Disposed

The Union of India v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jun 2025WP/4230/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of writ petitions by Union of India seeking demolition/cancellation of building permissions granted near defence establishments without defence NOC after State deleted the condition from its Building Rules in 2016. Court held the 21.10.2016 MoD guidelines amend the 18.05.2011 guidelines; circulars lack statutory force binding on citizens; WODA restrictions cannot be enforced absent Section 3

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed without costs; petitioners given time till 31.12.2025 to publish notification/declaration under Section 3 of WODA.

The Union of India Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos.5357 16252 16875^.t8780 1878't AND 20587 0F 2023 AND

¶8

4175, 4222, 4230, 4277, 4326, 4342, 6801, 6841, 6967,

¶9

7014 7065 7070 7083 7090 7099 7101 7107 7111

¶10

7121 7122 7126 7148 &7581 of2024

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO: 5357 OF 2023

¶12

Between:

¶13

'1 . The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, It/inistry of Defence New Delhi¹ 10 105

¶14

Station Commander Station HQ, Secunderabad

¶15

3, Sub Sector Commander 3, Training^{and l\liechanicalTransportRegiment,} Artillery Centre, Hyderabad PIN 900398, C/o^{56 APO}

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

AND

¶18

The State of Telangana, Represented by^{its Prl. Secretary Department of} Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat,^Hyderabad

¶19

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation^{(GH[VC), Represented} by^its Commissioher Gandipet Mandal,^{Himayat Sagar,Rajendranagar,Ranga} Reddy Dist., Telangana-500084

¶20

The Asst City Planner, filalkajgiri Circle-2g^{Malkaigiri(GHMC),} Secunderabad-500047

¶21

The [Vlunicipal Commissioner,^{BandlagudaJagir tvlunicipalityCorporation} Rajendranagar f\Iandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana

¶22

Shri Janardan Reddy S/o. Shri Narayana Reddy,^{Shri Laxman ReddyS/o Shri} Narayana Reddy & age not known^{petitioners,majg!',Occ: Business, PIot No.} 2-2-ilBlD, C-Lane, Durga Bai Deshmukh Colony,^{NearShivam Bagh, Amber} Pet, Hyd, AP-500007

¶23

..,RESPONDENTS

¶24

¶25

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lrrd a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tl- e High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particutarly : n I in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the responde rt No.3 and 4 in not cancelling the construction permission of respondent No li^;or constructing of the House in Plot No.75 Northern Part & 76, Svy No.24. F)eeranchervu Village, Snehita Hills, Bandlaguda Jagir, Rajendranagar Manda, Ranga Reddy Dist., Hyderabad (1'elangana) to as contrary to the guidelirre s of the l\rlinistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No 1102612120^'l 1/D (Lands) d;;ted 1B lvlay 2011 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent;authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th,: ;ircumstances stated in the affidavil filed in support of the petition, the High Cr:,Lrd may be pleased to direct the rest,ondent No 3 and 4 to stop the unauthorisecl :onstruction of the 5th respondent construction of the House in Plot No 75 Nor hr:rn Part and 76, Svy No 24, Peeranchervu Village, Snehita Hitls, Bandlagudzr ,Jagir, Rajendranagar IVIandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., Hyderabad (Telangana), p,:r'ding disposal of the above writ petition.

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Col rt may be pleased to extent the interim orders passed in WP.No. 5357 of 2O23, Citled 2410212023.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, [IEPUTY SOLICIToR GEIIE:RAL OF INDIA

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt PRAVEEN KUMAFi^//EERJALA, S.C. FOR GHMC

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. RAVINDER RECTCTY,

¶34

S.C. FOR GHMC

¶35

¶36

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI S. ABHAY KUMAR SAGAR, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO: 16252 OF 2023

¶39

Between:

¶40

The Union of lndia, Rep. by the Secretary, lVinistry of Defence, New Delhi.

¶41

2- The Station Commander, Station Headquarter, Secunderabad.

¶42

The Sub Sector. Commander 3 Training & Mechanical Transport Regiment, Artillery Centre, Hyderabad - Pin-900 398, C/o.56 APO.

¶43

..PETITIONERS

¶44

AND

¶45

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Prl. Secretary, Department of l\ilunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶46

Commissioner Bandlaguda Jagir, Ir,4unicipal Corporation, Bandlaguda Jagir, Himayath Sagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶47

Town Planning Officer, Bandlaguda Jagir, lVlunicipal Corporation, Bandlaguda Jagir, Himayath Sagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶48

Umadevi Shrivari Constructions, Flat No- 1-507, Sai Dreams Castles, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, J.N.T.U. Hyderabad.

¶49

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HIVDA) Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Rd., Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500082.

¶50

Respondent No.S is impleaded as suo-rnoto, as per Court Order dated 08.08 2023.

¶51

...RESPONDENTS

¶52

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 2 and 3 in not cancelling the construction permission of respondent No 4 for constructing G⁺ 5 in Plot No 251 , 252, 253, 254, 256, 257, 258 and 259 on Svy No 96/104, 97/10A, 96/1O/LU/PART.19 Bandlaguda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy^(Distt) as contrary to the guidelines of the tt/linistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 11026121201'liD (Lands) dated 181512011 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶53

¶54

tA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶55

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit fiied in support of the^petition, the High Cc url may be^pleasedto direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorizerj construction made^by respondent no. 4 rn G⁺ 5 in Plot No 251, 252, 253,254, 256,257, 258 and 259 on Svy No 96/10A, 97/10A, 96/10/LU/PART.19 Bandlar;uda Jagir, Gandipet lvlandal, Ranga Reddy (Distt) pending disposal of the abov,: writ^petition.

¶56

IA NO:2 OF 2023

¶57

Between:

¶58

Smt. P. Umadevi Wo. Late Narayana Raju, Hindu, a/a 56 'i ears, Occ: Proprietor, Umadevi Shri,rari Constructions, a Proprietory Concern, i r. FIat No.1 -507, Sai Dreams Castle, Nizampet Road, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderab,td, Telangana State - 50007s

¶59

....PETlTlONl-t:l/RESPONDENT No.4

¶60

AND

¶61

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Sercretary, Department of I\rlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, S::cretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State - 500 004.

¶62

The Commissioner Bandlaguda Jagir, Municipal Co-p rration, Himayatsagar l,4andal. Ranga Reddy District.

¶63

The Town Planning Officer, Bandlaguda Jagir, Himavarsagar lt/andal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶64

..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS No.1 to 3

¶65

The Union of lndia, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Dr:fence, New Delhi.

¶66

The Station Commander, Station Headquarter, SecunJr,rabad.

¶67

The Sub Sector Commander, 3 Training & Mechanir;eri Transport Regiment, Artillery Centre, Hyderabad - 900 398, C/o.56 APO

¶68

...RESPONDENTS;M/RIT PETITIONERS

¶69

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{,:;t-cumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to Vacate the i.nterim order dated 27.06.2023 in W.P.No.1625',t12023, in the interest of^justice.

¶70

Counsel for the Petitioners: SR[ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,

¶71

DEPUW SOLICITOR GEtIE:RAL OF INDIA

¶72

¶73

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMiNISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶74

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRt S. ABHAY KUMAR SAGAR, S.C. FOR GHMC

¶75

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P. VENKANNA

¶76

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD, S.C- FOR HMDA

¶77

WRIT PETITION NO: 16875 OF 2023

¶78

Between:

¶79

The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi 1'10 105.

¶80

Colonel Quartermaster General Headquarter, Telangana and Andhra Sub Area PIN - 900 453. C/o 56 APO

¶81

...PETITIONERS

¶82

AND

¶83

'1 . Greater Hyderabad ltilunicipal Corporation (GHIVC), Represented by its Commissioner Town Planning Section^(HO), Tankbund, Hyderabad.

¶84

TheDy. Commissioner, Circle No. 27 GHMC Alwal, Hyderabad 500 010-

¶85

The Commissioner, Dundigal tt4unicipality (Town Planning Section), l\4edchal - 500 078.

¶86

Mr L.Rajeshwar Rao S/o L. Anand Rao (GPA Holder & Owner), H.No.7-1 13, JJ |lqgar, Yapral Vlllage, I,4alkajgiri tVlan dal, R.R.Diskict, Seeunderabad - 500 o87.

¶87

...RESPONDENTS

¶88

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of ftrlandamus declaring the action of the respondent No 1 to 3 in not taking action against respondent No 4 for constructing high rise multi-storeyed buildings comprising of Ground floor^plus 6 upper floors in the land admeasuring Ac.05.08 guntas in Survey No. 49, Near Hanuman Temple, Yapral village, under GHI/C Tank Bund, RR District by the Respondent No. 4 as serious security threat to the Defence Establishments, contrary to NOC^guidelines of the [Vlinistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No 11o26121201 1/D(Lands) dt^1A/512O11 and violation of the

¶89

¶90

conditions Iaid down in the Security Clearance^{given try Military Authorityto} Respondent No 1 (GHtt/C).

¶91

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶92

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci"cumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Cc u} 1^{may be pleasedto} direct the Respondent No. 1^(GHMC) to issue orders lo Respondent^{No 4} (Builder) to stop the unauthorized construction made by tn,,: Respondent No 4 in the land admeasuring Ac 05.08 guntas in Survey No 49,^hlr,:ar Hanuman^Temple, Yapral viltage, under GHIVC, Tank Bund, RR District^pr:nding disposal of the above writ pelition.

¶93

lA NO: 2 OF 202s

¶94

Petitior under Section 151 CPC praying that in thc ::i-cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^Cc urt may be^{pleased to} Amend the cause title i.e., Respondent No.3, The Con-tmissioner, tl4alkaigiri Municipality^(Town Planning Section), Medchal - 500 078, instead of The Commissioner, Dundigal l\rlunicipality (Town Planning S.-'r:tion), t/edchal - 500 078.

¶95

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,

¶96

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEt'lI::RAL OF INDIA

¶97

Counsel for the Respondents No.l & 2: SRI K. RAVINDEII REDDY,

¶98

s.c. FoR GH[/1C

¶99

SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S;.C. FOR GHMC

¶100

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI JAGAN MADHAVT\ RAO,

¶101

S.C. FOR MUNICIPA]LITIES

¶102

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRt MADAS BHARATI{^TCHANDRA

¶103

WRIT PETITION NO:18780 OF 2021J

¶104

Between:

¶105

The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to th-' '3ovt. of lndia, tvlinistry of Defence, New Delhi - 1 10 105

¶106

Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad

¶107

¶108

Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO

¶109

...PETITIONERS

¶110

AND

¶111

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶112

Greater Hyderabad [\ilunicipal Corporation, (GHIVC) Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad- 500004

¶113

The Asst. City Planner, Circle^'13 Greater Hyderabad [Vlunicipal Corporation (GHIVC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad -500004

¶114

IVIrs Ghousia Banu, Wo fvlohd Hameed Khan, H.No 9-8-158lNl Quila Mohd Nagar, Near Shiv [Vlandir, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad - 500008

¶115

,.RESPONDENTS

¶116

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction made by respondent No 4 in Ground floor at House No. 9-8- 158/41 7, Quila Mohd Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Golconda Fort, H ydera bad -500008 as contrary to the recent guidelines of the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 110261212011|D (Lands) dated 1B May 2011 and HQ Southern Command letter No 1001o4/NOC/Q (L) dt.01 May 2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶117

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶118

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 respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4th respondent in Ground floor of house No. No 9-8-158/fu7, Quila Mohd Nagar, Near Shiv lvlandir, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad-500008 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶119

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,

¶120

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶121

¶122

Counsel for the Respondent No.1:^{GPFOR MUNICIPAL frt)MINISTRATION} AND URBAN DEVE'L.OPMENT

¶123

Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI^{K. SIDDHAR-IFI RAO,}

¶124

S.C. FOR GIIIlflC

¶125

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -

¶126

WRIT PETITION NO: 18781 OF 202:J

¶127

Between:

¶128

-l . The Union of lndia represented by its Secretary to thr'r t3ov4. of India, tvlinistry of Defence New Delhi 11O 105

¶129

Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad.

¶130

Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment,^{Artill,:n7Centre PIN 900398,} C/o 56 APO

¶131

...PETITIONERS

¶132

AND

¶133

1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its^{Prl. S,roretary Departmentof} t,4unicipal Administration and Urban Development, Se.)rr:tariat, Hyderabad.

