The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, mandating personal hearings before property seizure actions are taken by municipal authorities.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing impugned notice vide No G1/UC/553/BMC/2025 dated 13/05/2025 under Section 178 and 180 of Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 by directing the petitioner the authorities will be seized the property within 07 days for demolition and also directed to vacate the premises by the petitioner i e Plot No. 14, 15, 16 and 17 Sy No 105 Almasguda Village Saroornagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District without giving any breathing time to the petitioner and also without passing any orders on the representation dated 17 05 2025 of the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing straight away issued impugned seized notice is highly illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India by setting aside the impugned notice dated 13/05/2025 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner property without following due process of law in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Mr.P.V.Krishnamachary, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.M.Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for Badangpet Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent No.2.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is claiming that he is the owner and possessor of the house property bearing Plot Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17 in Survey No.105 of Almasguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plot Nos.16 and 17 are having extent of 411 sq. yards and in the said plots, the petitioner obtained permission for construction of residential house on 10.08.2012 from the Gram Panchayat and thereafter, the petitioner intended to construct a mini function hall in the said land i.e., 411 sq. yards, to provide the same to the local people with low charges. Accordingly, he made an application on 15.10.2012 to the Panchayat Secretary, Almasguda, requesting to grant permission to construct the mini function hall. However, the Gram Panchayat has not passed any order and the petitioner made deemed construction exercising the powers conferred under Section 127(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act. The said Gram Panchayat is merged with Badangpet Municipal Corporation and respondent No.2 issued notice on 31.01.2025. The petitioner submitted explanation to the said notice on 05.02.2025. After lapse of two months, respondent No.2 issued another notice dated 07.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted explanation on 15.03.2025. Respondent No.2 without considering the said explanation issued the impugned proceedings dated 13.05.2025 after lapse of more than two months, directing the petitioner to vacate the subject property. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted explanation on 17.05.2025. Respondent No.2 without considering the same, proceeded further. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a detailed explanation was submitted by the petritioner on 15.03.2025 to the notice issued by respondent No.2 dated 07.03.2025. Without considering the said explanation, respondent No.2 passed the impugned proceedings on 13.05.2025 seizing the premises and the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law. He further submitted that the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 17.05.2025 to the impugned proceedings. Respondent No.2, without passing any order on the explanation submitted by the petitioner, proceeded further to seize the petitioner’s premises,