Disposed

Mr. Syed Sajid Nawaz v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Feb 2025WP/3893/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a GHMC speaking order directing removal of an allegedly unauthorized room in the stilt of his building as deviating from the sanctioned plan. The Court held the order was appealable under Section 655 of the GHMC Act, disposed of the petition granting liberty to apply for regularization under Sections 455-A/455-AA or to appeal within 10 days; demolition action deferred meanwhi

What did the court decide?

Liberty to seek regularization under Ss.455-A/455-AA GHMC Act or appeal under S.655 within 10 days; respondent directed not to act on speaking order dated 28.01.2025 meanwhile.

Mr. Syed Sajid Nawaz Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3893 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr. Syed Sajid Nawaz, Late Syed Humayun Hassan, aged about 64 years, Rl/o. United States of America Represented by authorized representative Ms. Fouzia Hassan, Wo. Late Syed Ali ZaheerAged about 70 years, Rl/o. Flat No. 501 , H.No.B-2-268l3, Arcadia Apartments, Road No. 3, Arora Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PrnrioNER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangarp, Bep by .its Pri.ncipal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Having its office at Municipal Complex, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Jubilee Hills, Circle No.18, Khairtabad Zone.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in interferingⁱⁿ the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over the Plot No.31'1 , Huda Enclave, Road No.71, Prashasan Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and threatening to demolish the watchman room constructed in the stilt (for^parking) as illegal, arbitrary and highhanded and against the^provisions of the Telangana Building Rules, 2012 (G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 0710412012, MAUD Department) apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia with a consequential prayer to direct the Respondent No.2^and 3 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and ownership of the big room in Stilt (for^parking) at

¶16

premises bearing Plot No.31 , HUDA Enclave, Road No.71 Prashasan Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 set aside the speaking orders dated 2810112025 vide No.297ITPS/DClClSlKZljHMC|2O2S issued by the Respondent No.3.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.NAGESH REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP^FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

I I

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.^LAKSHMAN

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.3893 OF 2025

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel lor^the petitioner and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned^Standing Counsel appearing for respondent^{Nos.2 and 3.}

¶28

Petitioner herein is claiming that he is^the absolute owner and^possessor of^part of^{Plot No.31 (Nor(hern} Part) admeasuring 427.5 square^meters or^{511.29 squa-re} yards in HUDA Enclave, T.S.No.2^{(P), Block-D, Ward No.9 and} T.S.No.1 (P), Block No.F, Ward No.9, situated^{at Shaikpet} Village, Golconda Mandal,^{Hyderabad,on the strength of a} registered Partnership Deed bearing^{Document No.1359 of} 2024 dated 2a.O3.2O14. Thereafter,^{he has obtained building} permit order dated 1O.O5.2O22 from the^{GreaterHyderabad} Municipal Corporation for construction^{of one Stilt + 4 upper} floors. According to him, he has made the^construction strictly in accordance with the said^{buildingpermit order'} While the matter stood thus, 3'd^{respondent has issuedshow} cause notice dated 06.01.2025 to the^{petitionerherein}

¶29

alleging that he has received a complaint from Smt. Naseem Sultana dated 02.12.2024 alleging that petitioner has constructed a big room in Stilt for parking illegally. On receipt of the said complaint, staff of the 3.a respondent has inspected the site and noticed that petitioner has obtained permission for construction of Stilt for parking + 4 upper floors and constructed a big room in Stilt for parking, which is in deviation to the sanctioned plan. Therefore, the same is unauthorized construction. Seven days time was granted. to the petitioner to submit explanation. Petitioner has submitted explanation on 10.01.2025. On cohsideration of the same, 3.d respondent has passed a speaking order dated 24.O1.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the said unauthorized construction within 15 days. ChaJlenging the said speaking order, petitioner Iiled the present writ petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has constructed a small room and wash room for the purpose of watchman. It is not unauthorized construction. However, he is intending to submit an application seeking regularization of the said unauthorized construction in terms of Sections 4S5-A and 455_AA of the

I I

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation^{Act, 1955(for} short, 'GHMC Act').

¶35

The impugned speaking order dated 28.01.2025^of 3'd respondent is an appealable^{order in terms of Section 655} of the GHMC Act. It is not the^{case of the petitioner herein} that the impugned speaking order is in^{violation of principles} of natural^justice and the^{procedure laid down underthe} GHMC Act. In fact,^{accordingto the petitioner, it is not aJ1} unauthorized construction^{and accordingto 3ra respondent, it} is unauthorized construction.^{Therefore,the said aspects are} factual aspects. Petitioner has to^{prefer an appeal in termsof} Sections 455-A and 455-AA of the^{GHMC Act. It is for the} appellate Court to consider the^{same.Petitionerhas to} implead the said Smt. Naseem^{Sultana-complainant as party} to the said appeal.

¶36

In the light of the said submissions,^{this Writ} Petition is disposed of granting liberty^{to the petitionerto} submit an application in terms of Sections^{455-A and 455-AA} of the GHMC Act to 2"d respondent with a^{request to} regalarize the said unauthorized construction.^{It is for the 2"d}

¶37

¶38

¶39

respondent to consider the same. Liberty is also granted to petitioner to prefer an appeal challenging the speaking order dated 28.01.2025 in terms of Section 655 of the CHMC Act before the learned Chief Judge, City Smail Causes Court, Citlr Civil Court, Hyderabad within 10 days from today, failing which liberty is granted to 3.d respondent to take action against the petitioner pursuant to speaking order dated 28.01 .2026. Till then, 3.d respondent is directed not to give

¶40

effect of the speaking order dated 28 .O | .2025.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall starrd

¶42

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

SD/.P.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTA REGISTRAR

¶44

//TRUE COPYII /l ' t To, 5,E ION OFFICER

¶45

' I}3":i[:J:3,ffTiry,i,yiig:ipa,^{Administrarion} and urban Deveropment,

¶46

The Commissioner. Gr om"e ii rr,r u n, t io n, Ha vin s its "^{i;;ii # l,?31:'r*[1",jfjfti# : ilif"%} f;".'r".

¶47

, e ra bad Mu n ici pa I co rporation, 1.l3,"3?fl ,yjl.F;r ru:ib:iff ., no,,;:l.l"Hd

¶48

1. One CC to SRt S.NAGESH REDDY, Ad vocate [OpUC]

¶49

One CC to SRt MTDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC TOPUCJ

¶50

Two CCs to Gp FOR MCPL AD MN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of

¶51

I erangana at Hyderabad [OUT]-

¶52

Two CD Copies

BSR/BSK e

HIGH COURT

DATED: 11102.12025

1Hr.
(
o
1 4 tic| 20.15 <br>a o
",*
rr4,
CHEO a

¶57

ORDER

¶58

WP.No.3893 of 2025

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶60

WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

,{
0
w

Mr. Syed Sajid Nawaz v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Syed Sajid Nawaz 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

Asiya Begum, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd.Abdul Wahab and 2 Others Vs the State of Telangana, Rep by P.P and Another

M. Jayvardhan Vs The State of Telangana

Heera Begum @ Kaleem Sulthna Vs The State of Telangana

Sheribai Abhishek Reddy Vs Telangana State Election Commission

Sri. Rajpu Rohit Mukesh Vs The State of Telangana