¶134

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation^{(GHMt;)Represented} by^its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad^{- 500C{.)4}

¶135

The Asst. City Planner, Circle 13 Greater Hyderabal^{lvlunicipal Corporation} (GHN,4C) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

¶136

tr/r Gulam Habeeb Hussin S/o. Gulam Mahoob^{HussrrH. No.9-10-26-1lA 18} Steps, Gorconda Hyderabad^- 500008

¶137

...RES'.NDENTS

¶138

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrCia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{HighCourt may be} pleased to issue arr order or direction more particularly onr:, in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent^{No. 1: and} 3^{in not taking} appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction^{made by respondent} No 4 in G plus 1st floor at House No. 9-10-26-1lAl,^{1B Slteps,Golconda Fort,} Hyderabad-500008 as contrary to the recent^guideline,; of the^{Ministry of} Defence, Nerrv Delhi bearing No. 11026121201 1/D^{(Lands) riated18 May20'1 1} and HQ Southern Command letter No 100104/NOC/Q^{(L) dt. 01 May 2023 and illegal,} arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent^{authorties to demolishthe} unauthorized construction.

¶139

¶140

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶141

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 respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4rh respondent in G+1't floor of house No. No 9-'10-26-1/A, 1B Steps, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad-500008^pending disposal of the^{above writ petition.}

¶142

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶143

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP^{FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION} AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶144

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 &^{3: SRI} K.^{SIDDHARTH RAO,}

¶145

S.C. FOR GHMC

¶146

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:^--

¶147

WRIT PETITION NO: 20587 OF 2023

¶148

Between:

¶149

The Union of lndia, represented by^its Secretary to the Govt.^{of lndia, tt/inistry} of Defence New Delhi^{1 '10} 105

¶150

2 Station Commander Station, HQ, Secunderabad

¶151

3 Sub Sector Commander, 3 Training and Mechanical^Transport Regiment, Aftiltery Centre, Hyderabad PIN 900398, e/o⁵⁶ APO

¶152

...PETITIONERS

¶153

AND

¶154

The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Prl. SecretaryDepartmentof} tVlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat,^Hyderabad

¶155

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation^{(GHMC),Represented} by^its Commissioner Gandipet Mandal,^{Himayat Sagar,Rajendranagar,Ranga} Reddy Dist, Telanagana-500084

¶156

The Asst City Planner,^{Malkajgiri Circle-28[Vlalkajgiri (GHMC),} Secunderabad-500047

¶157

(Respondent No.3 not necessary^party in this^petition)

¶158

The Municipal Commissioner,^{BandlagudaJagir MunicipalityCorporation} Rajendranagar Manda[, Ranga Reddy^{District,Telangana}

¶159

Smt. P. Vanaja W/o. Shri P. Ram^Gopal, age^{not known petitioners,major,} Occ: Businesi, Flat No 1004, PVR Poulomi^{90, Gandipet, Hyderabad, Pin -} sooooT

¶160

...RESP.NDENTS

¶161

¶162

¶163

Petitiorr under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnc ia praying that in the circumstancer; slated in the affidavit filed therewith, tf- = High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly on,: n the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.2 ;r.rd 4 in not cancelling the construction permission of respondent No.5 for conslrrcting of the House in Plot No 152, Svy No.24 in Pan17, Peeranchervu^.i rllage, Snehita Hills, Bandlaguda Jagir lVunicipality Corporation, Gandipet N4an..lrl, Ranga Reddy Dist., (Telangana) to as contrary to the guidelines of the Ministry r.,f Defence, New Delhi bearing No.1^- 02612/20 1 1/D (Lands) dated 1 8 lt/ay 201 1 a ,; ille gal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to derr:r sh the unauthorized construction.

¶164

IA NO:1 OF 2023

¶165

Petition unCer Section 151 CPC praying that in thr: ;r'cuntstances stated in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High C,)rrt may be pleased to direct the responCent No 3 and 4 to stop the unathoriser: r'onstruction of the 5th respondent construction of the House in Plot Nol52, I),y No 24 in Part-17, Peeranchervu Village, Snehita Bandlagudajagir Murrr;ipalrty Corporation, Gandipet l,4andal. Rang Reddy Dist , (Telangana), pendinrr ,iisposal of the above writ petition.

¶166

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEfIE:RAL OF INDIA

¶167

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL A D MINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶168

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K. RAVINDER REtlt)Y, S.C. FOR GHMC

¶169

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI S. ABHAY KUMAR IiAGAR, S.C. FOR BANDLAGUDA JAGIR MUNICIPALITY CCIFIPORATION

¶170

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY

¶171

WRIT PETITION NO: 4175 OF 2024

¶172

Between:

¶173

1 . The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to Govl. of lndia, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi 110 105.

¶174

¶175

The Station Commander, Headqua(ers Telangana and Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad-500010

¶176

...PETITIONERS

¶177

AND

¶178

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

¶179

The Commissioner, Hyderabad l/etropolitan Development Authority, Planning Department, District Commercial Complex, Administrative^'L' Block, Tarnaka, Hyderabad - 500 007

¶180

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad l\4unicipal Corporation, lVlalkajgiri Town Planning Section, Medchal-fVlalkajgiri District, Hyderabad500062.

¶181

t\rlr. Uppuluri Srinivas, S/o- not Known to Petitioner, House No.38-15-1 1'1, Shivasai Nagar Vayupuri, Beside Sumangal Function Hall, Vayupuri, Tirumalagiri, Ramakrishna Puram, Hyderabad - 500087.

¶182

..RESPONDENTS

¶183

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 writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 1 to 3 in stopping the illegal construction raised by respondent No 4 in Plot No 40 (Part), Saptagiri Enclave, Kapra (Village and mandal), lt/alkajgiri, Telangana, near Cantonment boundary^pillar No 75, adjacent to GLR survey No 186 as illegal in law and violation of Guidelines No^11026121201 1/D^(Lands) dated 18105t2O11 and consequently direct the respondent No 4 to apply for Security Clearance (NOC) in the interest of National Security, Justice

¶184

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶185

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 4 to stop unauthorized^construction being carried out in Plot No a0 (Part), Saptagiri Enclave,^{Kapra(Village and Mandat),} Malkajgiri, Telangana forth with, and to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Defence Authorities, in the interest of National Security, Justice.

¶186

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN^KUMAR,

¶187

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶188

¶189

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL l\DMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVEL.OPMENT

¶190

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD, S.C. FOR HMDA

¶191

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. RAVINDER REt)l)Y, S.C. FOR GHMC SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO. $.C. FOR GHMC

¶192

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -

¶193

WRIT PETITION NO: 4222 OF 2024

¶194

Between:

¶195

The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to Go,( of lndia, l/inistry of Defence, New Delhi 1 10 105.

¶196

The Station Commander, Headquarters Telangana and Andhra Sub Area, Secu nd,3rabad-50001 0

¶197

...PETITIONERS

¶198

AND

¶199

-t . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Se c'etary, Department of lvlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Sr,:cretariat, Hyderabad, Telanga na.

¶200

The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Developrn,lnt Authority, Planning Department, Dist. Commercial Complex, Administri;t've L-Block, Tarnaka, Hyderabad - 500 007, Telangana.

¶201

The Deputy Commrssioner, Greater Hyderabad ,lunicipal Corporation, It/alkajgin Town P{anning Sectiol, tVledchat-l\4alkajg iri District, Hyderabad500062, Telangana.

¶202

4, Ir/r Ch Nivedita Krishna Rao, Vill. Bowramspet, Shanrircet IVlandal, MedchalI/alkajgiri District, Telangana.

¶203

SSN Holdings Private Limited, Plot Nos. 21 and 24, Pr atrhakar Reddy Colony, Rampally Vil{age, Keesara [r,4andal, Medchal - I\rlalka.lrliri District rep. by its Director Sri. Kadakanchi Srinivas

¶204

Respondent No.S is impleaded as per Court Order caled 01.04.2024 in l.A. No.2of 2024.

¶205

...RESPONDENTS

¶206

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnJiir praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, thr: High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of Direction. p;rrticuiarly one in the nature of Writ o{ Mandamus declaring the action of Respc,n,Jents No. 2 and 3 in not initiating acpropriate steps against 4th respondent in r,--s;pect of unauthorised

¶207

¶208

construction being carried out by 4th respondent without obtaining necessary permission and No Objection Certificate from the [t/ilitary authorities as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and the^provisions of Rules and regulations issued by the Ministry of Defence. Consequently direct the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to cancel the layout permission and stop unauthorised construction carried out by 4th respondent in Survey No.345/P and 347lP, situated at Bowramspet village, Shamirpet mandal, lVledchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana forthwith in the interest of National Security.

¶209

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶210

. Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct 4tl' respondent to stop unauthortzed construction being carried out in Survey No.345lP and 347lP, situated at Bowramspet village, Shamirpet mandal, [/edcha l-lVlalkajgiri District, Telangana forthwith, and to obtain^'No Objection Certificate' from the Defence Authorities, in the interest of National Security, Justice.

¶211

lA NO: 3 OF 2024

¶212

Between:

¶213

SSN Holdings Private Limited, Plot Nos. 21 and 24, Prabhakar Reddy Colony, Rampally Village, Keesara fi/landal, Medchal - lValkajgiri District rep. by its Director Sri. Kadakanchi Srinivas

¶214

...PETITIONERYPROPOSED RESPONDENT No.5

¶215

AND

¶216

The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt. of lndia, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi - 1 10¹ 05.

¶217

The Station Commander, Headquarters Telangana and Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad - 500010

¶218

...RESPONDENTSMRIT PETITIONERS

¶219

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

¶220

The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Planning Department, Dist. Commercial Complex, Administrative^'L' Block, Tarnaka, Hyderabad - 500 007, Telangana.

¶221

¶222

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad l\rlunicipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Town Planning Section, Medchal-Malkaioiri District, Hyderabad500062, Telangana.

¶223

tt/ r Ch lr,livedita Krishna Rao, Vill: Bowramspet, Sharrirpet Mandal, lr/edchalMalka.igiri District, Telangana.

¶224

...RESPONTIEi NTS/RESPONDENTS

¶225

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C.rurt may be pleased to vacate the interim direction dt.19.02.2024 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2O24 in WP.No.4222 ttf 2024 and dismiss the writ petition with exenrplary costs.

¶226

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENt:RAL OF INDIA

¶227

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL I,tIMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVE L'CPMENT

¶228

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s. D. MADHAVI, S.C. I::OR HMDA

¶229

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. RAVINDER REtlt)Y, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI KOKA SAWANAF:IiYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M. DHANANJAY REDDY

¶230

WRIT PETITION NO: 4230 OF 2024

¶231

Between:

¶232

The Union of lndia, Reo. by its Secretary to Gori. of lndra, lvlinistrv of Defencer, New Delhi 1 10 1 05.

¶233

The Station Commander, Headquarters Telangana arrd Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad-50001 0

¶234

...PETITIONERS

¶235

AND

¶236

-1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Se:;r',:tary, Department of Itrlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, llocretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶237

The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Developrrr:nt Authority, Planning Department, Dist. Commercial Complex, Administrati,,'e L Block, Tamaka, Hyderabad 500 0O7

¶238

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lv,lunicipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Town Planning Section, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad500062

¶239

¶240

Mr Devarajan, S/o. Not Know to Petitioner, Plot No 108, JJ Nagar Colony Yapral, Secunderabad-500087 Telangana

¶241

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶242

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 writ of mandamus declaring inaction of the respondent No 1 to 3 in stopping the illegal construction raised by respondent No 4 in PIot No 108, JJ Nagar Colony, Yapral, near Cantonment boundary^pillar No 77, adjacent to GLR survey No 186 as illegal in law and violation of Guidelines No 11026121201 1lD (Lands) dated 18/05/201 1 and consequently direct the respondent No 4 to apply for Security Clearance (NOC) in the interest of National Security, Justice.

¶243

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶244

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 4 to stop unauthorized construction being carried out in plot No 108, JJ Nagar Colony, Yapral, Secunderabad forthwith, and to obtain^'No Objection Certificate' from the Defence Authorities, in the interest of National Security,^justice.

¶245

Counge! for the Petitionqrs: QRI GApl PRAVEEN KUIUAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶246

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP^FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶247

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD, S.G. FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. RAVINDER REDDY, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -

¶248

WRIT PETITION NO: 4277 OF 2024

¶249

Between:

¶250

1- The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt. of lndia, tVinistry of Defence New Delhi -^'l 10105.

¶251

2- The Station Commander, Station^Head Quarter, Secunderabad.

¶252

¶253

The Sub Sector Commander, 1 Training Regime"ri Artillery Center, Pin900398, C/o. 56 APO.

¶254

...PETITIONERS

¶255

AND

¶256

1, The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal S(]c:retary, Department of {,4unicipra{ Administration, and Urban Development, S':c;retariat, Hyderabad.

¶257

Greater. Hyderabad [\4unicipal Corporation (C l-lMC), Rep. by its Commi'ssioner, GHlt4C, Khiratabad, Hyderabad - 5000Cr4.

¶258

The Asst City Planner, Khairatabad Circle - 13. Khiratabad, Hyderabad. 500004.

