Disposed

M. Jayender v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Feb 2025WP/3927/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners holding building permits challenged a municipal demolition order over plots allegedly on Government land listed as prohibited under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The High Court noted factual issues and the statutory appeal remedy under Section 252(1) and disposed of the writ petition, directing petitioners to appeal within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to file appeal under Section 252(1) before Regional Director within two weeks; impugned speaking order not to be enforced meanwhile; no costs.

M. Jayender Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:3927 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 !1, ,Jgy.enle_rr.S{o.^{M. Hqryq, Aged about} 39^years, Occ Business, R/o.H.No.6-59/1iA, Pragathi Nagar] Dammaiguoa viitige, Keesara nrinobi Medcha l-Ma lkajq iri Distrilct

¶10

2 Q1lSuloth^{Patisingh, S/o. G.Tavu.rya,-Agedabout 44 years,} Occ. Business, Rl/o.Baddu Thanda, Matkapuram (V), Tur'kapale 1lrty, VdOaOii'_Sn;gi;b];il;i'

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

..AND

¶13

1 Tle 9tale^{of Te.langana, rep by its principal Secretary, Municipal} Administration Develooment Secretariat Building, Tank bund, Hyderabad

¶14

1. The State of Tetangana, fgo uv iti Frrt-ipii S#,;trry, nevenui: tieflariment, Secretariat, Hyderabad, T.S'

¶15

1. The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana. 4. The Tahsitdar, Keesara Mandat, Medchal-Malkajairi OisinCt, ietangana. 5 . The Town PJa.nnjlg Officer,_Office of the Dammjiguaa Municipat '-^'-' Council,Medchal-Malkaiqiri District - 500 083

¶16

6 The. Municipal Commisii-oner, Office of the Dammaiquda Municipality, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - S00 OB3.

¶17

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.6 in issuing demolition orders dt.06.02.2025 (received by the petitioners on o7t02t2o2s) vide proceedings Proc. No. I 7/TPSG-1//DM ct2o24 with respect to petitioners plot Nos.C.8S East part, C-85 West^part and C-86 west part in Sy. Nos. S75, 576,578, 579 and 582 situated at Pragathi Nagar, Dammaiguda Municipality is illegal, arbitrary and violations of the fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and consequenfly set-aside the demolition orders vide proceedings Proc. No. 17lTpsc-1//DMct2o24 Dt. o6to2l2o2s initiated by the

¶19

Respondent No.^{6 ragainstthe Petitioners herein,in the interesto'' justice in the} interest of^justice.

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{irr support of the petition, the High court maybe pleased to} suspend the operation of^{the demolitionorders d1.06.02.2025 issued by the} Respondent No.^{6 vide proceedingsProc. No. 17[TPSG-1//DM C12024 and direct} the Respondent No.^{3 not to interfere into the construction work of the Petitioners} over their^plot Nos.{},85^{East part, c-85west Part and c-86 westF'art in sy. Nos.} 575,576,578,579^{and 582 situated at Pragathi Nagar, DammaigiclaIVlunicipality,} in the interest of^{justicein the interestof justice.}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRI R.DHEERAJ SINGH} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GPFOR MCPL ADMN& URBAN DEV} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.2 TO 4: AGP FOR REVENUE} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.S & 6: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY'SC FOR} MPCL

¶23

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶24

¶25

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAI(SHMAT{

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. 3927 of2o.25

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.l, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6. Perused the record.

¶30

Petitioner No.l is claiming that he is the absolute owrrer and possessor of three plot bearing Nos i.e.,C-85 East Part, admeasuring 160 Square yards (out of 335 square yards), plot bearing No.C-85 West Part, admeasuring 175 square yards (out of 335 square yards) and plot bearing No.C-85 West Part, admeasuring L75 squa.re yards (out of 335 square yards) in Sy.Nos.575, 576, 57a, 579 and 582 basing on the registered sale deed Nos.4777 of 2024, 4778 of 2024 and 4779 of 2024, all dated 24.05.2024. Petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner

¶31

¶32

KL,J W.I'.No.3927 of 2025 '

¶33

and possesisor of plot bearing No.C-86^{middle part,} admeasurinig 125 square yards (out of 282 sqrrare l^ards) in Sy.Nos.575, 576, 57a, 579 and 5a2 basing on^the registered sa.le deed Nos.4775 of 2024 and 4913 of 2024, dated 24.O5.2024 and 29.O5.2O24 respectivelv, both situated at Dammaiguda Village hamlet of Nagararn under Dammiguda Municipality, Keesara Mandal, rv'ledchalMalkajgiri District. They have obtained three building permit orders from GHMC and they are proceeding rvith the constructiorL strictly in accordance with the said building permit orders. The construction is at basement stage. In the meanwhile, respondent No.6 has issued shorv cause notices, all ,1ated 26.11.2024 to the petitioners herein stating theit they have constructed basement and foundation re1. plot Nos.C85 and C-86 west part and C.86 middle part in Sy.Nos.575, 576, 578,579 and 582, situated at Pragathi Nagar, Dammaiguda Municipality wher':in land IS ln Sy.Nos.576, 578 and 579 of Dammaiguda V llage Government lald and the same is mentioned in the prohibited list in terms of Section 22-A of the Regtstration

¶34

KL,J W.P.No.3927 of 2025

r')

