Telangana High Court
Sri. Ramesh Sankla vs The State Of Telangana on 5 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.840 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Pramod Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant. Also heard Sri E. Venkata Reddy, learned
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department, appearing for respondent
No.1, Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC),
appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, and Sri Madanu
Naresh, learned counsel representing Sri P.Shekhar,
learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The interim order dated 11.07.2025 passed in
W.P.No.8834 of 2025, which was filed by respondent No.5
herein, is under challenge by the appellant, who is the
unofficial respondent in the said writ petition.
3. The learned writ court suspended the speaking order
dated 14.02.2025 passed by respondent No.3 pending
consideration of the regularisation application submitted
by respondent No.5 under Sections 455 and 455A of the
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. At
the same time, the official respondents were directed to
unseal the premises bearing H.No.14-1-509/9, Ghode-ki-
Khabar, Hyderabad, and release it to respondent No.5.
Respondent No.5 was also directed not to raise any further
construction on the subject premises. It was further made
clear that respondent No.5 shall not claim any equities.
The matter has been posted on 11.08.2025, that means
after six days. The appellant, being aggrieved by the
suspension of the speaking order dated 14.02.2025,
unsealing of the subject premises and also release of the
said property in favour of respondent No.5, has approached
this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
counter affidavit filed by GHMC would itself indicate that
the application of respondent No.5 for regularisation is
unlikely to be allowed. In such circumstances, the learned
writ court committed an error in suspending the speaking
order dated 14.02.2025, whereby respondent No.3 directed
respondent No.5 to remove his house on violation of the
rules.
5. It appears from hearing the learned counsel for the
parties that respondent No.5, in the meantime, had been
restrained from making any further construction on the
subject premises. The question of regularisation is still
open. It is for the GHMC to take a decision on the pending
regularisation application submitted by respondent No.5.
The main matter is pending before the learned writ court
and posted on 11.08.2025.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC has submitted
that the decision on the application of respondent No.5 for
regularisation would be taken in accordance with law
without any delay.
7. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered
view that no interference is called for in the writ
proceedings at the interim order stage in the present
appeal. It is open for the parties to agitate their cause of
action and plea before the learned writ court on the date
fixed. It is expected that the decision on the regularisation
application of respondent No.5 will be taken within a strict
timeframe by the competent authority to give a quietus to
the dispute.
8. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
05.08.2025
vs