¶259

Smt. lVlanjula, Aged about Major, Occ: Not Known io Petitioner, H.No. 9-51 19i D, Ramdevguda Village, Golconda Mandal Flanga Reddy District_ Hydera:ad- 500031 .

¶260

...RESPONDENTS

¶261

Petitior under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrroLa praying that tn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tl e High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or Writ specially o,re: in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in permitting the respondent no 4 for unauthorised construction, as conl:rary to the guidelines of the ministt/ of defence, New Delhi bearing no 110261?.l..LOl'1lD(Lands), dt.1805-2O11, threat to national security besides unautrr.,rised arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorrties to demo rs h the building of the respondent Nlo.4, Sy.No.58. H.No.9-5 119. situated at I:lamdevguda Vitlage, Golconda lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad forth ry [h.

¶262

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶263

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th': :ircumstances stated in the affidavil. filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 4 to not to proceed with any frrrther construction and further direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to take a1:rpropriate action on unauthorized lonstructions carried out permission by respr:rndent No:4, Sy. No. 58, in H.No.9-5-1 19, situated at Ramdevguda Village, Golc rnda lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad forthwith.

¶264

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR.

¶265

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENIE.RAL OF INDIA

¶266

¶267

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶268

counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO,

¶269

S.C. FOR GHMC

¶270

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --

¶271

WRIT PETITION NO: 4326 OF 2024

¶272

Between:

¶273

The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary to Govt. of lndia, [\llinistry of Defence New Delhi-110105.

¶274

The Station Commander, Station Head Quarter, Secunderabad.

¶275

3 The Sub Sector Commander, 1 Training Regiment Artillery Centre, Pin900398, C/o. 56 APO

¶276

.,PETITIONERS

¶277

AND

¶278

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of lr,ilunicipal Administration, and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶279

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation^(GHIMC), Rep. by its Commissioner, GHMC, Khiratabad, Hyderabad^- 500004.

¶280

The Asst. City Planner, Khairatabad Circle-13, Khiratabad, Hyderabad.500004.

¶281

It4r. Srihari, S/o. Sri Satyanarayana, Aged about: 30 years, Occ: Bank Employee, H.No. 9-5-'l 12lD, Rqmdevguda Village, Golconda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Hyderabad-50003^1.

¶282

...RESPONDENTS

¶283

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 an order or direction or Writ specially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondent No 2 and 3 in^permitting the respondent no 4 for unauthorised construction, as contrary to the^guidelines of the ministry of defence, New Delhi bearing no 110261212011|D(Lands), dt.18O5-2O11, threat to national security besides unauthorised arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the building of the respondent no 4, H.No 9-5-1121D, situated at Ramdevguda Village, Golconda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad^forthwith.

¶284

¶285

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶286

Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in tl,.] circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co.rrt may be pleased to direct the respondent no.4 to not to proceed with any f.rlher construction and further direct respondent no 2 and 3 to take appropriate a,ltion on unauthorized constructions carried out without permission by respon,rent No.4 in H.No.9-5'l 12lD, Ramdt:v qLrda village Golconda Mandal Ranga R,:::,ly District Hyderabad, pend ing dispcsal of WP.

¶287

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAF:, DEPUry SOLICITOR GEI',lt::RAL OF INDIA

¶288

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL i\DMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVT:L.OPMENT

¶289

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTJ RAO,

¶290

S.C. FOR GHMC

¶291

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -

¶292

WRIT PETITION NO: 4342 OF 2024

¶293

Betwee n:

¶294

The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary to Govt. of rrr: a, ft/linistry of Defence New Delhi-'l 10105-

¶295

The Station Commander, Staiion HQ, Secunderabarl.

¶296

3, The Sub Sector Commander, 1 training Regirneri Artillery Centre, Pin900398 C/o 56 APO.

¶297

...PETITIONERS

¶298

AND

¶299

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Sec.etary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Ser;r':rtariat, Hyderabad.

¶300

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad ftilunicipal^()orporation (GHMC), Khiratabad, Hyderabad. 500004.

¶301

The Asst City Planner, Khairatabad Circle-13, h hiratabad, Hyderabad500004

¶302

Mrs. Nagamani, W/o. Late M. Ravi, Aged about: Maj or . Q66 Not known to the Petitioner, H.No. 9-5-1 15/12lA, Ramdevguda Vil la 1r;, Golconda Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Hyderabad-50OO31

¶303

..RESPONDENTS

¶304

¶305

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or Writ specially one in the nature of Writ of lVandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondent No 2 and 3 in permitting the respondent no 4 for unauthorised construction, as contrary to the guidelines of the ministry of defence, New Delhi bearing no 11026121201 1/D(Lands), dt.1 B- 05-2011, threat to national security besides unauthorised arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the building of the respondent no 4, H.No 9-5-1121121A, situated at Ramdevguda Village, Golconda f\Iandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad forthwith.

¶306

lA NO:^.f OF 2024

¶307

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 respondent no.4 to not to^proceed with any further construction and further direct respondent no 2 and 3 to take appropriate action on unauthorized constructions carried out without^permission by respondent no 4 in H.No.9-51121121A, Ramdev guda village, Golconda ltrlandal, Ranga Reddy District Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶308

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUM4R, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶309

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶310

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO,

¶311

S.C. FOR GHMC

¶312

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -

¶313

WRIT PETITION NO:6801 OF 2024

¶314

Between:

¶315

'1 . The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, t\tlinistry of Defence, New Delhi-1 10105.

¶316

Station Commander, Station Headquarter, Secunderabad.

¶317

Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre,^PIN 900398, c/o s6 APo ...PET.a'NERS

)..,

AND

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Sr:c^-etary, Department of Iilunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secr :tariat, Hyderabad.

¶322

Greater Hyderabad tvlunicipal Corporation^(GHlvlC ) Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner. Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

¶323

The Assistant City Planner, Circle-13 Greater^-lyderabad t\rlunicipal Corporation(GHMC), Khairatabad, Hyderabad-50000.i

¶324

Omar Wasif Syed, S/o. Late Syed Abdul Ahmed, l.!t,;d about: Major, Occ: business, H.No 9-4-137lB/, Jamali Kunta, 7-Tombs^(:jolconda, Hyderabad

¶325

...RESPONDENTS

¶326

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lrrd a praying that in the circumstances; stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tl-: Hiqh Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly :n,: in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent l.irr 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate ar;tion and stopping unauthorised constructic'r made by respondent No 4 in Ground floor at H-No.9-4-13718, Jamali Kuntzr, 7-Tombs, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008, as contrary to the guidelines of the i\4 n stry of Defence, New Delhi bearrng No. 110261212011/D (Lands) dated. 18-5-20'1, and HQ Southern Command letler No 100'1 O4/NOC/Q (L), dated 01-05-201l3 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to delolish the unauthorized construction.

¶327

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶328

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th ,, rircumstances stated in the affidavil filed rn support of the petition, the High Cor rt may be pleased to direct the respondent No- 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorise,r^{()onstruction} made by 4th respondent in Ground floor of house No. 9-4-137tF^z Tombs, Tolichowki Hyderabad - 500008 pending disposal of the above writ p€1ilion.

¶329

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEI'lE:RAL OF INDTA

¶330

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶331

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTI{ ltAO,

¶332

S.C- FOR GHI/iC

¶333

¶334

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:^--

¶335

WRIT PETITION NO: 6841 OF 2024

¶336

Between:

¶337

'1 . The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi - 1^-10 105

¶338

Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad.

¶339

Sub Sector Commander, 3 Training & Mechanical Transport Regiment, Artiilery Centre, Hyderabad PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO

¶340

...PETITIONERS

¶341

AND

¶342

'1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary Department of [/unicipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶343

Greater Hyderabad lt,4unicipal Corporation (GHIVC), Represented by its Commissioner Gandipet [/andal, Himayat Sagar, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy Dist , Telangana - 500084.

¶344

The Asst City Planner, Malkajgiri Circle - 28 Malkajgiri (GHMC), Secu nderabad-500047

¶345

The Municipal Commissioner, Bandlaguda Jagir Municipality Corporation Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶346

tVl/s. Elite lnfra rep. by partners Sri Venkata Balakrishna Arekapudi & Others and age not known petitioners, I,4ajor Flat No.203, Srinivasam Apartment, Madinaguda Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy Dist. Telangana PIN-50001

¶347

..RESPONDENTS

¶348

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 3 and 4 in not cancelling the construction^permission of respondent No 5 for constructing of the House in PIot No 155,157 and^'l 58, Svy No 24 ln Parl No 16 and^'17 situated at Snehit Hills, Peeranchervu Village. Bandlaguda Jagir^lt,'lun icipality Corporation, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., Telangana to as contrary to the guidelines of the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No 11026121201 1/D (Lands) dated 18 May 2O11, and recent guidelines HQ southern command letter No. 1OO1o4/NOC/Q(L) 01 MAY 2023 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶349

¶350

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶351

Petitior under Section 151 CPC praying that in ti,.: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High^(l(, rrt may be^pleased to direct the resyronclent No 3 and 4 to stop the unauthorise I lonstruction of the 5th respondent construction of the House in Plot No.1 55, 1i,7 & 1 58, Svy No.24 ln Part No 16 &^'l Tsituated at Snehit Hills, Peeranchervu^\ri i:rge, Bandlaguda Jagir Municipality^{(lorporation,} Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Rt:,:: Jy Dist., Telangana, pending dispcsal of the above writ petition.

¶352

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAFI, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEr'll::RAL OF INDIA

¶353

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL r\t)MINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVT:T.OPMENT

¶354

Counsel for tlre Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI S. ABHAY KL I1,lAR SAGAR, S.C. FOR MUNICIP^t\LlTlES

¶355

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: --

¶356

WRIT PETITION NO: 6967 OF 2o2t

¶357

Between:

¶358

1 . The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary to the Cjr^r ' of lndia, tt4inistry of Defencr:, New Delhi-1 101 05.

¶359

Station Oommander, Station Headquarter, Secunderirl), d.

¶360

Sub Se:tor Commander,2 Training Regiment, Artilrt'r, Centre, PIN 900398, c/o. s6 APo

¶361

.PETITIONERS

¶362

AND

¶363

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal S€ 3'etary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Se lrr)tariat, Hyderabad.

¶364

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

¶365

3, The Assistant City Planner, Circle-13 Greater lyderabad l\ilunicipal Corporation(GHMC), Khairatabad, Hyderabad-50000r

¶366

Mr.s. Husna Azimunnisa Begum, W/o. Syed lrlohanrn red Abdul Bari, Aged about. h4ajor, Occ. business, H.No. 9-4-137, Plot f lo^.90, Jamali Kunta, 7- Tombs, Toli Chowki, Golconda, Hyderabad.

¶367

..RESPONDENTS

¶368

¶369

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the atfidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of fvlandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction made by respondent No 4 in Ground⁺ 3 floor at H.No. 9-4-137, Plot No-90, Jamali Kunta, 7-Tombs, Toli Chowki, Golconda, Hydera bad- 500008, as contrary to the^guidelines of the l/inistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No.^{11026121201 'llD (Lands)} dated: 18-52011 , as well on recent guidelines HQ Southern Command letter^No 1O01O4/NOC/Q (L), dated 01-05-2023, and^illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶370

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶371

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 respondent No.2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction^made by 4th respondent in Ground^plus 3 floor of House^No. 9-4-137,^{Plot No 90,} Jamali Kunta, 7 Tombs, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad-500008^{pending disposal of the above} writ petition.

¶372

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶373

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 GP FOR^{MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION} AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶374

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3:^{SRI K. SIDDHARTHRAO,} S.C. FOR GHMC

¶375

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K.^RAMACHANDRA

¶376

WRIT PETITTON NO: 7014 OF 2024

¶377

Between:

¶378

The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary^{to the Govt. of lndia, tMinistryof} Defence, New Delhi-1 10105.

¶379

Station Commander, Station Headquarter,^{Secunderabad.}

¶380

¶381

Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artill,rrv Centre, PIN 900398, c/o 56 APO.

¶382

...PETITIONERS

¶383

AND

¶384

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Srrc'etary, Department of [/unicipal Administration and Urban Development, Se,.:, etariat, Hyderabad.

¶385

Greater Hyderabad [Vunicipal Corporation (GHN/( ) Rep. by its Deputy Commis;sioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

¶386

The Assistalt City Planner, Circle-'13 Greater^,lyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHlt/C), Khairatabad, Hyderabad-5000C,1

¶387

Mr. Itrlohammad lmran, S/o. not known to Petitioner,^r\r,red about: [/ajor, Occ. Business, H.No. 9-10-26/4/1 , 18-Steps, Golconda, Hydr, rabad.

