Sri. Rajpu Rohit Mukesh Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸¹

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO:3 876 0F 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . Sri. Rajpu Rohit^{tr/ukesh' S/9 Rqjp^u Rohit Valgichand'Ageda.bout 35 ye.ars'} o;;. a"i.in"i",^{nyo'H.Nb.S-Z-4i2, nsn,428 and 42811 , RisalaAbdullah,} Jambagh, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State'}

¶9

1. 6;. M;U; ftiipu^{nohii,sto'Asutat} 1a;pu.Rohit,^{Aged about30 vears' occ'} - Eijii"*i, nyd-r-r.r.ti,.'"s:z:+1i,- qttii qzl aia"428t1, Risal, Abdullah, Jambagh, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State} ...'ET'T.ONERS

¶10

...'ET'T.ONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of^{Telangana, Rep by its Principal} -Secretary'.^{. Municipal} nOministration anO*'U"rOiii^{Development Dept,' Se'cretariat,Hyderabad,} Telangana State.

¶13

Z. in" Ei"ato^{iyderabad Municipal corporation'Rep by its commissioner'} Hyderabad, Telangana^State.

¶14

s. ifie-Depuiv^{corimiJsionei, Circle No' 14 Gosha Mahal'KBZ'GHMC'} Hyderabad, Telangana^State.

¶15

...RES'ONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstancesStatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue a writ,^{orderor direction more particularly one in the nature of} wRlT oF MANDAMUS,^{declaringthe actionof the Respondentno 3 in issuing} the speaking^{order dated 27 -01-2025for removalof the unauthorized construction} of cellar and^{further trying to demolishthe entire constructionwithoutconsidering} the closing of^{the cellar permanently by the petitioners whichwas laid by} unauthorizedly^{in respect of the premises bearing no's' 5-2-412} '^{428 and 42811} situated at^{Risala Abdullah. Jambagh, Hyderabad' TelanganaStatewithout} following the^{procedure under the act is illegal, arbitrary,violative of articlesof 14'} 21 and 300-A^{of the constitutionof lndia besidesviolative of principles of natural} justice and consequently direct^{the 3rd Respondentnot to demolishthe} construction^{of the petitionersin respect of the premises bearing no's. 5-2-412'}

¶17

428 and 42811 situated at Risala Abdullah. Jambagh, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

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 3rd Respondent not to demolish the construction of the petitioners in respect of the premisr-'s bearing no's. s-2-412, 4zB and 42gl1 situated at Risala Abdullah. Jambagh, Flyderabad, Telangana State in pursuant of the speaking order dated 27-O1-2025, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶20

Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRl. R. A. CHARY

¶21

counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FoR MUNlclpAL ADM|NrsrRATloN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: SRI ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

e&*:----

¶24

o

¶25

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN} WRIT PETITION^{No.3876of 2025-}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard^{leamed counselfor petitioners and Sri Midde} Arun Kumar,^{learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad} Municipal^{Corporation(GHMC) appearing for respondent} Nos.2 and^3.

¶28

2 Petitioners are^{claiming that 2"d petitioner is the absolute} owner and^{possessor ofproperty bearingmunicipal} Nos.5-2-412, 4l3ll,^{5-2-428and 42811, admeasuring380} Sq.yards, situated^{at Risala Abdutlah, Jambagh, Hyderabad,on} the strength of registered^{sale deed bearing document No- 148} of 2024 dated 19.01^{.2024. Thereafter, he has executedtwo} registered gift deeds bearing^{documentNo.856 and 993 of} 2024 dated 30.03.2024 and^{16.04.2024respectively,in favour} of I't^petitioner. They have obtained^{building permitorders} dated 02.05.2024 and 01 .06.2024^{for construction} of Stilt^for parking + 2 Upper Floors. They have completed the construction strictly in accordance with the permissions. Even

¶29

2 KL. J l{'.P io 3876 ol2025

¶30

then on the complaints lodged by Sri G. Srinivas, Sri M. Purushotam, Sri M. Anand Goud, Sri P. Shanker and Sri Rakesh .laiswal, 3'd respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.l4, Gosha Mahal, KBZ, GHMC, Hyderabad, has passed a speaking order dated 27 .01.2025 directing pctitioners to remove the slabs laid down by them for Cellar and Ground Floor unauthorizedly in the subject property. Fifteen (15) days' time uras granted to petltioners to remove the sarne. Challenging the said speaking order, petitioners have filed the present Wlit I'}etition.

¶31

Perusal ofthe aforesaid speaking order would reveal that 3'd responclent has passed the said order on issuance of show cause notice dated 17 .01.2025 and on consideration of explanation dated 20.01.2025 subrnitted by petitioners.

¶32

The rmpugned speaking order is an appealable tirder in terms of Se;tion 655 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (fbr short'the Act'). Therefore, petitioners have to prefer an appeat challenging the impugned

¶33

,l

¶34

KL, J w P No 3476 of 2025

3

I

,

t'

speaking order. [t is not^{the case of petitionersthat the} impugned speaking order is^passed in^violation of^the principles of natural^justice and the^procedure laid down^under the Act to maintain the^present Writ^{Petition despite} availability of alternative remedy of appeal.

¶40

Leamed counsel fbr^petitioners, on^{instructions, would} submit that petitioners have already closed^{the cellar on} 01 .02.2025 and in proof of the same,^{he has filed photographs.}

¶41

However, petitioners have to^plead all^{the said grounds befbre} the appellate Court.

¶42

As discussed above, though the^{impugnedspeaking} order is passed on the complaints lodged by^{the aforesaid} persons,, petitioners have not made them as^parties to^the present Writ Petition. However, petitioners have to^prefer an appeal challenging the said speaking^{orderagainst respondent} Nos.2 and 3 and the aforesaid complainants.

¶43