

t'".-i6'J3'l',tfot*'

¶29

counsd forthe Respondr tnts No.4 & S: SRt K. SHYAMALA REODY

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

...---i,%b;;:;-^.

¶32

TIIE IIOI,BLE SRI.IUSTICE IAXMI IVARAYANA

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Sri G.M.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel forr the petitioner and Sri K.Ravi Matrender, Iearned Standing Counr --**rx uouDs€I f r respondents I to 3 (GHMg, are present.

¶35

A Icarned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for a{udication and the same has become infructuous.

¶36

3 Recording the aforesaid submission of the tearrred counsel, the Writ petition isWrit petition ispetition isis dismissed order as toto costs. as infructuous. There shall be no

¶37

the Writ petition isWrit petition ispetition isis dismissed

order as toto costs.

//TRUE coPYtt 6

; ;["T,|".j,,::.RAvr^K,MAR, Advocare,^,Ecr;oFFrcER :n"ff;;ytr#j.Hilff:i"iru,Pies --"^u\rorcate[OpUCJ ifip TKS

¶42

¶43

¶44