¶388

..RESPONDENTS

¶389

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lr dia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tl-.: High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly :n,, ip the nature of writ of [t4andamus declaring the inaction of the respondent N:).2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised constructicn made by respondent No 4 in Ground floor at H. No.9-10-261411 , 18-Steps. Golconda, Hyderabad500008, as contrary to the guidelines of the Ministry c 1. Defence, New Delhi bearing No.11o261212o1 1/D (Lands,) dated: 18-5-201 I and HQ Southern Command letter No 1001O4/NOC/Q (L), dated: 01-O5-2O2 3, and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to der-c lish the unauthorized construction.

¶390

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶391

Petition under Section 15.1 CPC praying that in thr: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to stop the unauthoriserl .;onstruction made by 4th respondent in Ground floor in House No. 9-'10-26/4/1 18 Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad-50{)008 pending disposal of the above Writ Pelit:n.

¶392

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶393

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENEIRAL OF INDIA

¶394

¶395

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMTNISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶396

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO,

¶397

S.C. FOR GHMC

¶398

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -

¶399

WRIT PETITION NO: 7065 OF 2024

¶400

Between:

¶401

'1 . The Union of India, represented by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, l\4inistry of Defence, New Delhi - 1 l0^'l 05

¶402

Statron Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad.

¶403

Sub Sector Commander 2 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO

¶404

...PETITIONERS

¶405

AND

¶406

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of IMunicipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶407

Greater Hyderabad lVlunicipal Corporation (GHI\4C), Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad^- 500004

¶408

The Asst. City Planner, Circle No.13 Greater Hyderabad lVlunicipal Corporation (GHMC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004.

¶409

Md Omer S/o. tvlohd. Omer, H.No.9-105-48-'1 , 18 Step Golconda, Hyderabad -^{500008 (TS).}

¶410

...RESPONDENTS

¶411

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorized construction made by respondent No.4 in G+'l at House No.9-105-48/1, 18 Step Golconda, Hyderabad-500008 (TS) as contrary to the guidelines of the l,4inistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 11O261212011iD (Lands) dated: 18 \Aay 2011 and HQ Southern Command letter No..t00104/NOC/O (L) dt.01 May 2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶412

¶413

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶414

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the : rcumstances stated in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High Cot-'t may be^pleased to direct the respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthoriserl construction made by 4th respondent in G+1 of House No. H. No-9-105-48'1 1B Step Golconda, Hyderabad-5C00OB (TS) pending disposal of the above writ !)etition and pass

¶415

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAFI, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GE!l;:RAL OF INDIA

¶416

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL r\t)tMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVI:I.OPMENT

¶417

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO,

¶418

s.c. FoR Gl{ndc

¶419

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --

¶420

WRIT PETITION NO: 7070 OF 2O2t

¶421

Between:

¶422

The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to the G rvt. of lndia, I\rlinistry of Defence, New Delhi-1 10105.

¶423

Station'lommander, Station Headquarter, Secunderab;'rd.

¶424

Sub Se,:tor Commander,2 Training Regiment, Artillcr-, Centre, PIN 9003S8, c/o. 56 APO.

¶425

...PETITIONERS

¶426

AND

¶427

The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Principal Sccretary, Department of l\4unicipal Administration and Urban Development, Se.;rr:tariat, Hyderabad.

¶428

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHtVC), Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

¶429

The Assistant City Planner, Circle-13 Greater ilyderabad tVlunicipal Corporation(GHMC), Khairatabad, Hyderabad-50000r .

¶430

Mr. Khursad Ahmed Khan, S/o. Gulam Hussain KharL, Aged about: Major, Occ: Business, H.No.9-4-137lA,/2, Jamali Kunta 7-Tombs, Golconda, Hyderabad

¶431

..,RESPONDENTS

¶432

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lnd a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, th: High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly ont:^-r the nature of writ of hrlandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 2 and 3 in not taking

¶433

¶434

appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction made by respondent No 4 in Ground floor at H. No.9-4-137lA 12, Jamali Kunta, 7-Tombs, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008, as contrary to the guidelines of the t,4inistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 11026/2120l^.1/D (Lands) dated: 18-5-2011, and HQ Southern Command letter No 1001O4/NOC/Q (L), dated 01-O5-2O23, and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶435

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶436

Petition under Section^'1 51 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 respondent No.2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4tr' respondent in Ground ftoor in House No.9-4'1371A12, Jamali Kunta, 7 Tombs, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶437

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,

¶438

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶439

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶440

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO,

¶441

S.C. FOR GHMC

¶442

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. RAMACHANDRA

¶443

WRIT PETITION NO: 7083 OF 2024

¶444

Between:

¶445

The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, tVinistry of Defence, NewDelhi-1 1 0'1 05.

¶446

Station Commander, Station Headquarter, Secunderabad.

¶447

Sub Sector Commander, 3-Training & lVlechanical Transport Regiment, Artillery Centre Hyderabad, PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO.

¶448

...PETITIONERS

¶449

AND

¶450

1- The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶451

The Commissioner, Band{aguda Jagir, Ir4unicipal Corporation, Bandlaguda Jagir, Himayath Sagar [Vlandal Dist: Ranga Reddy (TS)-500091.

¶452

Town Planning Officer, Bandlaguda Jagir, Municipal^{(lorporation,} Himayath Sagar lr4andal, Dist: Ranga Reddy (TS)-500091.

¶453

Bharat Reddy Naravetla, S/o.'Not known to petitio rerr, Aged about: It4ajor, Occ: not known, R/o. Bandlaguda Jagir Village, Ga rdipet lVandal, Ranga Reddy District 500008

¶454

...RES'.NDENTS

¶455

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrri a praying that in the circumstances, stated in the affidavit filed therewith, ti e High Court may be pleased to issJe an order or direction more particularly on: in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.2 a rd 3 in not cancelling the construction permission of respondent No.4 for const-u,;ting G⁺ 5 in Sy No. 96/10/B on Flot No-265, Padmasri Hills, Village Bandlaluda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy (Dist), Hyd e ra bad -500008 as contr,3ry to the guidelines of the Ministry o' Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 11126/21',al'11lD (Lands), dated181512011 as^'ruell on ) recent guidelines Head Quarter Sr uthern Command letter No,^{'100104/NCC/QL),} 01-l\4ay-2023 and illegal, arbitrary irrrC consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized c(,nr;truction.

¶456

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶457

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the -;i'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl rnay be pleased direct the respondent No, 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorized⁽ lnstruction made by respondent nc'.4 in G⁺ 5 in Svy no 96/10/GHA on Plot itlo.2G5 Padmasri Hills Village Bandlaguda Jagir, Gandipet lvlandal, Ranga Re,lcly (Dist), Hyderabad500008 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶458

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶459

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENE:RAL OF INDIA

¶460

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL I,DTMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELI)PMENT

¶461

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI S. ABHAY KUIVIAR SAGAR, S.C. FOR MUNICII]/\LITIES

¶462

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: --

¶463

¶464

WRIT PETITION NO:7090 OF 2024

¶465

Between:

¶466

The Union of lndia, represents its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia,^It4inistry of Defence New Delhi¹ 10 105

¶467

Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad

¶468

Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training^{Regiment,ArtilleryCentre PIN 900398,} C/o 56 APO

¶469

...PETITIONERS

¶470

AND

¶471

The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Prl. Secretary Departmentof} tr,4un icipal Adm inistration & Urban^{Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad}

¶472

Greater Hyderabad It/unicipal Corporafion^{(GHMC),Represented} by^its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-⁵⁰⁰⁰⁰⁴

¶473

The Asst. City Planner, Circle^{13 GreaterHyderabad [,4unicipal Corporation} (GHMC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad^- 500004

¶474

tt/r Sayeed Ali Khan, S/o Subhan Ali Khan,^{H.No-9-10-457/1} ,^{Golconda Fort,} 1B Step, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008^(Telangana)

¶475

...RESPONDENTS

¶476

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of^{writ of} mandamus declaring the inaction^{of the respondentNo. 2 and 3 in not taking} appropriate action and stopping^{unauthorised construction madeby respondent} No 4 in G plus 1 at H. No-9-10-2616^{18 Step,Golconda,Hyderabad-500008 (TS)} as contrary to the^guidelines of^{the Ministry of Defence,New Delhi bearingNo.} 110261212011iD (Lands) dated:^'18 May^{2011andHQ SouthernCommand letter} No 100104/NOC/O^(L) dt:01 May^{2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently} direct the respondent authorities to demolish^{the unauthorized construction-}

¶477

tA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶478

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleased to} direct the respondent No- 2 and 3 to^{stopthe unauthorised construction madeby} 4th respondent in G+1 of H.No.9-10-26/6,^{18 Step, Golconda,Hyderabad -500008} (TS) pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶479

¶480

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GAOI PRAVEEN KUMAF:, DEPUW SOLICITOR GEI{I]RAL OF INDIA

¶481

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL l\DMtNISTRATION AND URBAN DEVtJt.OPMENT

¶482

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDOHARTH RAO, s.c. FoR Gt{tnc

¶483

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --

¶484

WRIT PETITION NO: 7099 OF 2024

¶485

Between:

¶486

The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to the Gr:,i'i. of lndia, tVlinistry of Defence, New Delhi-1 1 01 05.

¶487

Station,lommander, Station Headquarter, Secunderairi,d

¶488

Sub Sector Commander, 3-Training & N/echaniczr Transport Regiment, Artillery Centre Hyderabad, PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO

¶489

...PETITIONERS

¶490

AND

¶491

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Sec.retary, Depa(ment of It/lunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Se,_;r:>tariat, Hyderabad.

¶492

2 The Commissioner Bandlaguda Jagir, l\4unicipal Ccrcoration, Bandlaguda Jagir, Himayath Sagar Mandal Dist. Ranga Reddy (TS ) I1000S1.

¶493

3 Town Planning Officer Bandlaguda Jagir, It4unicipal⁽ )orporation, Himayath Sagar Mandal, Dist: Ranga Reddy (TS)-500091.

¶494

4 Smt. Korpolu Vijaysri, Wo. Not known to petittoner, Ag:d about: Major, Occ: Household, Rl/o.H.No.8-2-32129, Champapet Opp. Sf\i l,leddy Garden, Sikara Enclave Saroornagar' Ranga Reddy District

¶495

...RES'.NDENTS

¶496

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnJia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, th,r High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus de,:laring the inaction of the respondent No.2 and 3 in not cance ing the construction permission of respondent No 4 for constrLrcting G+5 in Sy No. 9d1AlB on PIot No.266, Padmasri Hills, Village Bandtag.lda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy (Dist), Hyderabad- 500008 as contrrry' to the guidetines of the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 1102612f;.01 1/e (Lands), dated: 1a152O11 as^r,vell on) recent guidelines Head Quarter Soufl-rern Command letter

¶497

¶498

No. 100104/NOC/QL), 01-[/ay-2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶499

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶500

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 respondent No. 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorized construction made by respondent no. 4 in G⁺ 5 in Svy No.96/1O/GHA on Ptot No.265 Padmasri Hills Village Bandlaguda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy^(Dist.), Hyderabad500008^pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶501

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶502

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMtNISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶503

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI^S. ABHAY KUMAR SAGAR, S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶504

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -

¶505

WRIT PETITION NO:7101 OF 2024

¶506

Between:

¶507

The Union of lndia, represented by^its Secretary to^{the Govt.of lndia,l\4inistry} of Defence New Delhi¹ 10 105

¶508

Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad.

¶509

Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training^{Regiment,Artillery Centre PIN 900398,} c/o 56 APo

¶510

...PET'r.NERS

¶511

AND

¶512

The State of Telangana, Represented by^{its Prl. Secretary Departmentof} Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat^Hyderabad

¶513

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,^{(GHMC) Represented} by^its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad,^{Hyderabad -} 500004

¶514

The Asst. City Planner, Circle^{13 Greater Hyderabad MunicipalCorporation} (cHlVC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

¶515

IVId Mohammed Samsaddin S/o^{Allowdin,H.No.9-'10-22lA,18 Step Golconda,} Hvderabad-500008 (TS) ...RES'.NDENTS

¶516

¶517

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnc ia praying that in the circumstances; stated in the affidavit filed therewith, ti e High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly on:: n the nature of writ of mandamus dr-'claring the inaction of the respondent Nc.11 and 3 in not taking appropriate a:tion and stopping unauthorised constructi( n made by respondent No 4 in G+.1 .rt House No.9-'1 0-22lA,^'18 Step Golconda, llvd e rab ad-50000 8 (TS) as contrary tc the guidelines of the Ministry of Defence. N ew Delhi bearing No. 110261212011tD (Lands) dated: 18 May 2011 and HQ Sor:thern Command letter No 1001 04/NOC/O (L) dt: 01 t,4ay 2023 and illegal, arb rrary and consequentty direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthori,.r,rd construction.

