Disposed

Tayab Ali Khan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Dec 2025WP/39637/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking action against unauthorised construction of Stilt+4 floors and penthouse deviating from sanctioned plans in Kukatpally. GHMC had already issued show-cause notice and speaking order directing removal. Court disposed of the petition directing the Deputy Commissioner to implement the speaking order after due process.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to implement speaking order dated 15.07.2025 by following due process and affording hearing to respondents 5 and 6; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

Tayab Ali Khan Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ I

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECETMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 39637 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Tayab Ali Khan, S/o Mujaffar Ali Khan, Age 36 years, Occ ; Self-employed, Fllo.H.No.5-5-3512581N63, Sunitha Nilayam ,^{Plot No.64, tt/ythri Nagar, Kukatpally,} Hyderabad- 50OO72.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal .Ad ministration and U rban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad [Vlunicipal Corporation Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.24, Kukatpally Circle, West Zone ,G reater Hyderabad [Vlunici^pa I Co rporation, Hydera bad.

¶14

The Commissioner, Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA), Buddha Bhavan, Hyderabad - 500 003.

¶15

D.Surendra Reddy, S/o D.Nagamuni Reddy, Age47, Occ; Business, Plot No. 63, ft/ythri Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad- 500072.

¶16

Katamsetty Chandra Prakash, S/o K. Suresh, Age 47 , Occ. Business Plot No. 57, Near Arsha School of learning, Sy No. 150, 1 52 and 154, Rock Garden, Near Shaili Garden, Hyderabad- 500087.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 issue any order, direction or Writ, more particularly in the nature of Writ of ltlandamus declaring the said inaction of the Respondents, more^particularly Respondent No. 2 to 4 in taking any action^pursuant to the representation dt. 19.11.2025 and 28.11.2025 made by the Petitioner herein as being illegal,

¶19

arbitrary' dereliction of duty and consequenfly direct the Respondent No. 2 to 4 to act upon the same and demolish the structures illegally constructed by Respondent No. 5 and 6 herein on prot No. 63, Mythri Nagar, Kukatpaily GH[\xc Circle-24, AND/OR.

¶20

l.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶21

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 Respondent No. 2 to 4 to consider the representations 19.11.2o25and 28. 11.2025 made by the Petitioner herein and take appropriate action pending the disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI pRABHAKAR pERl

¶23

DEVELOPMENTcounsel for the Respondent No.l : Gp FoR McpL ADMN AND URBAN

¶24

3iilE"r for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : sRr K.RAVT MAHENDER, SC FOR

¶25

counsel for the Respondent No.4 : sRr K.pAVAN KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6 : _

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶29

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.39637 OF 2025

DATE: 24-12-2025

Between:

Sri Tayab Ali Khan

Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and five others.

¶37

Respondents

¶38

ORDER: (ORAL)

¶39

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not acting upon the representations of the petitioner dated 19.11.2025 and 28.11.2025 for removal of unauthorised construction made by respondent Nos.S and 6 in Plot No.63 situated at Mythri Nagar, Kukatpally, GHMC Circle-24

¶40

Heard Mr. Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶41

and Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC,

¶42

i \ \ I

¶43

¶44

appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and perused the material available on record.

¶45

Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC produced written instructions along with copy of show-cause notice dated 23.06.2025 and the speaking order dated 5.07.2025. lt is stated that on complaint of the petitioner, notice was issued to unofficial respondents. They were granted two individual residential building permissions for Stilt+2 upper floors in Plot No.63/Part, whereas they have made deviations to the sanctioned plans and constructed Stilt+4 floors and pent house by clubbing two plots. Even after service of notice dated 23.06.2025, there was no reply submitted by the unofficial respondents and hence, speaking order dated 15.07.2025 was passed directing them to remove the unauthorised construction. lt is stated that file was transferred to Nodal Officer, Kukatpally Zone, vide notice No. UC107 49lW -121 1C|R-24/TPS/GHMC|2O25 dated 1 4.08.2025, for taking appropriate action.

¶46

ln view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.24, Kukatpally Circle, West Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, to implement the speaking order dated 15.07.2025 by following due process of law and by affording an opportunity of

¶47

a,^,

¶48

¶49

hearing to respondent Nos.S and 6. As this order is passed without entering into the merits of the case, notice to respondent Nos.S and 6 is dispensed with. However, if respondent Nos.S and 6 are in any way aggrieved by this order, they are at liberty to seek modification of this order. No order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel thereto, misceilaneous apprications, if any, pending

¶51

in this writ petition stand closed.

¶52

SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REG /TRUE COPY//

¶53

¶54

SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To 1. The^:Principal Secretary, [/unici pal Administration rban Development Depa rtment, Secretariat, State of Telangana at bad

¶56

1. The Commissioner, G reater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶57

1. The Deputy commissioner, circle No.24,Kukatpally circle ,west zone Greater Hyderabad fi/unicipal Corporation, Hyderabad.

¶58

1. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Disaster Resilonse and Assets Protection Agency (HYDRAA), Buddha Bhavan Hyderabad - 500 003.

¶59

1. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. IOUTI

¶60

6 One CC to SRI PRABHAKAh^pERt, Advocate tOpUCl

¶61

7 One CC to SRI K.PAVAN KUIVIAR, Advocate (OPUC)

¶62

IB Two CD Copiesone cc to sRl K.RAVI MAHENDER, sc FoR GHtuc, Advocate (opUC)

SA BS

€

HIGH COURT

DATED i2411212025

ORDER

'1 r-tE SI.t
()
C) 0 6 JA}l 202[
:k
,:nrc1

WP.No.39637 ot 2A25

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

Tayab Ali Khan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tayab Ali Khan 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

Samudrala Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Jameel Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Sarvar Imdad Vs the State of Telangana

Davuluri Daisy Vs The State of Telangana

Chinna Balanolla Maruthi Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Somna Misra Vs The State of Telangana