Telangana High Court
Y Rajendar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 21 September, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.16191 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban
Development appearing for respondent No.1,
Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents No.2 to 4, and perused the record.
2. Despite service of notice on the unofficial respondent
No.5, there is no representation either in person or through
counsel.
3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition
is to the inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities, in
particular respondents No.2 to 4, in taking action on the
complaints made by him, dt.05.02.2024 and dt.23.05.2024,
with regard to the unauthorized and illegal construction being
made by the 5th respondent in plot No.373, Ayyappa society,
Madhapur, Hyderabad, without having any valid
permission/sanction from the respondents-authorities, which
action it is contended to be highly illegal and contrary to the
order of this Court in W.P.Nos.20407/2008, 9714 &
16658/2009, dt.12.09.2012, as well as the recent judgment of
this Court in AS.No.7 of 2020, dt.04.03.2020.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf
of respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the authorities, by taking
note of the representations submitted by the petitioner, have
caused inspection of the subject site and on noting that the
unofficial respondent No.5 is making unauthorized
construction, have initially registered the aforesaid construction
as unauthorized construction in UCIMS website maintained by
the authorities vide UC.No.UC8055; and that thereafter the
authorities have initiated action under Sections 451(1) & 461(1)
of the GHMC Act, 1955, by issuing a show-cause notice,
dt.22.08.2024 calling upon the unofficial respondent to submit
explanation within (07) days from the date of receipt of the said
notice, failing which, the unofficial respondent was informed
that the authorities would take further action in the matter.
5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the
unofficial respondent, though having been served with the
notice, dt.22.08.2024, did not submit any reply, the authorities
have now passed a Speaking Order, dt.10.09.2024, directing the
unofficial respondent to remove/demolish the structure, within
15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the
unofficial respondent was informed that further action would be
taken in the matter by the authorities under Sections 636 and
461(A) of the GHMC Act, 1955; and that the said order was
served on the owner/occupier of the subject premises.
6 Learned Standing counsel also submits that the
authorities having passed a Speaking Order would take further
action in the matter on expiry of the limitation period provided
under the Act.
7. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
8. Having regard to the submissions made as above, and
since, the authorities have now passed a Speaking Order
holding the aforesaid construction made by the unofficial
respondent No.5 to be unauthorized and illegal construction,
while the grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition
stands resolved, the authorities are required to take further
steps for enforcing the Speaking Order on expiry of the
limitation period provided under the Act, in an expeditious
manner.
9. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. No order as to costs.
10. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
this writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
21st September, 2024.
gra
