Disposed

Samudrala Bharathi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Dec 2025WP/39355/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court kept the notice to seal unauthorized construction in abeyance for one month to allow the petitioner to file a regularization application under Section 455-AA and prefer a statutory appeal. The petition was disposed of with status quo for one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice kept in abeyance for one month; status quo for one month; petitioner directed to file regularization application and statutory appeal within this period.

Samudrala Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13183l

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 39355 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Samudrala Bharathi, W/o S. Jagadeshwar (Ex-servicemen) $ged. 73 years, Occ. Homemaker, Rl/o Plot no. LIG-457 (15-31-Vll-L-457) 7"' Phase, KPHB Cdlony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana-500072.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad., TS.

¶12

a The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad, TS.

¶13

3 The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.23, Moosapet, Kukatpally Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, TS.

¶14

4 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Town Planning Section - Kukatpally Circle No.23, Hyderabad, TS.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 writ of Mandamus, declaring the actions of Respondent Nos.3 in passing Order vide Notice No. 1 0880M. NO. 1 1 4/ClR-23 lKZlGHMCl2l2s dt.05-01 2-2025 U/s 461 -A of GHMC Act,^'1955 to seal the Petitioner's unauthorized construction of building admeasuring 98.66 Sq. yards within 24 hours without providing an opportunity to prefer Statutory Appeal within seven days as mandated under Section 461-A sub-section (2) and (3) of the GHMC Act, 1955 as being arbitrary, illegal, not following due process of law and violating Articles 14,21 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and against the principles of Natural Justice, and set-aside

¶17

.ne same as bad in law and consequenfly direct the R,:;pondents herein to regularize the unauthorised construction against the sanct < ned plan at plot no. LIG-457 (15-13-Vll-L-457) situated at 7th^phase, KpHB C: ony, Kukatpalty U/s 455-AA of the GHMC Act,^'1955.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cor- r may be pleased to direct the Respondents to stay all further proceedings inc uding any coercive steps vide Order Notice No. 1OBB0AIV. NO.i.l4lClR-2i,<ZlcHMCl2O2S dt. 05-012-2025 U/s 461-4 of GHTMC Act, 1955 against tl-r building premises bearing Plot no. LIG-457 (15-13-Vll-L-457) situated at 7th F,t ase, KpHB Cotony, Kukatpally, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Dr. J.VIPLAV BABU

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN Ull 3AN DEV

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI K.RAVI MAHENT ER, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶24

HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶25

WRIT P ETITION No.39355 0F 202s

DATE: 23-12-2025

Between:

Samudrala Bharathi

.. Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, 3"p, !V^{its principal Secretary,} Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, and three others.

¶32

.. Respondents

¶33

ORDER: (ORAL)

¶34

This writ petition is filed to declare notice No.1Ogg0M.No.114l CIR-23|!<ZIdHMC\2O2S dated 05.12.2025 issued by respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner, Circle_23, Moosapet, under Section 461A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'GHMC Act'), to seal the unauthorized construction made by the petitioner in her plot admeasuring gg.66 square yards situated at KPHB Colony ph-Vll, Kukatpally, Moosapet Circte 23, Medchal_ Malkajgir District, without giving an opportunity to prefer the statutory appeal as mandated under Section 461-A (2) (3) of the GHMC Act, as being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia

¶35

)

¶36

Heard Mr. Dr. J. Viplav Babu, learned^r ounsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned Stanc ing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, et d^perused the material available on record

¶37

-i

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submil:d that building permission was granted to the petitioner for constrt ction of stilt for parking+2 upper floors vrde permit No.32374218,',85/GHMC/2023 dated 05.09.2023, as against that the^petitioner co tstructed stilt+S upper floors. One person of her locality by nam,: Mr. P. Abilash Reddy, having political clout, had been harassing tr.'^petitioner and also he had been extorting money from severa ceople of their Colony. At his instance, the GHMC authorities issue i the impugned notice. Later, the petitioner came to know that sirr w-cause notice daled 14.07.2025 was issued and subsequently th,: sp"r*'nn ord"|. (demolition order) dated 31 .07.2025 was passed. lt i; submitted that the show-cause notice and the speaking order are nr t served on the petitioner

¶39

Learned Standing Counsel for respond: rt Nos.2 to 4 produced written instructions along with building per mit order dated 05.09.2023, show-cause notice dated 14.07.2025 speaking order dated 31.07.2025 and also the photographs of the u r^jer construction building of the^petitioner.

