THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5042 of 2025

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in trying to demolish the shops of the petitioners bearing No.6-3-137/A, in portion of the house bearing No.3-137, on Plot No.18 in Sy.No.22/A having built up area of 240.00 sq. feet (including common areas etc.) on the ground floor together with 1/4^th undivided share of land admeasuring 28.66 sq. yards situated at Balanagar Village, Balanagar Mandal under Kukatpally Municipal Circle (GHMC), Ranga Reddy District and bearing No.6-3-137/B, in portion of house bearing No.3-137, on Plot No.18 in Sy.No.22/A having built up area of 240.00 sq. feet (including common areas etc.) on the ground floor together with 1/4^th undivided share of land admeasuring 17.61 sq. yards situated at Balanagar Village, Balanagar Mandal under Kukatpally Municipal Circle (GHMC), Ranga Reddy District, without having any notice and without following de process of law, as being illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

2. The case of the petitioners is that their father, Mohammed Inayathullah Sharif, was the owner of all the subject shops, having purchased the same through registered sale deeds bearing document No.259 of 2012 and document No.260 of 2012. The father of the respondent No.4 is the owner of the first floor of the subject property and the respondent No.4 had a malafide intention to claim more undivided share and occupy the ground floor, which is in lawful possession of the petitioner. With such intention, the respondent lodged a complaint with the GHMC authorities falsely alleging that the structures of the subject property are in a dilapidated condition.

3. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 filed WP.No.26545 of 2023 claiming to be the owner of ground + 2 floors and that the building is in a dilapidated condition and the father of the petitioners was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the writ petition. The father of the petitioner died on 24.09.2024 and the said fact was not informed to this Court when the writ petition was heard and order was passed against a dead person.

4. It is submitted that the GHMC authorities did not serve any notice to the petitioners or to their father during his lifetime. On a search made in the GHMC website, it was found that the GHMC, allegedly, served notice dated 05.02.2025 in the name of their deceased father. While the matter stood thus, on 17.02.2025 the officials of the GHMC came to the subject premises and informed the petitioners that the property will be demolished pursuant to the orders passed in WP.No.26545 of 2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned final notice dated 05.02.2025 was issued under Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) is a sham. The property of the petitioners was neither inspected nor did they have any knowledge about the structural stability report dated 27.01.2025 said to have been submitted by the Executive Engineer, Kukatpally Circle. The petitioners’ property is in a stable condition and the structural stability report, allegedly, given by the Executive Engineer on 27.01.2025 is for extraneous consideration and without conducting inspection of the petitioners’

property.

6. On the other hand, Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned standing counsel for GHMC, submitted that as per the order dated 29.10.2023 in WP.No.26545 of 2023, the Executive Engineer inspected the site and submitted the structural stability report dated 27.01.2025. Thereafter, the final notice dated 05.02.2025 was issued in accordance with law, as the entire building including the shop of the petitioners was inspected. The structures are in a dangerous condition and liable to be demolished.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5 submitted that the notice dated 30.05.2023, issued under Section 459 of the Act, was served on the father of t