Telangana High Court
Smt. L. Parvathi vs The State Of Telangana on 21 April, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.28733 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of the
respondents No.2, 4 and 6 in removing the illegal, unauthorized
constructions and stopping the commercial usage of the building in
Plot No.770H, Road No.44, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, being carried
out by the respondent No.5 in blatant violation of the Building
Permit Order No.3/C18/17174/2018 dated 01.11.2018, Occupancy
Certificate No.1669/GHMC/KHB/2022-OC dated 28.05.2022, despite
the petitioner making several representations dated 05.02.2024,
28.03.2024, 08.04.2024 and 06.07.2024, as being arbitrary and
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the
provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,
1955 (for short 'the Act') and consequently, direct the respondents
No.2, 4 and 6 to remove unauthorized construction made by the
respondent No.5 in the subject property.
2. Petitioner is the owner and possessor of land in Plot
No.770G, Road No.44, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and the respondent
No.5 is the owner of adjacent plot bearing Plot No.770H.
The respondent No.5 obtained building permission for construction
of Cellar + Stilt + 3 Upper Floors and commenced construction.
After completion of construction, the GHMC issued Occupancy
Certificate dated 28.05.2022 in favour of the respondent No.5
stating that the residential building consisting of Cellar + Stilt +
3 Upper Floors was fit for occupation.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that after issuance of
Occupancy Certificate, the respondent No.5 in a brazen and
unlawful manner, further continued the construction activity by
constructing additional three floors to the existing structure and
changed the nature of usage from residential to commercial
purpose. The respondent No.5 has constructed seven storied
commercial building endangering the safety of surrounding
neighbours including the petitioner. The petitioner lodged a
complaint with the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 05.02.2024
and the same was acknowledged vide letter bearing
No.725378/2024/CINWRD2(HO) dated 06.02.2024. However, no
action was initiated.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner approached the Jubilee
Hills Cooperative Society to intervene in the unlawful construction
activity undertaken by the respondent No.5. The Society conducted
an inspection and found the construction activity of the respondent
No.5 unlawful and beyond the permitted norms. Subsequently, the
Society requested the respondents No.2 and 4 to take appropriate
action vide letter dated 28.03.2024. However, no action was
initiated.
5. It is submitted that due to inaction of the respondent No.2,
despite several representations, the petitioner was constrained to
approach the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 08.06.2024.
Based on the said complaint, the respondent No.3 issued notice
bearing No.10222/DIR/EVDM/E/GHMC/2024 dated 10.06.2024
under Section 635 of the Act to the respondent No.5. Thereafter,
the respondent No.3 issued show cause notice dated 15.06.2024
under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Act to the respondent
No.5 pointing out deviations, such as, (i) using the building for
commercial purpose as against residential permission;
(ii) unauthorized construction of three additional floors;
(iii) deviation of 11 meters in height, (iv) unauthorized construction
of lift etc. The respondent No.3 granted seven days time to the
respondent No.5 to submit his reply or else action would be taken
under Sections 636, 596, 461(4) and 461-A of the Act. However, as
no action was taken by the respondent No.3 after expiry of
stipulated time, the petitioner addressed a reminder letter dated
06.07.2024 bringing to the notice of the respondent No.3 that part
of the building was let out to a PET Hospital in residential area.
6. It is further submitted that the respondent No.5 has leased
out the subject premises to commercial entities such multi-specialty
multi-bedded pet hospital, Health Centre for Longevity and
Personalized medicine and a café.
7. Mr. K. Pavan Kumar, learned standing counsel for the
respondent No.3, on the basis of written instructions, submitted
that pursuant to notice of the respondent No.3 issued under
Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Act dated 15.06.2024, regarding
deviations and additional floors, the subject property was physically
inspected. As per the observations of the respondent No.3,
the height of building is 21 meters and as per the proceedings of
the Director General of State Disaster Response and Fire Service
Department, the powers have been delegated to the respondent
No.3 for commercial building until 15 meters only. As the subject
building was exceeding more than 15 meters, the same does not
come under the purview of the respondent No.3. However, it is
stated that the respondent No.5 has requested some time to rectify
the deviations specified in the notice dated 15.06.2024.
8. Mr. M. Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel for GHMC,
on the basis of written instructions, submitted that on complaint of
the petitioner, the property of the respondent No.5 was inspected.
It was found that the respondent No.5 constructed additional fourth
and fifth floors and unauthorizedly converted the residential
building into commercial establishment and leased out the property
for running a café, diagnostic lab and pet grooming services.
Show cause notice dated 21.10.2024 was issued. The respondent
No.5 did not comply with the show cause notice nor has taken any
steps to rectify the violations pointed out in the show cause notice.
Therefore, Speaking Order dated 28.11.2024 was passed directing
the petitioner to remove unauthorized constructions and cease
commercial activities within fifteen days.
9. Learned standing counsel further submitted that, in the
meanwhile, the respondent No.5 filed a suit in O.S.No.3084 of 2024
on the file of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,
and sought for an injunction order against GHMC in IA.No.2015 of
2024. Order dated 31.07.2024 was passed in IA.No.2015 of 2024
restraining GHMC from interfering with the construction work or
demolition of the subject building pending disposal of the suit.
10. Mr. K. Pratik Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.5,
submitted that apart from injunction order dated 31.07.2024
obtained in IA.No.2015 of 2024 in OS.No.3084 of 2024,
the respondent No.5 filed municipal appeal in Municipal Appeal
No.138 of 2024 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court,
Hyderabad, challenging the speaking order dated 28.11.2024.
He submitted that the regularization application of the respondent
No.5 seeking regularization of the alleged unauthorized structures
is pending vide application dated 29.06.2024. The same was
considered by the trial Court at paras 23 and 24 in the order passed
in IA.No.2015 of 2024 in O.S.No.3084 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024.
11. Mr. K. Aroah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that there are no interim orders passed in MA.No.138 of 2024 and
orders may be issued to GHMC to implement the speaking order
dated 28.11.2024.
12. Heard Mr. K. Aroah, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. M. Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel for GHMC,
Mr. K. Pavan Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3
and Mr. K. Pratik Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
13. The suit in O.S.No.3084 of 2024 was filed by the respondent
No.5 against GHMC. As stated above, injunction order dated
31.07.2024 was passed in IA.No.2015 of 2024. It is pointed out by
the trial Court in Paras 23 and 24 that the application submitted by
the respondent No.5 for regularizing the unauthorized structures is
pending consideration. It appears that the petitioner is not a party
to the suit. According to the learned standing counsel for GHMC,
no appeal has been filed by GHMC challenging the injunction order.
It is the contention of the standing counsel for GHMC is that in view
of the injunction order passed by the trial Court, they are not in a
position to implement the speaking order. Further, the municipal
appeal filed by the respondent No.5 before the Chief Judge, City
Small Causes Court, challenging the speaking order dated
28.11.2024 is pending.
14. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that
the implementation of the speaking order dated 28.11.2024
depends upon further orders/judgment in the suit in O.S.No.3084 of
2024 and MA.No.138 of 2024. It is for the petitioner or the GHMC
to pursue the suit or municipal appeal and press for appropriate
orders. As the matter is subjudice before the civil Court and the
Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court and more specifically, as the
injunction order is staring at GHMC, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the writ petition.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to
the petitioner and GHMC to purse the suit in O.S.No.3084 of 2024
and MA.No.138 of 2024 and subject to the outcome therein take
appropriate steps for implementing the speaking order dated
28.11.2024.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
April 21, 2025
DSK
