Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 714 (TS)

A. v. Suryanarayana Raju VS State of Telangana

2025-05-28

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
ORDER : (NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.) This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:- “…..to pass any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in interfering with the property belonging to the petitioner situated in Plot Nos.251 and 252 admeasuring 578 Sq. Yards or 483.2 Square meters in Survey Nos.180, 197 and 200 situated at Bhagyanagar Phase-III, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Telangana as illegal, arbitrary without any right and in violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the constitution of India and further direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners under construction building without following the due process of law…” 2. The petitioner contends that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot bearing Nos. 251 and 252, admeasuring 578 square yards (or 483.2 square meters), in Survey Nos.180, 197, and 200, situated at Bhagyanagar Phase-III, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Telangana, and that the same was acquired through registered Gift Deeds dated 10.06.2013, vide document Nos.4742/2013 and 4743/2013. He has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property since the date of acquisition. Further case of the petitioner is that he made an application on 16.12.2024 for obtaining building permission to construct a residential building consisting of one stilt and five upper floors, and obtained building permission on 21.04.2025 from GHMC, complying with all requirements, including mortgaging the proportional land share and securing necessary approvals for drainage, water supply, and electricity connections. Based on such permission, petitioner commenced construction in 2025, and an electricity connection (USC No. 114854540) was obtained for domestic use. 3. While things stood thus, respondent No.3 issued a demolition notice dated 30.04.2025, alleging unauthorized commercial construction, and demanded a written explanation within seven days. Petitioner further states that the construction strictly adheres to the sanctioned residential plan, with no deviation or commercial use but despite repeated attempts, the authorities have refused to accept his explanations or conduct a site inspection. The building remains under construction, and no agreement has been made with any third party for commercial purposes. 4. Sri J.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that despite his efforts to submit his explanation on two occasions, the authorities refused to receive or consider the same. The building remains under construction, and no agreement has been made with any third party for commercial purposes. 4. Sri J.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that despite his efforts to submit his explanation on two occasions, the authorities refused to receive or consider the same. He further submits that, without conducting any site inspection to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations against him in the first place, the respondents’ action in issuing the impugned demolition notice is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready to file a reply to the impugned notice and requests that the respondents be directed to consider the reply and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 5. Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, based on written instructions from 3rd respondent- Deputy Commissioner, dated 27.05.2025, submits that the respondent authorities received a complaint from the Bhagyanagar Phase-III Residents’ Welfare Association stating that construction of an unauthorized commercial school is taking place on Plot Nos.251 and 252, in Survey Nos.180, 197, and 200 at Bhagyanagar Phase-III, Hydernagar, Kukatpally village, Medchal Malkajgiri district; and based on the complaint, the authorities inspected the site and observed that the petitioner was converting the building from a residential apartment to a School. Noticing the violation, respondent No.3 issued a Show Cause notice dated 30.04.2025, and the petitioner has not submitted any reply till now. 6. Adverting to the submission of learned Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to file a reply to the Show Cause notice dated 30.04.2025. 7. Considering the respective submissions, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to file the reply within two weeks from the date of this order. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the reply and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Until such time, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.