Smt.Nagpur Susheela, v. State Of Telangana,

ii t Iij [ 31661 t, L, HIG RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA H I, AT HYDERABAO f; [ tsn""i"t orisinal Jurisdiction) FRIDAV, THC TWEruTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWb THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE li l/ F I PRESENT i.i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 34490 OF 2023 .t, Between:

I li Smt.Naspur SJshBen, W/o. Late.N.AgamaiahYaday, Aged-about. 6-Q Y.9aq, Occ. H6irsewifre, rFl/o. H.No.8- 1 -2931O12, Dwarakanagar Colony, Slqikqltt Hvderabad, T.S'500 008. Presently residing at H.No.8-'l-284lOU/469' OU C6bny, Shaikpet,.Hyderabad 500 081.

H il, ...PErtrroNER o*?.

a,rr" or r",r"n$"* Rep.r by it's Principal secretary' Department of Municipal Administration-and Urban D'evelopment, Secretariat' Telangana. ti

2. The Greater Hy'AeiaUaO Municipal Corporation (GHMC)' Represented by it's Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad ll'

3. The City Planndr, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Tank Bund, Hyderabad.,

4. The Zonal Commibsioner, GHMC, Khairthabad Zone, Khairthabad' Hyderabad '

l

5. The Deputy Commissioner (GHrvlC), Circle-18, Jubilee Hills Circle' Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

6. Sri.Sudeesh Yadav Nagpur, S/o. N.Agamaiah Yadav, Aged about' 42 Years,. Occ. Business, Fi/o. Ploi No. 365, Secretariat Cololy, Maltko-q-d3' Hyderabad SOO OAS presently residing at 16 SKEETER MERNDA' VICTORIA 3754, Australia. I I reoresented bV his GPA holder Sri. KODURI JAGAN MOHAN, Son of Late SriI(.V. nu-Siil, Aged about. 49 vears, Occupation - Business, Resident.of Fiot No- gOs, pritiOn, Hign Scho6l, Secretariat Colonv, Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mdndal, Ranga-Reddy District, Telangana State' lndia' i F ...REsPoNDENrs 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

ib i.li nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondents, more particularly srh respondent ln paBsing the order daled 22.09.2023 in proceedings no. 293/TpS/DC/C IB4<ZJGAIq1C2O23 without issuing any show cause notice as illegal, arbitrary, unfdir, funconstitutional and against to the principals of natural iustice besides ueinglviLhtive of provisions of GHMC Act and consequenily set aside the same by [ir$cting respondents no.2 to 5 not to interfere with the peaceful possession ttfihe petitioner over the house property bearing H.No.8-1- '2g3tor2situated at o&afaxa Nagar colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad, in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2023 $ "L Petition under S ion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in sJppbrt of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.

2 tb 5 not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the housL property bearing H.No.8-1-293/D/2 situated at Dwaraka Nagar Colony, Shaikbet, Hyderabad by suspending the impugned order dated 22.Og.2O23 in proceetinlbs no. 293/TPS/DC/C18/KZGHMC/2023 issued by the Sth respondent, pending dis$osat of the writ petition in the interest of justice. ir ,F"fur, .*, CHALLA DHANANJAY, REPRESENTING i # FOR SRI SRIKANTH SUTARI Counsel for the Peti t JL,{."* No.1: Gp FoR McpL ADMN ,RBAN DEv Counsel for the Res l JLr$a"", No.2 to 5: sRl K. SIDDARTH RAo, sc FoR GHMc Counsel for the Res !

fL,Fo"* No.6: SRt c. BHA.KAR RE'DY, Counsel for the Res iii The Court made the following: ORDER It J :

!

T li tl :lt !

hI i: E ,1, ;h !i

TIIE HOIfBLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD I(UMAR trIRIT PEf,mON No.3zt49O OF 2(}.23 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 5 nor to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the house property bearing H. No.8-l-293/D/ I situated at Dwaraka Nagar Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad by suspending the impugned order dated 22.09.2023 in proceedings No293/ TPS/ DClC 18/KZ/GHGMC 12O23 issued by the respondent No.5.

2.

Heard Sri Challa Dhananjay, Iearned Senior Counsel appearing Sri Srikanth Sutari, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal AdminisLration & Urban Development for respondent No. l, Sri K. Siddarth Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Sri G. Bhaskar Rcddy, Iearncd Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 and rvith the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, thc Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission. 3.

Petitioner contends that shc is ttre olr'ner o[ the property bearing H. No.8- l-293/D/2 situated at Dwaraka Nagar Colony, { Shaikpet, Hyderabad having obtzrincd the same under a gift

deed from her son Ramesh Yadav on O5.O7.2023. The petitioner was an old further contends that, since the said house construction, the petitioner intended to construct a new the old structure and had building, after demolishing !

l permission dated 79.07 .2023 accordingly obtained building through TS-bPASS online instant approval system and thereafter commenced the work.

4.

Petitioner further contends that the respondent No.6, who is her second son lodged a complaint with the respondent authorities on 14.08.2023 with regard to the construction undertaken by her; and that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the respondent authorities claimed to have issued a show cause notice dated 28.08.2023 calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation thereto with regard to the construction bcing made in deviation of the sanctioned plan. 5Petitioner further contends that the aforesaid shou,causc norice had nor been served on her either in person or through post; and that the respondent authorities taking the said shou' cause noticc as served and the petitioner not submittirrg zrnv replr. thcreto have passed the impugned order holding the construction made by the petitioner to be in deviation o[ thc sanctioned plan by not maintaining the mandatory set backs

- and directed the petitioner to remove such construction made in deviation of the sanctioned plan, failing which it is proposed that the respondent authority would take action to remove such deviation.