,^_::E

i lkr:--=-

a'Z

\ t

lt appears, the show-cause^{notice daled 14'07'2025was} issued to the^{petitioner directingher to explainas to why unauthorized} construction^{(deviations madeto the sanctionedplan) shall not be} removed. Thereafter,^{the speaking order dated 31.07.2025was} passed.

¶46

Learned Standing^{Counselfor GHMC submitted that the} watchman of the^{petitioner has receivedthe show-causenotice and} his mobile number was^{also noted on the show-causenotice'} However, there was^{no response from the petitioner and the speaking} order dated^{31 .07.2025waspassed.}

¶47

ln the circumstances,^{this Court is not inclined to grant any} relief to the^petitioner as^{admittedly3'd' 4th and 5th floors are} unauthorisedly constructed^{by the petitioner in the subject property'}

¶48

L Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submittedthat if} necessary, revised^{plan or regularization application will be submitted} by the^{petitionerunderSection 455A/455AA of the GHMC Act'} Further, the^{petitioneris also taking steps to file statutoryappeal} under Section 461-A^{(2) and (3) of the GHMC Act.}

¶49

¶50

However, as it is stated that the show_caus e notice and the speaking order are not served on the petitioner and, irt the same time, the petitioner is taking steps to prefer statutory appe ar under Section 461-4 (2) and (2) of the GHMC Act, the impugr.,d notice dated 05.12.2025 is kept in abeyance for a period of one month. status quo' obtaining as on today, shafl be mainta r ed in respect of the subject property for a period of one month from l< day. Within this time, the petitioner shall take necessary steps for I ling the revised plan/building regularization apprication/appear as prc,r ided under subsections (2) and (3) of Section 461-4 of the GHMC \ct The GHMC authorities are at liberty to take action after expiry c,r one month. At the same time, the petitioner is also directed not to r ake any further construction in the subject property.

¶51

Accordingly, this writ pelition is disposed cf No order as to

¶52

costs

¶53

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

¶54

this writ petition, shall stand closed

¶55

¶56

IiD/- B.REKHA RANI s^{II |TANTREGISTflAR} //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶57

To, '1 . The Principal Secreta ry, Municipal Adminiskati ohr nd Jrban Develo pment Department, Telanga nqSecretariat, Hyderabad, sr\e o-'-elangana

¶58

The TC Commissioner, Grelier ftyderabad Munici pal bor1 cration, Hyderabad,

¶59

3 The Deputy.Commissioner, Circle No.23, Moosapet, Kul:i tpally Zone, Greater' Hyderabad IMunicipal Corporation, Hyderabad, T5.

¶60

-r-L-^,,. E1E--1fE;'i.

¶61

¶62

The Gre€ter fV{grqOaq . Municipal C_orporation, Town planning Section _ Kukatpally Circle No.23, Hyderabad, TS.

¶63

One CC to SRI Dr. J.V|PLAV BABU, Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to SRI K.RAV| MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC tOpUCl

¶65

Two CCs to GP FOR MCP_L 4DMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of / Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] I

¶66

.Two CD Copies

BSR M

*1-' - -! -. : ix.r^{-. ,'- -r lir---'jF:} 'r'i+.-i: :="1&fr'SEEffid,Jls

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

I I

DATED:2311212025

\ \

ORDER

WP.No.39355 of 2025

1EL4
la
.$ I i
*tt :
o
tr- \ri<br>\ 1 /r'
,.tt:..j.t'''

¶81

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶82

I
r1 \7

Samudrala Bharathi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samudrala Bharathi 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

Dr. Muthyala Bhooma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Annabathula Durga Prasad Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Quadeer Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Jameel Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Sarvar Imdad Vs the State of Telangana

Thakur Thirumal Singh Vs The State of Telangana