Telangana High Court
S. Venkatesh vs The State Of Telangana on 6 February, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.33696 OF 2022
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. Nyayapathi Prashanth, learned counsel for the
petitioner Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Ms. Preeti
Pawar, learned counsel representing Mr. Srikanth Hariharan, learned
counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner herein is claiming that he along with his two
brothers are the absolute owners and possessors of portion of house
bearing No.2-4-431 i.e., MCH Quarter No.L/1;79, admeasuring 40.67
square yards, situated at Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad. In proof of the
same, he has also placed reliance on the judgment in S.A. No.887 of
2000. According to him, respondent No.5 is also staying in other
portion of the very same house. The said house was constructed in the
year 1941 and it is in dilapidated condition. Therefore, the petitioner
has already vacated the subject house two (02) years back. He has
submitted representations dated 09.03.2021 and 25.03.2021 to
respondent No.3 with a request to demolish the same. On receipt of
the said representations, respondent No.4 has issued notice dated
KL,J
24.03.2021 to the son of the petitioner under Section - 459 of the
HMC Act, 1955 stating that the subject house is in dilapidated
condition and, therefore, requested him to vacate the subject house.
Similar notice dated 24.06.2021 under Section - 456 of the HMC Act,
1955 was issued. Therefore, the petitioner has vacated the subject
house. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not proceeding further
pursuant to the representations dated 09.03.2021 and 25.03.2021.
3. Whereas, respondent No.5 has filed counter contending that
he is staying in the other portion of the subject house. It is not in
dilapidated condition and reliance is placed on Structural Stability
Report, dated 15.09.2023 given by M/s. Comfort Designers. The
petitioner cannot seek demolition of the subject house belongs to
respondent No.5. Therefore, he has filed I.A. No.1 of 2023 to recall
the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by this Court.
4. Whereas, Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for GHMC, has produced written instructions of Deputy
Commissioner, Circle No.30, Begumpet along with notice dated
20.01.2025, to contend that the Deputy Commissioner has already
issued notice dated 20.01.2025 to the Executive Engineer, Circle
No.30, Begumpet, Secunderabad Zone, requesting him to prepare the
KL,J
estimation of the subject house, which is in dilapidated condition for
taking up demolition as an earliest, as there is a very possibility that
the building may collapse.
5. Vide the above letter, the Deputy Commissioner has already
come to a conclusion that the subject house is in dilapidated condition.
The same is without any basis. On receipt of the said representations
from the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has to obtain stability
certificate from JNTU to a come to a conclusion as to whether the
subject house is in dilapidated condition or not. Without doing so, he
cannot request the Executive Engineer of the GHMC to prepare
estimation for demolition. The same is without any basis.
6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is
disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.30,
Begumpet and respondent No.3 to consider the aforesaid
representations dated 09.03.2021 and 25.03.2021, obtain stability
report from the JNTU, Hyderabad, with regard to the condition of the
subject house and, thereafter they shall take action, if any, including
demolition of subject house strictly in accordance with the procedure
laid down under the GHMC Act, 1955 by putting the petitioner and
respondent No.5 on notice and affording them an opportunity of
KL,J
hearing. The JNTU shall inspect the subject house by putting the
petitioner and respondent No.5 on notice while inspecting the site and
before issuance of stability certificate with regard to condition of
subject house. However, they shall complete the entire exercise
within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
this writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
6th February, 2025
Mgr