6.

Petitioner further contends that, since the petitioner has not been served with the show cause notice dated 28.O8.2023 to which she could have submitted her explanation, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural j ustice.

7.

Per contra, Sri Siddarth Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 by placing before this Court the file containing the application made by the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had applied for sanction of building permission wherein the contact address was shown as 8-1-293/D 12, Dwaraka Nagar Colony, Shaikpet, Hyderabad and obtained Permit Order under TS-bPASS in respect of the same said property.

8.

Learned Standing Counsel further submi[s [hat on receiving the complaint from the respondent No.6 on 14.O4.2O23, the respondent authorities have caused a notice on the petitioner, uide show cause notice dated 28.08.2O23 calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation within seven

- days; that the aloresaid show cause notice was served to one Ms. Nagamani (watchman) at the address mentioned in the application as contact address, which is the same address as the construction site for which permission has been obtained. l,earned Standing Counsel would further submit that while serving a copy of the show cause notice to the aforesaid Nagamani in the building under construction, the respondent authorities have also taken photographs of the said watchman receiving the notice and the said photographs are available in the hle.

9.

lrarned Standing Counsel further submits that despite the aforesaid shou,' cause notice being served on the petitioner, as no explanation was submitted, the respondent authorities have passed a speaking order on 22.09.2023 and affected the service of the samc on one Ramesh whose mobile number is also givcn as 998:t476755, who is none other than the petitioner's son u.ho had gifted the subject property in favour of the petitioner apart lrom handing over the same to the watchman. Learncd Standing Counsel further submits that the speaking order u'as also served by pasting the same on the wall. 1O. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the impugned order has been served on the petitioner in the

manner prescribed under Section 63O of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short the Act') and x therefore the claim of the petitioner that no notice has been issued to her before passing of the speaking order is only invented for the purpose of the present Writ Petition.

11. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6 on the other hand submits that the respondent No.6 subsequent to submitting representation dated 14.08.2023 had submitted further representation on 30.10.2O23 calling upon the respondent authorities to revoke the building permission, since, the said permission had been obtained by material misre presentation, fraudulent statement inasmuch as the construction had been commenced even before the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities by submitting apptication lor sanction of building permission and obtaining buitding permission through TS-bPASS online process.

12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

13. Petitioner, who is pres€nt before this Court on being shou,n of the photographs of the person who had received the shou'cause notice, refuses to identify the said person Nagamani and claims ignorance of the existence of the said person standing in her proper[r. Though the said submission madc by

the petitioner in person to this Court does not impress or inspire confidence for being accepted as a correct statement being made to this Court, however, in order to test her bonahdes, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to treat the speaking order as show cause notice arrd submit her explanation thereto within a period of seven days.

14. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 submits that, since the said show cause notice has been issued on the basis of the complaint dated 14.08.2023 and thereafter the respondent No.6 having approached the respondent authorities and submitting a further representation dated 3O. lO.2O23 calling upon the respondent authorities to cancel the building permission, the authorities are required to issue a fresh notice by considering the subsequent !

!

represen tation / complain t submitted by the respondent No.6.

15. Having regard to the aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.6, this Court is of the view that the rcspondent authorities should be directed to issue fresh show cause norice ro rhe petitioner by taking into by the petltroner consideration Lhc rcpresentation submitted dated 14.O8.2O23 and 30.10.2023 ar rhe shown as address contact address rn the.rpplicatton made for obtaining building

permission as well as present address as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition into this Court to enable the petitioner to submit her explanation with regard to the construction being made allegedly in violation of the sanctioned plan.

16. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 assures this Court that the revised shou, cause notice would be issued witltin a period of one week from today.

17. Since, the respondent authorities have indicated to this Court that the authorities would issue fresh show cause notice, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities should be directed to take further action by following due process of law by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner if any to the notice that would be issued by the respondent authorities.

18. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Consequcntly, miscellaneous petitions pending if an1' shall stand closcd.

SD/. P. PAD MANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// SECT N OFFICER li r 1 . The PrinciP al Secretary , DePartment of MuniciPal Administration and Urban To, DeveloPmen Secretanat, state of Telang ana, Telanga na Commission er, Tank Bund, HYderabad tion (GHMC), Represented bY it's

2. The Greater Hvderabad MuniciPa I CorPora Ii

3. The City Planndr, breater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)' Tank t Bund. Hvderabad.[

4. iru2,il'ri6JirHi$sioner, G H MC, Kha i rthabad zone' Khairthabad' ,. +il:"J3|it, cofir#".ione. (cHMc), circre-18, Jubitee Hi*s circte, Jubitee .. 3l!€' Jgi:'tf 3't. "n s uta ri' Ad vocate {o f -u-c-1.

;: il; dd i6 s,i t< Sioairtn nao, sc ror GHtt/Q[-oP-uc] :

3 : ?*: 33 Ji"s [3 i3lfi'?[i: fflf I #f,:?:?iE{".[Hi] o"," rop,.nt, H is h co u rt -' for ine Slate of Jelangana, at Hyderabad [ou I I 10.Two CD CoPied' ;

[.i",oi, I ix iF,Iilt IH t $[ IIil IHiE t:

,I.

t.

il:

LIIEII tiI rlirll !ril ir

.' :.

r ir ir li llt HIGH COURT l H$, ri l!

th,l;

iElt E iti,i:

DATED:291121 l t''

ll II 1t\E sTAr€ o ( q co [ 7 tLB 202[ ,1z\

ORDER

li * * WP.No.34+go bf zozs .1 il Dt:t,s €).

It 1t flH ,l u ir H .F ;H !ti ,I 'i il l :i :t !i!I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

i:

ii 3 .,$4 ffw ;

IIi