Smt. P. Ramadevi Vs The State of Telangana.

Smt. P. Ramadevi, Wo. P. Hanumanthu Rao, Aged about 36 years, Occ House Wife, R:/o. Flat 104 V.S.R. Heights, H.No. 14-1-901558 and 567, Gayathri Nagar, Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶10

Karumujji Malleswara Rao, S/o. K. Damodara Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ Employee, Fl/o. Flat No.204, V.S.R. Heights, H.No. 14-1-901558 and 567, Gayathri Nagar, Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶11

Sagili Nagasesha Reddy, S/o. S. Nagi Reddy, Aged about 40 years. Occ Employee, Ri/o. Flat No.404, V.S.R. Heights, H.No. 14-1-901558 and 567, Gayathri Nagar, Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶12

M. Harikrishna, S/o. M. Thirupathi Reddy, Aged about 42 years. Occ Employee, Ryo. Flat No.504, V.S.R. Heights, H.No. 14-l-90/558 and 567, Gayathri Nagar, Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

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

¶16

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,, Rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Deputy Commissioner, Circle No. 23, Hyderabad

¶18

...RESPONOENTS

¶19

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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus set aside the Speaking Order in Notice No. 558/UCM1 16/C23iTPSIGHMCl2O24 dated 07.01 .2025 by the 3rd respondent with

¶20

preceding show notice show cause notices under section 452 (i) and 461 (1) of GHMC Act, 1955 issued by Respondent No. a vide Notice^' irto. 558/ucA//1 16/c23luPS/cHMcl2o24 dated 2811212024 in respect of the 9t1-uctyres^{in V.s.F:. Heights Apartmentin plot No. 558 and 56 2 admeasuring} 1084.00 sq. yds. in survey No. 31, 32, 34 and 47 situated at Ailapur Viilage, Balanagar Mandal under GHMC Kukatpally as ifiegal, null, and void

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the speaking order in Notice No. 55841cM116/c23lTps/ciutttctzozq daled 07.o1 .2025 by the 3rd respondent in respect of the structures in v.S.R." Heights Apartment in PIot No. 55g and 567 admeasuring 1084.00 Sq. yds. in survey No. 31 , 32, 3;4 and 47 situated at Allapur Village, Balanagar Mand'al, under GHMC Kukatpally pending disposal of the Main petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. V V RAMANA

¶24

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

¶25

counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3: sRt RAV| MAHENDER sc FoR GHMC

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HON'BLE SRIJUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.4315 OF 2025

¶29

ORALORDER:

¶30

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf ofrespondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶31

The petitioners herein are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of flat Nos.104, 204, 404 and 504, respectively, VSR Heights in H.No.14-l-90/558 and 567/104, situated at Gayatri Nagar, Balanagar Village within Kukatpally Municipality. They have purchased the aforesaid flats under registered sale deeds executed by Mr. Vasepalli Srinivasu Reddy, a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney Holder ('AGPA Holder') vide document Nos.6275 and 6276 of 2016, both dated 18.05.2016. The said AGPA Holder had obtained building permit order dated 22.12.2016 for construction of Stilt + 5 Floors. The petitioners herein are staying in their respective flats and they have been paying property tax to the respondent Corporation

¶32

While the matter stood thus, one Mr. G. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy claiming to be the owner of Flat No.101 of the very same

¶33

2

¶34

KL,J W P No.43 r 5 of2o25

¶35

apartment - vsR Heights, submitted a representation dated 25.01.2024 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 against Mr. Kalyan Nayak, resident of house No.l4_l_21 l/621/66/l of the very same area. The same was not considered. Therefore, he has filed a wnt petition vide W.P. No.3627 of 2024. In the said representarion <tated 25.01.2024, the said Vishnu Vardhan Reddy alleged that the said Kalyan Nayak made construction in deviation to the building permit order. On consideration of the said aspects, vide order dated 27.02.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the responient authorities to cause inspection, mark the deviations if any therein and thereafter issue notice to respondent No.6 therein _ KalyanNayak, call for explanation and then take action against him stnctly in accordance with the procedure laid down under law. placing reliance on the said order, respondent No.3 has issued impugned speaking order dated 07.01.2025 directing the said Vasepalli Srinivasu Reddy, ,\GpA Holder, to remove the unauthorized construction on the ground that he has constructed the building by not maintaining mandatory setbacks as against sanctioned plan i.e., permitted Stilt + 5 Upper Irloors. Seven (07) days time was granted to remove the said unauthorized

¶36

J

¶37

KI..I W.P. No.4ll5 ot2025

¶38

construction. Challenging the same, the^{petitioners filed the present}

¶39

wnt petltlon.

¶40

Perusal of record would reveal that the^{said VishnuVardhan} Reddy, the petitioner in W.P. No.3627 of^{2024 is claimingthat he is} the owner of Flat No.101 of VSR^{Heights.His complaint in the said} writ petition is against the said^{Kalyan Nayak, owner of house No.14-} l-211162116611 of Gayatri Nagar.^{Accordingto learned counselfor} the petitioners, the said Kalyan^{Nayak is owner of the house,whighis} abutting to the^{petitioners'apartment. Without consideringthe said} aspects and without^{putting the petitioners and other flat ownerson} notice and affording them an^{opportunity,respondent No.3has passed} the speaking order dated^{07 .01 .2025.}

¶41

\ \

¶42

Leamed counsel for^{the petitioners would contend that on} the strength of the aforesaid^{AGPAs, the said VasepalliSrinivasu} Reddy has akeady completed^{the construction and soldindividual} flats to the petitioner and others.^{There are 20 flats in the said} apartment. All the owners of^{20 flats including the petitionersare} aggrieved parties. Therefore,^{the impugned speakingorder is without} putting the petitioners and other owners of^{the said flats on notice'}

¶43

(t

¶44

4

¶45

KL,J W.P No.43l5 of2025

¶46

Therefore, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under GHMC Act, 1955.

¶47

In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned speaking order dated 07.01.2(125. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 with a direction to consider the ,crder dated, 27.02.2024 passed by this Coun in W.P. No.3627 of 2024 and the aforesaid aspects and take action, if any, against the petitioners herein strictly in accordance rvith the procedure laid down under GHMC Act, 1955 by putting the petitioners and other flat owners of VSR Heights on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. However, he shall complete the said exercise within a period ofeight (08) weeks from the date ofreceipt ofcopy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shatl be no order as to costs.

¶48

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

¶49

this writ petitic,n shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶51