Mrs Sajida Begum vs State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1525 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mrs Sajida Begum vs State Of Telangana on 30 January, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                WRIT PETITION No.2595 OF 2025
ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Midde Arun

Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2.

2. Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioners have filed

a suit vide O.S. No.376 of 2021 against respondent No.3 and another

for declaration of title, recovery of possession and perpetual

injunction. The same was decreed on 22.12.2022. It is an ex parte

decree. The petitioners herein had filed an execution petition vide

E.P. No.414 of 2024 in O.S. No.376 of 2021 seeking execution of the

said judgment and decree. They have also filed E.A. No.103 of 2024

in the said E.P., and vide order dated 11.12.2024, learned X

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, restrained

respondent No.3 herein from proceeding with further construction in

the E.P. schedule till filing of counter, subject to compliance of Order

- XXXIX, Rule - 3 of CPC. The said EA is also pending.

3. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that during

pendency of the said EP and subsistence of the aforesaid order in EA,

KL,J

respondent No.3 is proceeding with construction without obtaining

permission from respondent No.2 and there is suppression of fact.

Therefore, they have filed the present writ petition.

4. Whereas, Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel

for GHMC, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.3 has

already obtained building permit order on 13.02.2024 for construction

of residential house consists of Stilt for Parking + 2 Upper Floors. He

is proceeding with construction strictly in accordance with building

permit order. If there is any deviation, the GHMC will take action

against respondent No.3 in accordance with the procedure laid down

under GHMC Act, 1955.

5. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the petitioners herein

are pursuing parallel remedies i.e., the present writ petition and E.A.

No.103 of 2024 in E.P. No.414 of 2024. If respondent No.3 is

proceeding with construction in violation of the order dated

11.12.2024 in the aforesaid E.A. No.103 of 2024, they have to take

steps against respondent No.3, but they cannot file the present writ

petition and cannot pursue parallel remedies. Therefore, the

petitioners are not entitled for any relief, much less the relief sought in

KL,J

the present writ petition. This writ petition fails and is liable to be

dismissed.

6. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed granting

liberty to the petitioners to pursue the proceedings in the aforesaid

E.P. 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 30th January, 2025 Mgr