¶518

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶519

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ;rrcumstances stated in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High Cc!.r,t may be pleased to direct the respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorise,_l :onstruction made by 4th respondent in G+1 of House No.9-10 -221A, 18 Step Ciolconda, Hyderabad500008 (TS) pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶520

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENE:RAL oF INDIA

¶521

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL I,tTMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVEL,fPMENT

¶522

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTI1 RAO, s.c. FoR GF,rlrc

¶523

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --

¶524

WRIT PETITION NO:7107 OF 2024

¶525

Between:

¶526

The Union_ of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary to the Gc vt. of lndia, tvlinistry of Defence, New Delhi-1 10105

¶527

Station Commander, Station Headqua(er, Secunderaf>e.C.

¶528

Sub Sedor Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artillery Centre, PIN 900398, c/o. 56 APO.

...PETITIONERS

AND

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

¶533

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004

¶534

The Assistant City Planner, Circle-13 Greater Hyderabad l\rlunicipal Corporation(GHl/C), Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500004.

¶535

[/ohammed Siraj, S/o. not known to petitioner, Aged about: major, Occ: business, H.No. 9-10-23/8, 1B-Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad

¶536

...RESPONDENTS

¶537

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised construction made by respondent No 4 in Ground^{+ 'l} , floor at H.No.9-10-23/8,^'1 B Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad500008, as contrary to the guidelines of the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 1102612120'1 1/D (Lands,) dated 18-5-2011, and HQ Southern Command letter No 100104/NOC/Q (L), dated 01-O5-2O23, and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶538

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶539

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 respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4th respondent in Ground⁺ 1 floor of House No. 9-10-23/8,^-t B Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶540

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶541

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL AOMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶542

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO,

¶543

S.C. FOR GHMC

¶544

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:^--

¶545

¶546

No.4 in Gror.rnd+3 at House No.8-1-405 Shaikpet Vill.rge, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad-500008 (TS) as contrary to the guidelines of^'hr: lvlinistry of Defence, New Delhi brearing No.1'10261212011/D (Lands) dated 18-05-2011 and HQ Southern Command letter No.100104/NOC/Q (L) dt:^{(t1 -05-2023} and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent auth lr ties to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶547

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶548

Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the Ci'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc u 1 may be pleased to direct the reslrondent No 2 and 3 -to stop the unauthorise.j construction made by 4th respondent rn G+3 of House No 8-1-405 Shaikpet Vil a 1e, Golconda Mandal, H yderabad -5C,0008 (TS) pending disposal of the above V/rit Petition.

¶549

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAF.,

¶550

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEl,llr:RAL OF INDIA

¶551

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL l\DMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVE:L,OPMENT

¶552

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHART{ RAO, S.C. FOR GFIl\flC

¶553

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V. VENKATA MAYUR

¶554

WRIT PETITION NO: 7122 OF 2024

¶555

Between:

¶556

The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary trt the Govt. of lndia, It/inistry of Defence New Delhi 1 1 0 105

¶557

2, Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad

¶558

Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artillr;ry Centre PIN 900398, C/o 56 r\PO

¶559

...PETITIONERS

¶560

AND

¶561

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. S::r;retary Department of tvlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secr,::tariat, Hyderabad

¶562

2 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad-500002

¶563

¶564

e II,.g.4l:!_City Planner, Circle^'13 qfqater Hyderabad Municipat Corporation (GHfMC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

¶565

Mr Mazhar Uddin Khan, S/o Khasim Khan, H. No.9-B-193/5/1A, euiladar Devidi, Bada Bazar Golconda Fort, Hyderabad- 500008 (TS).

¶566

...RESPONDENTS

¶567

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 an order or direction more partrcularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No_ 2 and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorized construction made by respondent No 4 in Ground Floor at House No. 9-8-193/5/1A Quiladar Devidi., Bada Bazar Golconda Fort, Hyderabad- 500008 (TS). as contrary to the guidelines of the IVlinistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No. 110261212011lD (Lands) dated. 1B05- 2O11, and HQ Southern Command letter No1001O4/NOC/Q (L) dt. 01-0S2023 and tllegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶568

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶569

Petition under Section^'1 51 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 respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthorised construction made by 4th respondent in Ground Floor of House No.9-B-1g3t5l1A Quiladar Devidi, Bada Bazar Golconda Fort, Hyderabad-500008 (TS), pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶570

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶571

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPA,L ADMINISTRAT|ON AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶572

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRt K. SIDDHARTH RAO,

¶573

S.C. FOR GHMC

¶574

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --

¶575

WRIT PETITION NO:7126 OF 202,1

¶576

Between:

¶577

1 . The Ur-'ion of India, represented by its Secretary to tl- e Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence New Delhi 1 1 0 105

¶578

Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad

¶579

Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artil ery Centre PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO

¶580

...PETITIONERS

¶581

AND

¶582

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. []€rcretary Department of lvlunici6ral Administration and Urban Development, Se cretariat, Hyderabad

¶583

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHf\4(l) Represented by its Deputy Corrmissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad- 500 )(.4

¶584

The Asst. City Planner, Circle^'13 Greater Hyderabe C Ii,4unicipal Corporation (GHtMC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004

¶585

Smt Sajida Begum D/o [t/D Osman, H.No.18-7-42 ii 123 Quila [/ohd Nagar Golconda' Hvd e rabad-500008 (TS)

¶586

...RES''NDENTS

¶587

Petitiorr under Article 226 of the Constitution of lrrcia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, tl e High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly on: n the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No ,l and 3 in not taking appropriate action and stopping unauthorised constructic n made by respondent No 4 in Ground Floor at House No.18-7-425123, Quila [t4<;hd Nagar, Golconda, Hyderabad-500008 (TS) as contrary to the guidelines of th:: h/inistry of Defence, New Delhi bearing No.110261212011|D (Lands) dated. .1 r: llay 2O11 and HQ Southern Command letter No 100104/NOC/Q (L) dt: 01 |4ay 2023 and illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent autho rities to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶588

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶589

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the -:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou't may be pleased to direct the respondent No 2 and 3 to stop the unauthoriserl ,:onstruction made by 4th respondent in Ground Floor of House No. 1-7-425/:aai, Quila Mohd Nagar, Golconda, Hydera ba d-500008 (TS) pending disposal of thr, i,rbove writ petition.

¶590

¶591

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶592

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: cP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶593

Counselfor the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO, S.C. FOR GHMC

¶594

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -

¶595

WRIT PETITION NO: 7148 OF 2024

¶596

Between:

¶597

'1 . The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to the Govt. of lndia, lVinistry of Defence New Delhi 1^'10 1 05

¶598

Station Commander, Station HQ, Secunderabad.

¶599

Sub Sector Commander, 3 Training and Mechanical Transport Regiment, Artillery Centre, Hyderabad PIN 900398, C/o 56 APO

¶600

...PETITIONERS

¶601

AND

¶602

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Secretary Department of lVlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶603

Greater Hyderabad lVlunicipal Corporation (GHfVlC), Represented by its Commissioner Gandipet Mandal, Himayat Sagar, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy Dist-, Tela naga na-500084

¶604

The Alst eity plqnner, {Valkajgln Ciple 2S Malkajgiri (cHlVlC), Secunderabad-50OO47

¶605

The Municipal Commissioner, Bandlaguda Jagir [\rlunicipality Corporation Rajendranagar lrlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana-

¶606

Sri Zohair Hasan Lateef S/o. Wasif Hasan Lateef And Sri Ashar Hasan Lateef S/o Sri Adul Hasan Lateef, age not known petitioners, Major, Plot No. N421564, Road No.12, Near Federal Bank, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Telangana PIN-500034

¶607

...RES'.NDENTS

¶608

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No 3 and 4 in not cancelling the construction permission of respondent No 5 for constructing of House in Plot No 24, 25lP WlP,25ElP,26,27,28,29, 30 Svy No.134 & 134lA situated at Kismatpur Village, Gandipet l\rlandal, Ranga Reddy Dist., Telangana to as

¶609

¶610

contrary to tl-re guidelines of the Ministry of Defence,^frlr;w Delhi bearing No. 110261212011/D (Lands) dated^'18 t\4ay 2011, and recenl r.]uidelines HQ southern command letter no.100'104/NOC/O(L) 01 May 2023 a:; illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to den r:iish the unauthorized construction.

¶611

lA NO:'t OF 2024

¶612

Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ,: TCumstances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High C('L rt may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 and 4 to stop the unauthorise,:i construction of the 5rh respondent construction of the House in Plot No.24, 25lP^\At lP , 25ElP , 26, 27 , 28, 29, 30 Svy No.134 & 134/A situated at Kismatpur Viilarre, Gandipet It4andal, Ranga Reddy Dist , Telangana, pending disposal of the at o re vrrit petition.

¶613

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAFI, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEhlI::RAL OF INDIA

¶614

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL l\DMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVE I..OPMENT

¶615

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI S. ABHAY KLll\tAR SAGAR, S,C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶616

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M. SAI CHANDRA FIAAS

¶617

WRIT PETITION NO:7581 OF 2024

¶618

Between:

¶619

The Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary to th-. Gov,t. of lndia, Ministry of Deferce, New Delhi 1 1 0 105

¶620

Station Comnander. Station HQ, Secunderabad.

¶621

Sub Sector Commander, 2 Training Regiment, Artill(-.rll Centre PIN 900398, Cio 56 APO

¶622

...PETITIONERS

¶623

AND

¶624

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Prl. Se:;retary Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Se lretariat, Hyderabad

¶625

Greater Hyderabad l/lunicipal Corporation (GHMC ), Represented by its Deputy Commissioner, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 l(14

¶626

¶627

The Asst. City Planner,^{Circle 13 Greater HyderabadlVlunicipalCorporation} (GHMC) Khairatabad, Hyderabad^- 500004

¶628

Mr l\ilohammed Hameed,^{H.No.9-10-23/C 18 Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad -} 500008

¶629

...RESPONDENTS

¶630

Petition under Article^{226 of the Constitutionof lndra prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith,the High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue an order or direction^{more parttcularlyonein the nature of writ of} mandamus declaring the^{inactronof the respondent No.2 and 3 in not taking} appropriate action and stopping^{unauthorised constructionmade by respondent} No.4 in G+1 at House^{No.9-10-23/C 18 Steps, Golconda, Hyderabad 500008 as} contrary to the^{guidelinesof the Ministryof Dt:fence,NewDelhibearingNo.} 11O2612t2011/D^(Lands) dated. .1 B-05 2011, and HQ Southcrn Command letter No. 1O0104/NOCIO^(L) dt.01-05-2023^{arrd rllegal, arbrtrary and conscquently} dtrect the respondent^{authoritres to demolistlthe unautltotizedconstruction.}

¶631

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶632

Petition under Section^{151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High Court maybe pleased to} direct the rcspondent No_2^{and3 to stop t[]e unauthorised construction madc by} 4th respondent in^G+1 of^{HouseNo.9-10-231C 18 Stcps,Golconda, Hyderabad-} 500008 pending disposal^{of the above WritPetition.}

¶633

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRIGADI PRAVEENKUMAR'} DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL^OF INDIA

¶634

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION} AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶635

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2& 3: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO,} S.C. FOR GHMC

¶636

Counsel for the Respondent^No.4: -

¶637

The Court made the following:^{COMMON ORDER}

¶638

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶639

writ Petition Nos.5357, 16252, 16875. 18780, 18781 and 20587 of 2023 and 4L75, 4222. 4230. 4277,4326, 4342, 6801,5841.6967 7014. 7065. 7070. 70A3.7090. 709_9,. 7LOt, 7LO7. 7flL 7L21.7L 2, 7L26. 714A & 7s 87. ot 2024

¶640

COMMON ORDER:

¶641

Since the issue involved in all these Writ pci,tic-rs is one and the same, they ar-e being disposed of by this common ordr.. 2. Heard learned Deputy Solicrtor General of Inclia appearing for the petitioners ir all these Writ petitions; learned Govirlment pleader for Munrcipal Administrataon and Urban Developmenl; learned Standing Counsel appi:ar-ing for Hyderabad Metropolitan Der,,,rr.rpmenl Authority; lear ned Staa,l ng Counsel for Greater Hyderabad lulurr :rpal Corporation; Sri Abhay liumar Sagar, learned Standing Coun:ri,, for Municipalily; Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel appeitr nq on behatf of respondent No.5- in W.p.Nos.5357 and 20587 o 2023; Sri Koda Satyanarayan3 Rao lcamed counsel appearing for t.:,,ltcndent 1.,,1o.4 and Sri ltl.Dlrananjay Reddy, learned counsel appearing tbr on behalf of respond(rnt No.5 in W.p.No .4222 of 2OZ4; and Sri K.R;rnchandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial responrlen. in /.p.Nos.6967 and 707(t of 2024 and perused the record.

