Chintapalli Meenakshi, v. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITON No. 33349 OF 2016 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Revenue; and Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. 2.

The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house plot admeasuring 270.09 sq.mts‐344 sq.yards covered by plot Nos.22 & 23 situated in Sy.No.37/a, to EE Fathullaguda Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1585.2008 dated 09.04.2008 for valid consideration. It is further submitted that the petitioner applied for regularization under LRS scheme and the second respondent‐Commissioner issued layout regularization order vide Proc.No.LRS/3490/CR‐3/East Zone/2012, dated 16.12.2013. While so, on 20.09.2016 the respondents have visited the plots and demolished the fencing. Questioning the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this court by this writ petition. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is similar to issue in a batch of writ petitions, whereunder this court by order dated 30.09.2016 passed interim orders in WPMP No.42127 of 2016 in WP No.34149 of 2016 and batch.

4.

Following the same, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i. issue notices to all persons/firms/companies who are suspected or alleged to have constructed buildings or structures on nalas or tank beds;

ii. Disclose the material available with the respondent authorities along with such notices that the constructions are in locations warranting demolition;

iii. Give two weeks time from the date of receipt of such notice to the persons/firms/Corporations, who are alleged to have built the said structures or tank beds/nalas to respond to such notices or vacate the said premises; and iv. Then pass a reasoned order why the demolition is justified. Till such order is communicated to petitioner, the respondents shall not demolish any of the structures erected by it. However, this order will not preclude the respondents to demolish without notice such structures if there is an emergent situation. No further constructions shall be made by the petitioner without obtaining permission from the GHMC.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

October 18, 2016 LMV