Act, 1908. Seven (71 days time was granted to the petitioners to submit their explalation. They have submitted explanation, dated 12.12.2024. Without considering the said explanation, respondent No.6 is tryrng to demolish the subject property. Therefore, petitioners have frled a writ petition vide W.P.No.358O9 of 2024 before this Court. Vide order, dated 20.12.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.6 to consider the explanatioq dated 12.72.2024 submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice, dated 26.L7.2O24 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three (3) weeks. Till then, this Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter, respondent No.6 has passed speaking order, dated 06.02.2025 directing the petitioners to remove the unauthorized construction. Challenging the said speaking order, petitioners filed the present writ petition.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the allegations made by respondent No.6 in the show cause notice and in the impugned speaking order are

¶40

KL,J W Ir.No.3927 of 2025

¶41

¶42

contrary. Respondent No.6 has^{taken altogeth':rnew} ground in the speaking order, dated 06.02.2025.^{In the} show cause notice, dated 26.11.2025,^{he has stated that} land in Sy.Nos.576, 578 and 579 of^{Darnmaiguda Villageis} Government land and it is mentioned in the^listof prohibitory in terms of Section 22-A of the Registration^Act, 1908. Wher,3zls, in the impugned speaking^{order, he has} stated that the petitioners are^{proceedingw iththe} construction in Sy.No.574 of Nagaram Village.^Th.erefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶43

Whereas;, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6,^on instructions, would submit that the impugned tlrder^is appealable order. There are factr.ral aspects.^{Therefbre, the} petitioners preferred an appea,l in terms of Section 252 {l) of the TelanElana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9 (for short 'the Act,2O19J

¶44

Perusal of speaking order, 06.02.2025 wolrld also reveal that respondent No.6 has also revoked the cuilding

¶45

KL,J W.P.No.3927 of 2025

l I I

permit orders uide revocation order, dated 03.02 .2025, there is no challenge to the same. It is the specific case of respondent No.6 that the petitioners are proceeding with thrj construction in land in Sy.No.574 of Nagaram Village and it is a Government land. According to the petitioners, their land is in Sy.Nos . 575, 576, 578, 57g and 582. Thus, there are factual aspects which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition frled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the impugned order, dated 06.02.2025 is an appealable order in terms of Section 252 (ll of the Act, 2019, the petitioners have to prefer an appeal. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that the impugned order passed by respondent No.6 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down under the Act, 2OL9 to maintain the present writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal.

¶50

In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to petitioners to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 252(11 of the Act, 2019 before the Regional Director/appellate authority concerned, within two (21

¶51

KL,J

¶52

W.P.No.3927^{of 2025}

¶53

¶54

weeks from the date^{of receipt of a copy of this' order,} failing which, liberty^{is grantedto respondentNo'6 to take} action against^petitioners .pursuant^{to the speakingorder} dated 06.02.2025^{and revocationorder, datedO3'O2'2O25'} Till then, the impugned^{speakingorder, dated 06'02'2025} shall not be gi.ven effect.^{There shallbe no order as to costs'}

¶55

6s a serluel thereto,^{miscellaneouspetitions, if any,}

¶56

pending in tler: Writ Petition^{shal1 stand closed}

¶57

SD/^.K. SREE^FIAMAMURTHY A GISTRAR

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

OFFICER

¶60

To 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Adminiglration Development Secretariat sijilii"i;.^{i6,llouno,-r['lo.rabail.State of relangana} ,ariat, Hyderabad,^T.s,

¶61

z. ihd iiiri"ipul^{secreiary,Revenue Department'secr} State of^Telangana

¶62

J 4 +nd?i:lll*,:"""":,yfi"x#yl'i5iieliil:1llleii5r:P'il3i",unnunu 4 iH +;ffi;;i;hninq^{offi."t,irmt" oitne DammiigudaMunicrpal} coi,n"Iirt r"air,"l-Malkajgiri^{District - 500 083}

¶63

;X;'N/ii;;m;;i commi.6ion"-r,6trit"^{oi tn" DammaigudaMurLicipalitv'} fr/1"O"f,it-ftl'att^{aigiri District- 500 083'}

¶64

iiXEtc' t',]'i;ni'R-.bnEenn;^{5lNGH, Advocate[o.PUCl} 8. iil; dErilt#'ron^{lr,rtpiirjri,rl i uceANoev, Higncourtfor the state}

¶65

o o q"' s c Fo^{R I\4 P c L} tqP I^cl '10 8"t"tSq:^lS-f H'+iilRf.^JRXE = Yffi ;d.i;"cp^{r-oi neVe'r.ruE, nigfiCourtfor the State of relangana,at} Hyderabad, I'OUTI

¶66

'1 1.Two CD CoPrs5

PSK BS $

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210212025

ORDER

WP.No.3927 of 2025

1
L( 6c J-la, gI
J
(
<
2 B Ft3 2[25 IC,1
t
i
DEspA.tc11 g-O

¶73

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶74

Glio W-

M. Jayender v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Jayender 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

Heera Begum @ Kaleem Sulthna Vs The State of Telangana

Sheribai Abhishek Reddy Vs Telangana State Election Commission

Mr. Syed Sajid Nawaz Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Osman Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Gayatri Construction Company Vs Tata Projects Limited

aM/s Gayatri Construction Company Vs Tata Projects Limited.