¶642

2A. Thouqh notice is ordered to the unofficial resporrrlents in this batch cf Writ Petitions some of the notice s are returned un:nlr /ed. However, in vier,v of the manner of disposal and the nature of lisin,,c: ved, this Court is of the view that the mafters can be disposed of rvit.hout having the audience of the said respondents.

¶643

¶644

For ease of reference, the tacts as stated in W.p.No.4222 of 2024 are taken as basis for disposal of all these Writ Petitions.

¶645

This batch of Writ Petitions are filed by the Union of India assailing the action of the respondents-Municipal Corporation in not initiating appropriate action against the constructions being made by the unofficial respondents without obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the defence authorities in the.land adjacent to such defence establishments. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that originally G.O.Ms.No.168 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dt.07.04.2012 provided for obtaining NOC from the concerned defence authorities mandatory, while applying and obtaining bullding permission from the concerned municipal authorities; that the said condition has been deleted/amended by the respondent-authorities under G.O.Ms.No.7 Municipal Adminiskation and Urban Development ([41) Department dt.05.01.2016 without the consent or concurrence of the concerned defence authorities; that removal of condition of requirement of obtaining NOC from the concerned defence authorities is contrary to the Guidelines dt.18.05.2011 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi; and that allowing such constructions immediately adjacent to the defence establishments, is contrary to the provisions of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (for short, 'the WODA').

¶646

it is the further case of the petitioners that on account of the respondent-municipal authorities granting building permission without

¶647

insistinq on obtaining NOC from the concerned Lor:a Military Authority (LMA)/defence authorities, and the unofficial responGents are undertaking constru:tions on the basis of such permissions grantei by the respondentauthorities in the vicinity of defence establishments v,,ithout maintaining the minimum distance from the boundary of defenr:: establishments as prescribed Guidelines dt.18.05.2011, call for initiation o' actron against the said constructions by the respondent-authorities, as r.htl same is contrary to the prescription of requirement to maintain the clisl_.rnce of 100 meters from thr: boundary wall of defence establishment, U- r,r:;, in contravention of WODA.

¶648

it is also contended on behalf of the petii.ioners that as per Guidelin3s dt.18.05.2011, NOC is required to br: obtained, if any construction is coming up within 100 meters radius of defence establishment (for multistoried building of more tharr four storeys, the distance shail be 500 meters) and only upon issuance cl,such NOC by the LMA/defence authorities, the respondent_authorities a-e required to grant permissi()ns/building approvals.

¶649

B. Petitioners further contend that though Guidellrres dt.18.05.2011 were su oerscded/amended by proceedings dt.21.10.2016, as the same are not in accordance with the provisions of the WO)i, the same were not given effect to. Therefore, the authorities were di'er:ted to follow the Guidelines dt. 18.05.201 1 only.

¶650

_).&

¶651

¶652

Petitioners fufther contend that, on the LMA noticing the respondent - authorities have deletedlomitted the condition of requiring to obtain NOC for grant of building permission by amending G.O.MS.No.168 dt.07.O4.2072, vide G.O.Ms.No.7 dt.05.01.2016, the petitioners have addressed letters to the respondent-authorities by brjnging to their notice regarding the security threat to military establishments/installations and requested to make necessary amendments to G.O.MS.No.7 dt.05.01.2016 by ensuring that the condition of obtaining prior NOC for grant of building permission is restored. It is contended that in spite of numerous communications addressed by the LIYA to respondenL-authorities to issue necessary instructions to the municipal authorities directing them to not approve the building plans for four floors and above, which are within 500 meters distance from the defence boundary wall without obtaining NOC/securiV clearance from the LMA as per the guidelines dt.18.05.2011 as amended from time to time, no action has Seen taken thereon and on the other hand, permissions are being granted thereby exposing the defence establishment to security threat.

¶653

On behalf of the^petitioners, it is also contended that the Guidelines dt.18.05.2011, which^prescribe the requirement of maintaining minimum 100i 500 meters distance from the defence establishment boundary wall at any point of time were not under challenge and therefore, the unofficial respondents also cannot claim that either their fundamental right is being affected on acgunt of such restriction or that the same is in violation of

¶654

¶655

Afticle 300-A of the Constitution of India as the guideline s only require the owner of the land to obtain NOC from the LMA befoier approaching the respondent-a uthorities to obtain a building permission whereupon the LMA could assess the security threat/perception by car:;ing inspection of the site for issuing NOC.

¶656

it is also contended on behalf of the petitioner; :hat the unofficial respondents are undertaking development/construction irnmediately within the vicinity of defence establishment and if such ,..onstructions are permittecl by the respondent-authorities, the same ,^,ould expose the activities of defence personnel to security risk; ar d that since, the guidelines dt.18.05.2011 are issued in exercise of pot/ei-,; conferred under Section 44 of ihe WODA, the same are binding on t:le respondent - authorities for granting permissions.

¶657

Orr behalf of the petitioners, it is also contended :1at the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence would have to be gr'''err importance and are required to be enforced as they are directly t,r(rportional to the Nation's -.;ecunty, as held by the the Hon'ble Supreme^(-ourt in the case of Gorakhnath Shankar Nakhwa v/s. the Municipal Commissioner oF Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and othed and the Bombay High Court in the case of Vikram Delite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., a Co-operative Housing Society, through its

¶658

1 Special Leave to\rtpp:l (C) Nos.3 112l2023 dt.20.02. 2023

¶659

¶660

Treasurer Vithal D. patet and Ors, v/s. Union of India, through its Secretary to the Ministry of Defence and other?.

¶661

Per contra, learned Government pleader for MA&UD appearing on behalf of the respective respondents in the writ petitions wourd submit that, in the meeting herd by the representatives of CREDAI with officiar of State Government, Chaired by Chief Secretary on 28.08.201S, a request was made to relax the condition of insisting oF obtaining NOC from the derence authorities for granting of buirding permission for ease of doing business in the state; and that based on the aforesaid request received from the CREDAI representatives, the State Government prepared a note proposing to dispense with the condiiion of requiring to obtain NOC from the defence authorities for apprying to buirding permission, vide Note File dt.18.12.2015 and had circurated the same for approvar oF the cabinet of the State Government and on being approval by the Cabinet on 02.01.2016, G.O.Ms.No.7 was issued on 05.01.2016 amending the condition in G.O.Ms.No.168 dt.18.04.2012.

¶662

1,4. Learned Government pleader would further submit that the condition to obtain NOC for applying for building permission was incorporated under G.O.Ms.No.168 by the said authorities themselves, and in view of the request received from the representatives of CREDAI, the said condition was deleted. Learned Government pleader, however, would

¶663

12022 scc ontineldmhay 6700

¶664

¶665

¶666

submit that though the condition of obtaining Noc frr; r'r LMA was omitted in the Building Rules, it has been made ctr:,r- while granting permissions/approva ls that it would be the responsibrlrty of the applicant to follor.ar the applicable rules as prescribed by the d,:f .rnce authorities in their rules.

¶667

Learned Government preader further submits t.,,rt insorar as grant of buildirrg permrssion is concerned, the petitioners cir rot insist that the conditior to insist for obtaining NOC from LM/r i,, required to be incorpor;rted in the Buirding Rures of the state and iL. i; br the petitioners to take s-eps to enforce the provisions of WODA by tlrt r selves.

¶668

Learned Government pleader further submits th t if only there is inconsistency behveen the provisions of the central /.r: with that of the State Act, the Central Act would prevail, and inasmucir the provisions of the GHMt3/Municipa rities Act are not inconsistent witl rrr: woDA and the power to enact laws with regard to the municipalitie:; Ir,, ng State subject, the petitioners cannot rnsist that the respondent - sl.re is required to make/enact laws in accordance with the requirement cf r. )e petitioners.

¶669

Learned Government pleader further submits .tlt either as per WODA or the Rules and Guidelines issued thereunder, if any restriction is imposed for allowing or not allowing construction ir ;ites abutting to defence establishments, it is for the said authorit,v r I take steps for enforcing the same and it is for the said reason, llte respondents_

¶670

¶671

authorities, while granting building permission, have amply made it clear that the building permission is being granted subject to the applicant taking up the responsibility to follow the applicable rules as prescribed by the defence authorities in their rules, and the petitioners cannot seek for implementation/enForcement of rules framed by th-e petitioners through the respondents-authorities.

¶672

Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the respondenls-authorities by the Building Rules notified by it, vide G.O.Ms.No.168 dt.07.04.2012, had prescribed the distance from boundary of Defence Area/tvlilitary establishment as 500 meters for seeking clearance of Defence Authority, nohvithstanding that the Guidelines dt.18.05.2011 issued by the petitioners prescribe, 100 meters from the radius of defence establishment (For multistoried building of more than four storeys the distance shall be 500 meters) which guidelines were amended by the petitioners themselves by guidelines dt.21.10.2016, whereby the requirement of maintaining distance ot 100 meters (500 meters for multistoried of more than four storeys) of the boundary of defence establishments has been reduced to 10 meter in respect of defence establishmenLs mentioned in Annexures A and 100 meters for defence establishment mentioned in Annexure B of the said guidelines.

¶673

Learned Government Pleader would further submit that merely on account of amendmeni issued to Building Rules, 2012, in pa(icular to Rule 3 vide G.O.Ms.No.7 MA&UD dt.05.01.2016 for not insisting to obtain NOC / '/'

¶674

-/ i

¶675

¶676

from thr: defence authorities for grant of building p:rrnission would not obliviate the responsibility of the person obtaining builling permission to comply with the rules prescribed brr the defe;rcr: authorities for undertaking construction in any site abutting to defenr r: establishments.

¶677

Learned Government pleader thus submits tha ,.he petitioners are required to take action on their own for implementari.n/enforcement of the WODA and the Rules made thereunder and as sur:h, the action of the respondents-state in amending its building Rules canr,r, be said as either being inconsistent with the provisions of the centrar rrct. for the said Act to prevail over the State Act or the petitioners tc ieel aggrieved to approach this Court by filing the present Writ petition.

¶678

Sr K.Siddharth Rao, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing on behali' of the respective respondents in all these \/r t petitions states that the cases of the petitioners can be divided into i,, r categories viz., pre-2016 and post-2016; that prior to issuancr, of G.O.lvls.No.7 dt.05.01.;2016. since, the building permissions that,r,:.e to be granted were governed by the building rules rssued rrli, G,O.Ms.No.168 dt.O7.04.,r-O12, which contained condition relating to . :r:: requirement of obtaining prior clearance of defence authority in case 01, sites within 500 meter drstance from the boundary of the dei:n,:e area/military estabrishment the respondents-a uthorities were dury insisting for obtaining such NOC.

¶679

¶680

Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that subsequent to the amendment of Building Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.7 dt.05.01.2016, building permissions were granted without insisting for obtaining of NOC from defence authorities. However, the responsibility was fastened on the applicants to follow the applicable rules as prescribed by the defence authorities in their rules, For undertaking construction in sites abutting to defence establishments, and granting of permission by the municipal authorities would not automatically entiUe the applicant to undertake construction without complying with the conditions stipulated under the other laws, be it State or Central-

¶681

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that in most oF the cases being complained by the petitioners oF not taking any action by the respondent corporation, the constructions are made by private individuals without obtaining any permission or sanction from the respondent corporation; that in respect of such constructions made unauthorizedly on being brought to their notice, the respondents-authorities have initiated action by issuing show cause notice d1.29.11.2021 and also passing Speaking Order thereafter, holding the said constructions to be unauthorized and illegal constructions; and that the authorities would take steps for enforcing the said Speaking Order.

¶682

Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that amendment made to the building rules is only in relation to obtaining building permission from the respondent - corporation as per the building rules in ..,

¶683

¶684

force to ensure that the construction complies with tie conditions/rules as prescribed thereunder; and that in some of the cases br:ing compiained of by the petitioners, the identification of such construcLir_)ns is pending and once such unauthorized constructions are identified b,, the respondents_ authorities, the authorities would take further acti.;ir in terms of the provisions of the GHMC Act.

¶685

25" It is also contended by the learned Standing C rrrnsel appearing for the respective respondents that the term 'defence es:al)lishment,has not been defined, and the respondents-authorities were (1,:rnting permissions bv consi,lering the distance from the location or the d( tirnce establishment within the defence area, as vast extent of land abutng to the defence establishment is under occupation of defence authoritirts

¶686

Lerarned Standing Counsel iurther submits tri)t post-2O16, the guidelin€s issued by the petitioners themselves menrion the required distance to be only 10 meters from the outer v,i; ii of such defence establishnrent/ installation for the restriction of requirirrg to obtain NOC, the petitioners cannot clairn of the respondents qranting building permission in violation of guidelines dt.18.05.2011; an( that the guidelines issued by the petitioners do not have any binding effec: {rn the respondent corporation of the State, much less the same havinq l.r:en issued under any statutory provision for it to be implemented by tte respondent _ corporation.

