Disposed

Smt. Hemlata Sharma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025WP/3385/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a GHMC speaking order alleging encroachment on road margin. The Court held the factual question unsuitable for Article 226 given an alternative statutory appeal under Section 655 GHMC Act, and directed consideration of the regularization application within four weeks with interim protection against the order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; Commissioner to decide regularization application in four weeks; speaking order dated 21.01.2025 not to be given effect till then; no costs.

Smt. Hemlata Sharma Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THE FIFTH DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEK.LAKSHMAN}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 3385 OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

l.Smt.HemlataSharma,Wo.Sri.SunilSharma'Ageabout.52years,Occ. Household

¶9

Sri. Sunil Sharma,^{S/o. Sri. Mahabir Prasad Sharma,.Age about.55 years,} - 6it. e,;li*.i eoirrFyo. i1_1-93311, Sitharambagh, Mallepally, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad^{- 50000'1,Telangana State'}

¶10

.....PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of^{Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, MAUD Department'} Secretariat, HYderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner,^{Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Lower Tank} Bund Road, HYderabad.

¶14

The Zonal Commissioner'^{Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation'} Khairatabad Zone,^HYderabad.

¶15

4TheDeoutvCommissioner,GreaterHyderabadMunicipalCorporation'' x'ri.iLiSOi'o 2one, trlenOipatnam Circl-e No. 12, Hyderabad'

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under^{Article 226 of the constitution of lndiapraying that in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtoissueaappropriatewritororderordirectionmoreparticularlyonein thenatureoftheWritofMandamusdeclaringtheactionoftherespondentsinnot following the due^{processof law in issuingthe impugned speakingorder dated} 21.o1.2025inLr.No.933/1/TPSM11tc1ztKzlc1ucl2o24-zswithoutverifying relevant documents^{ie., the link documents,buildingpermissionplans' building} regularisation copies^{and the property tax payment receiptsfiled along withthe}

¶18

¶19

KI.] W.l No ll85 o12025

¶20

lt is the specific contention of the petitioners that they never encroached on to the road margin as alleged by respondent No.4 in the show-cause notice dated 18.10.2024. But, according to respondent o.4 and, the aforesaid Association, the petitioners maCe construction by encroaching on to the road margin. It is a factual aspect which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition frled under Arlicle - 226 of the Constitution of India. The irnpugned speaking order is an appealable order in terms of Section - 655 of the GHMC Act, 1955. It is not the case of the petitioners that the impugned speakir g order passed by respondent No.4 is in violation of principles of natural^justrce and the plocedurc laid down under GHMC Act, 1955 to maintain the present writ petition despite availability of alternative lemedy of appeal. Therefore, the petitioners have to avail the said remedy. At this stage, leamed counsel fbr the petitioners seeks protection for a period of lour (04) weeks.

¶21

In the light of the aforesaid submissions and discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing 2nd respontlent to considcr application dated 01.01.2016 submitted by 2n'r petitioner seeking regularization of the unauthorized construction in tcrms of Sections 455.4. and 455AA of the GHMC Act *,ithin a period of

¶22

¶23

KL,J W.P. No.3385 of2025

¶24

four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till

¶25

then, respondent No.4 is dirccted not to give effect to the speaking

¶26

order dated 21.01.2025. Subject to result of the same, respondent

¶27

Nosr3 & 4 shall take steps in accordance with the procedure laid

¶28

down under the GHMC Act, 1955 against the petitioners. In the

¶29

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶31

this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶32

SDAN. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶33

t !_OLe,^{That the ParagraphNo.7 in the} order dated \05-02.2025^{in WP No.33BSof Z02S} is deteted & 'substituted as per the Orders of Hon,ble Court dated 27.02.2025 in tA No.2 oI 2025.

¶34

This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatche d on 07 .02.2025.

¶35

SD/. P. GOWRI SH KAR ASSISTANT RE STRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

The Principal secretary, MAUD Department, secretariat, state of rerangana at Hyderabad.

¶40

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶41

The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Khairatabad Zone, Hyderabad.

¶42

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

¶43

Khairatabad Zone, Mehdipatnam Circle No. 12, Hyderabad.

¶44

Two CCs to Gp FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBANbEVELOpMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶45

One CC to SMT GAYATHRI, Advocate tOpUCI

¶46

One CC to SRt MTDDE ARUN KUMAR, Advocite (OPUC) B. Two CD Copies

SA GJ

C.C. TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510212025 27102t2025

¶52

AMENDED ORDER

¶53

WP.No.3385 of 2025

¶54

' , 5TA7 E
J
:< 7
,^li
.i :!
2 B il-; rf5
.)
<.
''r,
".
\ _"u-'

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶56

WITHOUT COSTS.

Smt. Hemlata Sharma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hemlata Sharma 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

Santok Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Mogili Kinnera Vs The State of Telangana

Shiva Reddy Vs The State of Telangana