Telangana High Court
Shaik Ansar Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 3 January, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.100 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Sri C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Municipal Administration and Urban Development
appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Putta Krishna
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondent No.2. Perused the record.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging the final order
dated 16.12.2024 issued by respondent No.2.
3. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are owners and possessors of
the attached properties consisting of three (3) shops
situated at H.Nos.9-40/1, 9-41 and 9-40 respectively,
situated at Padmavathi Nagar, Khanapur Town and
Mandal, Nirmal District, presently under respondent No.2
- Municipality (for short, 'subject property'). It is their
ancestral properties. The subject property was
KL,J
W.P.No.100 of 2025
constructed after duly obtaining permission from the
then Gram Panchayat Secretary, Khanapur Panchayat.
Petitioners are in possession of the subject property and
paying property tax to respondent No.2. Even then,
respondents tried to dispossess the petitioners from the
subject property without following due procedure laid
down under law. Therefore, they have filed a writ petition
vide W.P.No.18404 of 2022. When the said writ petition
came up for hearing, on 11.04.2022, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Municipality, on
instructions, submitted to this Court that respondent
No.2 - Municipality is removing the encroachments on
the existing 100 feet road and they will follow due process
of law. Recording the said submission of learned
Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.2 -
Municipality, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition
directing respondent No.2 - Municipality not to interfere
with the petitioners possession over the subject property
without following due process of law. Two and half years
KL,J
thereafter, respondent No.2 - Municipality has issued
notice, dated 19.11.2024 to the petitioners to submit
documents such as Sanctioned Building Permission copy
and ownership documents and other documents, if any,
in respect of H.Nos.9-40/1, 9-41 and 9-40, situated at
Padmavathi Nagar, Khanapur, within seven (7) days.
Petitioners have submitted following documents vide its
reply, dated 25.11.2024:
1. Copy of Notice No.G1/001/2024, dated 19.11.2024.
2. Order copy in W.P.No.18404 of 2022
3. Proceeding of Executive Office Gram Panchayath
Khanapur, dated 28.01.1985
4. House Tax Payments receipts up to 2025
4. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has passed the
impugned final order, dated 16.12.2024 stating that
petitioners made construction by encroaching 90 Sq.
yards of Nirmal to Khanapur Police Station 100 feet wide
road. Report submitted by AD, Survey and Land Records,
Nirmal district was relied upon. The site is situated at
Padmavathi Colony, Khanapur and it is, to be removed.
Petitioners failed to give valid explanation to the notice,
KL,J
dated 19.11.2024. Therefore, respondent No.2 -
Municipality directed the petitioners to remove the un-
authorized construction within 15 days. Challenging the
said final order, petitioners filed the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend
that vide notice, dated 19.11.2024, respondent No.2
requested the petitioners to furnish documents and
petitioners have furnished documents. But, respondent
No.2 did not state about the alleged deviated portion or
un-authorized construction specifically in the said notice.
Without considering the documents and explanation,
dated 25.11.2024 submitted by the petitioner,
respondent No.2 has issued final order, dated
16.12.2024. The same is in violation of procedure laid
down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. He
has placed reliance on the principles laid down in the
following two (2) judgments:
KL,J
1. Musunuru Rajani v. Vijayawada Municipal
Corporation, Vijayawada1
2. Common order, dated 25.04.2022 passed by this
Court in W.P.Nos.27201 of 2021 and 1986 of 2022.
6. Whereas, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has produced
written instructions of respondent No.2, wherein it is
stated that respondent No.2 has issued notice, dated
19.11.2024 and petitioners failed to submit explanation
properly. On instructions, he would further submit that
entire construction is illegal. Therefore, respondent No.2
has issued notice, dated 19.11.2024 and considered the
reply, dated 25.11.2024 submitted by the petitioners
before passing final order. Therefore, there is no
irregularity.
7. As discussed supra, vide order dated 11.04.2022 in
W.P.No.18404 of 2022 this Court directed the
respondents not to interfere with the petitioners
2005 (3) ALD 87
KL,J
possession over the subject properties without following
due process of law. Therefore, respondent No.2 has to
follow the procedure laid down under the Telangana
Municipalities Act, 2019 by specifically mentioning the
deviated portion of the construction in the notice, dated
19.11.2024. Without mentioning the deviated portion or
un-authorized construction specifically in the notice,
dated 19.11.2024, respondent No.2 requested the
petitioners to furnish certain documents. Petitioners have
submitted copies of notice No.G1/001/2024, dated
19.11.2024, order in W.P.No.18404 of 2022, Proceeding
of Executive Office Gram Panchayath Khanapur, dated
28.01.1985 and house Tax Payments receipts up to 2025
to respondent No.2. In fact, petitioners have to submit
permission obtained by them from the then Gram
Panchayath. Even now, they have not filed the
permission obtained by them from the then Gram
Panchayat, Khanapur. They have filed only renewal
proceedings.
KL,J
8. Though the petitioners are contending that they
have obtained permission from the then Gram
Panchayat, Khanapur, they have not submitted the same
to respondent No.2 along with their reply, dated
25.11.2024 and they have not filed copy of the same
before this Court.
9. As discussed supra, respondent No.2 - Municipality
did not specifically mention that the petitioners have
made construction by encroaching into 90 Sq. yards in
the notice, dated 19.11.2024. Now, in the final order,
dated 16.12.2024, respondent No.2 - Municipality
directed the petitioners to remove the un-authorized
construction made by the petitioners encroaching 90 Sq.
yards i.e., Nirmal to Khanapur Police Station. There is
also reference to the report submitted by AD, Survey and
Land Records, Nirmal district.
10. It is the specific case of the petitioners herein that
the said report was behind back of the petitioners and
KL,J
while conducting the alleged survey no opportunity was
given to them.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the entire action
of respondent No.2 in issuing notice, dated 19.11.2024
and final order, dated 16.12.2024 is in violation of
principles of natural justice, also the procedure laid down
under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and also
the principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two
(2) judgments. Therefore, both the notice, dated
19.11.2024 and final order, dated 16.12.2024 of
respondent No.2 are liable to be set aside and accordingly
set aside.
12. However, liberty is granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4
to conduct survey afresh by putting the petitioners on
notice and affording them an opportunity. Liberty is also
granted to respondents to issue fresh notice to the
petitioners specifically mentioning the details/
particulars of the un-authorized construction and
KL,J
deviated portion, granting seven (7) days time to the
petitioners to submit explanation, thereafter take action,
if any, against the petitioners herein. Respondent No.2
shall complete the aforesaid entire exercise within a
period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
13. Accordingly, this Wirt Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
January 03, 2025
gvl