¶687

¶688

27, Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.S in W.P.N0.4222 of 2024 would contend that it had obtained layout sanction in respect of land admeasuring Acs.63.39 guntas in Sy.No.345 from H['4DA authorities on 18.03.2020 and is only selling open plots in the layout to intending buyers and is not undertaking any construction therein.

¶689

Learned counsel would further submit that while the 5h respondent is taking development activities in respect of the layout permission granted to it, (putting on hold the permission granted to it), it has received notice dt.15.12.2021 from the petitioners addressed to the HMDA and municipal authorities with a copy marked to the 5rh respondent herein pursuant to which, the HMDA authorities have issued letter dt.21.02.2022 informing the petitioners that the layout permission granted to it, vide proceedings dt.08.03.2020 is kept on hold and directed the respondents to obtain NOC from the defence authoritiei.

¶690

Learned counsel further submits that upon the 5th respondent submitting its explanation, the HMDA authorities had revoked the letter d1.21.02.2022; and that the aforesaid proceeding issued by the HMDA authorities revoking the withhold letter dt.21.02.2022 and restoring the layout permission dt.08.03.2020 granted in its favour, was not challenged by the petitioners even though a copy of the same was marked to the learned counsel, Who had initially issued the notice to HMDA authority with a copy of the same being marked to the petitioners.

L,:arned counsel further submits that the petitir:r:rs by suppredsing the pror:eedings dt.04.04.2022 and the guidelines is;ued vide circular dt.21.10.2016 have filed the Writ petition in the,,ear 2024; that the provisions of WODA on the basis of which petitioners tr,: claiming that the respondent-a uthority is required to insist for cbtai ri,rg NOC from the defence authorities/LMA while granting permission r,; similar to Land Acquisiti,ln Act and the petitioners without initiating p.cl_-eeding by issuing notification under Section 3 of the WODA can.rcri claim that no developrnent/construction can be made in lands adjaci:.t to the boundary of the defence establishment/installation and such cl;rrnr is in vioiation of Article 300-4 of the Constitution of India.

¶695

31 . On behalf of the 5h respondentr it is further ,:r.,ntend€d that the guidelines dt.18.05.2011, or for that matter, guideline :; 1t.21.10.2016, do not spec fl/ that NOC is required in respect of all prop:.ties adjoining the boundaries of the defence area and since, the defenc,,r ,rrea incrudes vast extent ol' land within which such defence establishm::r:t is situated, the petitioners cannot insist that no development/co-t:.iruction can be undeftak,:n adjacent to the boundary of the defence larcls.

¶696

It is further contended on behalf of the 5h resporrdent that as per the guidelines dt,21.10.2016 issued by the Governme,rt of India, rvlinistry of Defen.e for issuing Noc for buirding construction,; :n the vicinity of defence esta blishments/installations, such establish !--ients/insta:rations have been divided into tvvo parts, namely palt A and pi:rt B; that as per

¶697

{

¶698

¶699

Part A of Annexure to the aforesaid guidelines, in respect 0f 193 stations as listed therein, security restrictions shall apply up to 10 meters from the outer wall of such defence esta blishments/installations in order to maintain clear line of sight for effective surveillance and any construction or repair activity within such restricted zone of 10 meters will only require prior NOC from LMA/defence authority; that insofar as 149 stations as listed in Paft B of Annexure to the aforesaid guidelines, security restrictions, in respect of defence establishments/installations shall apply up to 100 meters from the outer wall of such defence establishments/installations to maintain clear line of sight for effective surveillance and no construction or repair activity shall be permitted within 50 meters and height restriction of 03 meters (one storey) shall be applicable for the distance from 50 meters to 100 meters and any constructions or repair activity within such restricted zone between 50 to 100 meters will require prior NOC from the LMA/defence authorities.

¶700

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners' property does not fallllocated under any of the station/establishment mentioned at serial N0.32 of Annexure A of the guidelines issued under the said circular and as such, the^petitioners cannot insist for approaching the defence authorities for obtaining NOC to undertake development activity, having obtained layout^permission for making plots from the concerned authorities; that the^guidelines be it dt.18.05.2011 or dt.21.10.2016, cannot be given the status of a statute or Rules having been framed in

¶701

¶702

accordance with Section 44 of the WODA for them :o have any binding efFect

¶703

Irr support of the aforesaid submissions, reliar c,.: has been placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court dt.11.01..10i9.. Bombay High Court, Madras High Court dt.02.09.2023 and that ol. .he Apex Court in Babaji Kondaji Garad and others v/s. il,tsik Merchants Cooperative Bank Limitee Nasik and otherf.

¶704

Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel appe,aring on behalf of responde.nt No.5 in W.p.No.5357 ot ZO23 would ,:jntend that the respondent had made construction of the building cc ir, isting of cellar + stilt + flve upper floors in plot No.75 Northern part ,:r C 76 in Sy.No.24 situated at Peerancheruvu by obtaining permission f-otn the concerned municipa' authorities on 19.06.2021; that the afol.e:;aid construction undertaken by the 5tr' respondent is 150 meters away from the military establishrnent; that the aforesaid construction made by the 5fl, respondent is governed by 2016 guidelines, which prescribes, secur.ty restrictions of 10 meter:; from outer wall of such defence establishment/insta llation; that it has not been issued with any notice mentioning violation, for the petitioners to Rre the writ petition against it nor any rLctice is received from the r:oncerned municiparity which had granted buirding permission in

¶705

AIR 1984 5C 192

¶706

¶707

his/its favour alleging any violation while proceeding with the construction for the petitioners to approach this Court.

¶708

Learned counsel would further submit that since the WODA being a special enactment, the said Act is required to be implemented in terms of provisions contained thereunder and the petitioners cannot seek the assistance of the respondents-authorities for alleged violation, if any under the said Act; that if there is any alleged violation under the Act, the petitioners are required to take iltion in terms of Section 37 of the Act and for the said reason also, the Writ Petition as filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.

¶709

Insofar as W.P.No.205B7 of 2023 is concerned, learned counsel would contend that the unofficial respondent therein had obtained building permission dt.16.05.2022 for construction of cellar + stilt + four upper floors in PIot No.152 and had made construction in accordance with the sanction plan and that the distance between the construction and the defence establishment is 250 meters and as such, the petitioners cannot maintain the^present Writ Petition on the basis of the notice dt.29.08.2022 and thus, seeks for dismissal of the same.

¶710

Sri K.Ramchandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents in W.P.N0.6967 and 7070 of 2024 would submit that the unofficial respondents' houses in both the Writ Petitions were in -.) existence since4ong, while unofficial respondent in W.P.No.6967 of 2024

¶711

1,7

¶712

had conitructed house consisting of four floors in .l-,: year 2010, the house of the unofficial respondent in W.p.No.707 1 of ZO24 is only consistin,l of ground floor and in both the cases, ro defence land is involved and as such, the petitioners cannot mainta c the present Writ Petitions against unofficial respondent in both the Writ t)i,titions.

¶713

I lravc taken note of the respective contentions rrrqed.

¶714

Beforer proceeding to consider as to whether il-: petitionei.s can raise an :bjcction tc the i-espondent State amendir,; its building rules notified vidc G.O.Ms.No,i68 dt.07.O4.2012 ur C:rr G.O.[4s.No.Z dt.21.10,1016 taking away the i-equrrement of obtairrrrg NOC from the defence authorities/LMA ror grant of bullding permissio.r is concerned. it is pertinent to examine the effect of guidelines issued by thr petitioners.

¶715

Mi,istry of Defence, Government of India, has is:;ried guidelines for issuance of NOC for building construction vide communication dt.18.05.rt01l addressed to Chief of Army Staff, Chie f of Air Staff and Chief of tJavai Staff, In the said communication, it is noted that WODA imposes restrictions upon use and enjoyment of rano ir.r the vicinity of defence estabrishments and in view of two recent cas,:s viz., sukna and Adarsh, tf e same needs to be comprehensively amencel, for which it is noted that. process is put in motion and in the meantirn.:, the guidelines are to be lollowed while issuing NOC for construction.

¶716

¶717

Though by the aforesaid communication, it is stated as amendment to WODA is put in motion to address security concern, admittedly, no amendment has been notified. ln the meantime, Government of India, MoD has issued another circular/com munication specifying the guidelines for issue of NOC for building constructions.

¶718

Both the guidelines issued vide circular dt.18.05.2011 and 21.10.2016, were subject matter of consideration before Division Bench oF Delhi High Court in the case of Union of fndia v/s. Government of NCT Delhf , wherein the Dlvision Bench of Delhi Hrgh Court had noted that the^"guldelines dt.21.10.2016 mentions that large nuntber of representations have been received from elected representatives to review the guidelines issued in 2011 as difficulties are being faced by public in constructing buildings on their own lands, review of the guidelines dt.18.C5.2011 r,vas undeftaken and the Government has decided to amend the^guidelines issued vide guidelines dt.18.05.2011, 18.03.2015 and 17.11.2015." (underlining supplied by this Court)

¶719

The Delhi High Court by noting as above, considered clause 2(a) of the guidelines dt.2I.t0.2016, as under:

¶720

"2(a) Security restrictions in respect of Defence establishments/ installations located at 193 stations as listed in Part A of Annexure to this circular shall apply upto 10 meters from the outer wall of such Defence establishments/ installations to maintain clear line of sight

¶721

o r.tnwlotlltozlzozz J

¶722

¶723

for effcctive surveillance. Any construction or repa r activity within such restricted zone of 10 meters will requirc prior No Objection Certificate (NoC) from the Local Military Authoriby ,'Li\4A)/DeFence estdblish ments. "

¶724

Since, the Division Bench of Delhi High Cor-.t had held that Guidelines issued, vide circular dt.21.10.2016 to be , n amendment to Guidelinr:s dt.i8.05.2011, the submission made o,r behalf of the petitioners that the same were not given efFect to and tl .3 authorities were directed to follow the guidelines dt.18.05.2011 in absr:i ce of any further circular t.r the said eFfect. does not merit consideration

¶725

Furthr:r-, the issue of permission for constructio r ,^iithin the vicinity of defen(:e establishment has been subject matter of crtl5ilsr-6116n before the Kerala High Court in W.C.No.9799 dt.08.02.2018; Madhya pradesh High Court n Munna @ Ramesh yadav v/s. llnion of Indif; Bombay High Court in Vikram Delite Cooperating Housing S:ociety Limiteds case (1 supra); and High Court oF Calcutta in the case c. Commandant, Ordnance Depot v/s. the Kolkata Municipal Corporatiorf .

¶726

In the above decisions rendered, the respectivrr .1igh Courts have analfzed the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defr:r:e dt.18.05.2011 and guidelines dt.21.10.2016. The Calcutta High Corrrt in the case of Commandant, Ordnance Depot (6 supra), had an o.t(.asion to consider

¶727

5 w.p.No.16!,46 0EiO16 dt 02.09.2023

¶728

5 MANU/wB,'1001;,/202 2

¶729

¶730

the effect of guidelines issued on 2l.lO.2016, over the guidelines dt.18.05.2011 which decision of the learned single Judge of the calcutta High Court was also affirmed by a Division Bench of the said High Court.

¶731

Without burdening this order with the findings recorded in the aforesaid decistons by the respective High Courts, it would suffice it to state that in all the aforesaid decisions, it has been consistenUy held that the guidelines issued vide circular dt.18.05.2011 specifying the restricted area from the defence establishment/inslallation stood amended, by guidelines issued vide circular dt.21.10.2016 and the said guidelines would apply rn respect of building permissions obtained subsequent thereto.

¶732

The only case wherein a different view was taken is by the High Court of lharkhand at Ranchi in the case of ltnion of fndia v/s. Ranchi Municipal Corporation and other{ wherein the Division Bench, by applying the principle of purposive construction of the statute and also taking into consideration the militant attacks in Sukna and Adarsh, had held that the guidelines dt.18.05.2011 need to be given emphasis over the guidelines dt.21.10.2016.

¶733

The aforesaid divergent views expressed by High Cou(s in some cases, are subject matter of consideration before the Hon,ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) appeals.

¶734

'^{Mat'tu/tHloqoqlDu}

¶735

.,,

¶736

¶737

At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in a n:c,:nt judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Goya Resorts' Private Limited v/s. Union of Indif, had an occasion to consicl€i the scope of the WODA.

