Mohd. Nizamuddin v. The State Of Telangana And 2 Others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY W.P.NO.26374 OF 2019

O R D E R

The case of the petitioner is that when he is leveling the subject land and not undertaking any other activity, the 3rd respondent - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Assistant City Planner, Circle -11, Rangareddy District, issued impugned notice vide No.1/ W-60/ TPS/ C-11/ CRZ/ GHMC/ 2019 dated 26.11.2019, alleging that he is illegally developing layout without any permission and directing to stop the work. Aggrieved by the said notice, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is only leveling his land, and is not developing any layout and hence the impugned notice is unwarranted.

Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that if the petitioner wants to develop any layout, he has to obtain necessary permission, and as the petitioner is undertaking the work of leveling the land, which is obviously for the purpose of developing layout, the impugned notice has been issued.

Since the claim of the petitioner is that he is leveling the land and not developing any layout, writ petition is disposed off directing respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over subject property without following due process of law. However, it goes without saying that if the petitioner undertakes the work of developing any layout or any construction activity, without any permission from the competent authority, it is open for respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

------------------------------------------ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J DATE:28-11-2019 avs