JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. G.Rama Chander Rao, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) for respondent No.3.

Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3. This intra court appeal is filed against an order dated 30.07.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20101 of 2024, by which writ petition preferred by respondent Nos.5 and 6 has been disposed of with the direction to the official respondents not to interfere with the construction being made by respondent Nos.5 and 6 till the official respondents initiate action by issuing notice and adjudicate the issue with regard to validity of the building permission by following the due process of law.

4. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that respondent Nos.5 and 6 claim to be the owners and in possession of Plot admeasuring to an extent of 350 square yards in Survey No.59 Part, situated at Plot No.515, Block No.7, Ward No.8, Visvesvarya Engineers Colony, Karmanghat Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject property’). Respondent Nos.5 and 6 made an application seeking regularization of the subject property before the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC and the same was granted. Thereafter, a building permission on 20.09.2023 was granted to respondent Nos.5 and 6. The appellant filed a complaint against the building permission which was granted in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 started construction of the house. However, the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC threatened respondent Nos.5 and 6 with demolition. Thereupon respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed the writ petition.

5. Learned Single Judge by an order dated

30.07.2024 has disposed of the writ petition as stated supra. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that GHMC had issued a notice dated 24.07.2024 to respondent Nos.5 and 6. However, the aforesaid fact was not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that dispute with regard to title between the parties is pending adjudication before the civil Court. It is therefore submitted that till the decision is taken by the GHMC in pursuance of the notice dated 24.07.2024, respondent Nos.5 and 6 should be restrained from raising any construction on the subject property.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, on instructions, submits that the notice dated 24.07.2024 has been served on the appellant as well as respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 31.07.2024. It has further been pointed out that the appellant as well as respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been heard and an order shall be passed in the proceeding initiated pursuant to the issuance of notice dated

24.07.2024 within a period of two weeks.

8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that the appellant ought to have filed a civil suit restraining respondent Nos.5 and 6 from raising construction instead of filing a writ appeal.

9. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.

10. Admittedly, a notice dated 24.07.2024 has been issued, which has been received by the appellant as well as respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 31.07.2024. An opportunity of hearing has already been afforded to the appellant as well as respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the aforesaid proceeding.

11. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the competent authority shall pass an order within a period of two weeks from today and thereafter shall proceed to take an action based on the order in accordance with law. Needless to state that any construction made by respondent Nos.5 and 6 within the aforesaid period shall be subject to outcome of the order which may be passed by the competent authority.

12. To the afore