¶738

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid dels on by consldering the provisions of the WODA, had held that:

¶739

"14... the 1903 Act is in the interest of the natiora security and defence but at the same time, undei- its guise the cltiz.rns cannot be deprived of or denied the use of their property ili::qally and in viol,ltion of the statutory provisions. There has ic i)e a balance beh{een [he DUrDose and obiect of the 1903 Act an(l he eqal ri^qht oF the citizens to use and eniov their roDeav The 1()03 Act in its scheme does provide that balancing factor to be carri,:rd out by the authoritles to take appropriate steps by giving sho.ar cause notice considering the claims, making an enquiry, making a'r award, and determining the compensation for the loss sulferer j.^' (underlining supplied by this Court)

¶740

The Apex Court by observing as above, u,hrle quashing the declaration and the notices impugned in the aforesaid c vil appeals issued under Section 3 of the Act, however kept the afore:;aid proceedings in abeyance till 31 .05.2025 by granting liberty to the Cer tr.al Government to publish a fresh declaration under Section 3 of the A(t within the above time as stipulated.

¶741

3 Civil Appeal No.6079 of 2017

¶742

¶743

Having regard to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is to be noted that in the facts of the present case, though on behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the Guidelines dt.18.05.2011, continue to operate requiring to obtain NOC in respect of constructions in sites adjacent to defence establishments, notwithstanding the issuance guidelines dt.21.10.2016, as noted hereinabove, since, both the aforesaid guidelines, were subject matter of consideration before various High Courts and in particular before the Delhi High Court and Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, this Cout is in agreement with the view taken therein and holds that by Guidelines issued vide Circular dt.21.10.2016, the guidelines issued earlier on 18.05.2011 stood amended.

¶744

Another aspect of the^guidelines issued is that the same are issued in the form of circulars addressed to the Chiefs of Army, Air and Naval Staff. It is not notifieci for^{generalpublic} to be aware or bound by the same. The effect of the said circulars issued is that, in case any construction is made within the vicinity or adjacent to defence establishmenvinstallation, the authorities are required to take action as per WODA by acquiring the land/site or paying compensation to the owner for not allowing him to enjoy his^property absolutely. Further, it is settled position oF law that circulars issued do not have any statutory force and binds only authorities.

¶745

J 56. Though oh behalf of the^petitioners, it is vehemently contended that the respondent - State by doing away with the condition of requiring

¶746

¶747

Rules made thereunder, it is only the authorities uncjt r the said Act can initiate action and it is not For the authority under othcr enactment to take any action ior alleged violation.

¶748

Tlough on behalf of the petitioners, it is co ri ended of building permissicn being granted in the vicin 1._r, of defence establish ments/installations and construction made br:ing contrary to the provisions oi WODA, it is not shown to this Court of lr.)titioners initiating any action against such constructions, by exerctsing po..vers under WODA or having taken steps by issuing nottfication/declar.r,. r.It under Section 3 and furtrer action culminating in passing of Award -rt:ler Section i2 by paying compensation.

¶749

Though on behalf of unofficial respondents wfo have undertaken construction/development, it is contended that since qrrir_lelines issued vide circular dt.21.10.2016 have categorized the defencc r. tablishments into Part A and Part B specifying that in respect of the est. blishments Iisted in Paft A, the security restriction being only 10 meters irnd since all their construct.ions are beyond 10 meters. neither the 1;r:titioners nor the respondents can insist for- obtaining NOC by approachirrc the LMA/defence authorities; and that at Serial No.32 in part A c,f the guidelines dt.21.10.2016 issued by the Union of India whereir.r it mentions the defence establishment of secunderabad in Ranga fleddy District of Telangana State consists of areas oi Maredpalii, .:rl Bazaar, Alwal, Amuguda, l4ehdipatnam, Langar House, Kanchan llagh. GolconCa,

¶750

¶751

Ibrahim Bagh and Makaidarwaja, the security restriction up to 10 meters from outer wall can only be made applicable to those establishments mentioned therein and not other establishments, it cannot be said that defence establishment/installations mentioned therein part A numbering to 193 stations and Part B are t49 stations only defence establishments/ installations, and there exists no other establishment, to which these security restrictions would apply and there is no other defence establishment/installation to which no restrictions are applicable.

¶752

On the other hand, if there is any other defence establishment/ installation which does not find mention either in^part A or part B of Annexure to the guidelines to which the restriction of 10 meter or up to 100 meter, as the case may be applicable, in such cases, the restriction as may be notifled by a specific notification or as specified in Section 7 of WODA would continue to apply.

¶753

Though On behalf of the unofficial respondents in W.p.N0.4222 of 2024, it is further contended that since, the distance from the wall ol the defence establishment is more or that the development being undertaken does not include construction and is only making a layout, Rrstly, it is to be seen as per the provisions of WODA, the same is applicable to any land adjacent or in the vicinity of defence establishment/installation from being put to use by the owner, the authorities are required to take action by issuing declaration/notification preventing such use by paying compensation. Thus, the claim of the unofficial respondents that it is only

) )

--tl:i;tt

making a layout of plots and selling them to intending purchasers would mean the unofficial respondent using the land, which tirr_: authorities under the WODA can restrict by following the procedure pr<:sl:ribed thereunder. Thus, the claim of the unofficial respondents in thrs rei;ard does not merit conslderation.

¶760

Even though on behalf of the petitioners and rerspondents, it is not shown to this Court of the areas covered by the prr_,s ent Writ petitions being covered either by air force or under the arn y establishrnent at Secunde-abad, however, judicial notice can be taken oi ihe iaci that tnere have be<:n notifications issued from time to time concr:ining the Air Force Station, Hakimpet, Air Force Station Dindigal, in the ljtate of Telangana, vide SRO No.12 dt.14.02.2007 which notification has )een renewed on 13.01.2010.

¶761

Similarly, this Court has also come across notif :atto:rs vide SRO N0s.136, 137 dt.19.05.1976 in respect oF area in th.,r vlcinity of DRDL, Chandral,6n3gutta, and DMRL, Kanchanbagh, SRO No..,lg dt.07.04.2006, in respect of the area in the vicinity of RCI, Vignyana .(,:ncha post Office, iiyderabad, SRO No.74 dI.Z2.1C.ZOO7 in respect ot .Advance system, laboratory, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, and SRO No.58 1t.04.06.2008, in respect of area in the vicinlty of DLRL security restri(.ttions have been notifled. Thus, the claim of the unofficial respondents t lat it is only the 193 stations of defence establishments/installations wl- ic:h are required to

¶762

¶763

have security restrictions and not other, does not appeal to this Court for being accepted.

¶764

On the other hand, if any station is not mentioned either in part A or Part B of Annexure to guidelines dt.21.10.2016, in respect of such stations, the restriction as specified rn Section 7 of WODA would continue to apply subject to publication of notice under Section 3 of the WODA. Further, in respect of the stations which find mention in part A of the Annexures to the guidelines dt.21.10.2016 are concerned, though the same mentions the army establishment as'secunderabad, under whtch various stations are mentioned, the area of coverage of the respective stations would be as per the operation jurisdictional activities of the defence authorities and is not based on local municipal jurisdiction.

¶765

The same can be explained by way of illustration - Ibrahimbagh Station of Secunderabad defence establishment is spread over the areas of Ibrahimbagh and also in the neighbourhood like the area of Bandlaguda Jagir and other areas, under the administrative control of the said station, would have to be considered as unit of the said station. Similar. such situation may also exist in case of Maredpalli/Alwal stations, if there exist separate unit in such locations under the respective stations. Thus, the contention of the unofficial respondents that the places whereat the constructions/developments have been undertaken by them are not mentioned in Serial No.32 of Part A of annexure to the guidelines dt.21.10.2016. the ruthorities cannot enforce guidelines oF even security /

¶766

¶767

restriction of 10 meter, in the considered view of tri:; Cout cannot be accepterJ as valid claim.

¶768

Further, it is to be noted that though variocs notilications have been issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government oi india, notifying the areas wrthin the vicinity of defence establishments.for arhich the security restrictic)ns would apply, no material is placed before l.his court to show that the authorities having issued a declaration under ir:ction 3 of the Act, and hav ng taken further actron, as contemplated the-eunder, in order to claim that they beinq entitled tc enforce restrictions i-i Dosed in terms of notificaticn^rssued.

¶769

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Goya Resorts private Limiteds case (B supra) had held that post issuance of notification under Seclion .j of the Act further steps in terms of the A(t including causing enquiry and passing of award in terms of Section 12 be ng required to be undertaken within the time prescribed under the Act lailinq which, the notification issued woulci stand lapsed, the Union cannot claim to continue with ihe declaration under section 3 of the Act perpetr aily which not onry is impermissibie in law but arbikary. unjust and unreasor able.

¶770

In the facts of the present case, the petitionr:r:; as well as the unorficial respondents having not placed any material befbre this court as to the areas of the defence establishment of secunder-abad and its units mentioned therein, the Court cannot pass an order in v,lcuum. accepting

¶771

¶772

¶773

either the claim of the petitioners or that of the unofficial respondents herein, as to the said area being covered or not covered by Annexure A attracting or not attracting the security restrictions.

¶774

Further, if any, notification is issued and the said notification being in force, the petitioners are required to take further steps in terms of the Act as held by the Apex Court in tvr/s-Goya Resorts private Limiteds case (B supra) in order to claim the restrictions in terms of Section 7 0f the WODA or as specified under the specific notificaiion are applicable. However, taking note of the Fact that even before the Hon,ble Supreme court since, it was preaded that no rurther steps havrng been taken after issuing decla ration/notification under Section 3 of the WODA, and the Hon'ble supreme court having granted the Union of India six months time to issue fresh declaration/notification under Section 3 of the WODA, by setting aside the decraration issued earrier, and taking note that security interest of the nation are of paramount importance, particurarry the recent Pahalgam incident, this court is of the view that personar interest shourd pave way for public interest. As noted herein above since, it is not shown to this Court of any notification having been issued under section 3 of WODA and further, steps having been taken as specified thereunder within the time period prescribed thereunder, even in the present cases this Court is of the view that the following directions are to be given:

¶775

i) The petitioners are given time till 31.12.2025 to publish notification/declaration under section 3 of the woDA, if not already issued

,-4

Two CCs to GP for^{lvlunicipalAdministrationand U -b,anDevelopment, High} Court for tlrr State oI^{Telangana al Hyderabad.} [OUT

¶780

18, One CC to SRI PRAVEEN^{KUIVAR VEERJALA,S,(). ICITGHI,,lC} [OPUC]

¶781

19.One CO to SRI K RAVINDER^{REDDY, S C. for GH\4C} [OPUC]

¶782

20.One CC to SRI S. ABHAY^{KUtilARSAGAR,S.C. fo'1,4-tnicipalities} [OPUC]

¶783

21 .One CO to SRI K. RAGHUVEER^{REDDY,Advocate} []PUCI

¶784

22.One CO to SRI P. VENKANNA,^Advocate IOPUCI

¶785

One CO to SlRl V.^{NARASIIVIHAGOUD,S C. forHtr4lA} [OPUC]

¶786

24.Orc CO to SRI K. SIDDHARTH^{RAO, S.C for GHlt4(l} ['.)PUC]

¶787

25.One CO to [iRl KOKA SATYANARAYANA^{RAO' Advr;c'ate} IOPUC]

¶788

One CO to SRI M. DHANANJAY^{REDDY, Advocate ()l']UCl}

¶789

27.One CO to lr,4/s. D. I,'IADHAVI,^{S C. for HwDA} [OPUC

¶790

28.One CO to SRI K RAI/ACHANDRA,^Advocate [OPU{)]

¶791

29.One CC to SRI V. VENKATA^{MAYUR,Advocate} [OPI.]L)]

¶792

3O. One CC to SRI fi4 SAI CHANDRA^{HAAS, Advocate '()l:'>Ucl}

¶793

31 . One CO to SRI JAGAN I/ADHAVA^{RAO, S C. for Mu''ri:;ipalities} IOPUC]

¶794

32.One CO to SRI I/ADAS BHARATH CHANDRA,^Advo:ztte [OPUC]

¶795

33,Two C[) Copies

¶796

¶797

BS M,

:'(

I I

Y-

HIGH COURT

TVK,J

DIr-l-ED:0410612025

:'-
ii:'- 'l:'\1,
4.,
.) 2 E SEP 2025
, '.)
t
O4'.1o4-r6"'-r'l'-"

¶807

COMMON ORDER

¶808

W.P. Nos.5357,16252,16875, 18780, 18781 trt,tD ZOSBT OF ZO23 AND

¶809

417 5, 4222, 4230, 427 7, 4326, 4342, 680 1, (iti41, 6967, 7 01 4, 7 065, 7 07 0, 7083, 7090, 7 099, 7 1 01, 7 107, -,' I 1 1, 7 121, 7 122, 7126,7148 & 7581 ofZOZ4

¶810

DISPOSING OF THE U/IRIT PETITIONS WI'THOUT COSTS

¶811

o
b
-\ ^i
I \r'
\1

The Union of India v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banavath Sravanthi Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Bombadi Sanjeeva Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Srinivas Chakali, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Cheguri Anitha @ Andalu Vs The State of Telangana

The Union of India Vs the State of Telangana

The Union of India Vs The State of Telangana