ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. Md. Sadath Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, Mr. V. Narsimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 and Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned standing Counsel for HYDRAA appearing on behalf of respondent No.7. 2. According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the open plot bearing Plot No.22, admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey No.150 (Part), situated at Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District, on the strength of a registered Gift Deed bearing document No.4306 of 2023, dated 18.03.2023. In proof of the same, she has filed copies of said Gift Deed and link documents. Respondent No.7 has issued impugned notice dated 30.12.2024 under Section - 405 of the GHMC Act, 1955 stating that it has received a complaint of encroachment of FTL/Buffer Zone of Thoutoni Kunta and Bhagirathamma Cheruvu situated at Khajaguda, Rangareddy District. Accordingly, the Asset Protection Unit has collected all the relevant documents and information and confirmed that the subject property is falling under FTL/Buffer Zone of Thoutoni Kunta and Bhagirathamma Cheruvu. Thereafter, respondent No.7 has conducted a personal hearing with all the stakeholders on 28.12.2024 and explained the facts of the case. Thus, respondent No.7 requested the petitioner to vacate the site on the ground that the same is under FTL/Buffer Zone within 24 hours, failing which, respondent No.7 will remove the illegal structures as per Section - 405 of the GHMC Act, 1955.

3. Perusal of impugned notice dated 30.12.2024 would reveal that there is no basis for the observation of respondent No.7 that the subject property is falling under FTL/Buffer Zone of Thoutoni Kunta and Bhagirathamma Cheruvu situated at Khajaguda. The petitioner was not put on notice and opportunity was not even afforded to them.

4. To show that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the subject property, she has filed copies of registered gift deed and link documents. She is in possession of the subject property. Therefore, without conducting proper inquiry including inquiry with regard to issuance of final Notification fixing FTL/Buffer Zone of Thoutoni Kunta and Bhagirathamma Cheruvu, respondent No.7 cannot direct the petitioner to vacate the subject land within 24 hours. Though in the impugned notice dated 30.12.2024, respondent No.7 has stated about conducting of personal hearing with all the stakeholders on 28.12.2024, there is no mention with regard to service of notice on the petitioner and affording her an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the entire action of respondent No.7 in issuing impugned notice dated 30.12.2024 directing the petitioner to vacate the subject property within 24 hours is illegal.

5. The time granted by respondent No.7 to the petitioner to vacate the subject property i.e., 24 hours is also unreasonable. In the light of the same, the said impugned notice dated 30.12.2024 is liable to be set aside.

6. In the light of the said discussion, the impugned notice dated

30.12.2024 of respondent No.7 is set aside. However, liberty is granted to respondent Nos.2 to 7 to take fresh action, if any, against the petitioner strictly following the procedure laid down under law by putting the petitioner on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. They shall also consider the final notification issued by the competent authority earmarking FTL of Thoutoni Kunta and Bhagirathamma Cheruvu and direction of Division Bench in Mrs. L.

Urmila Devi v. The State of Telangana¹. However, the petitioner shall remove the temporary fencing and temporary sheds, if any, in the subject property, failing which, liberty is granted to respondent No.7 to take action against the petitioner.

7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order