THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA

O R D E R:

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“……to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring Lr.No.126/ACP/TPS/C13/KZ/GHMC/2025 dt 29.05.2025 issued by the third respondent as illegal and arbitrary apart from being without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India 1950 and violative of principles of natural justice……”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.3 has issued impugned notice dated 29.05.2025 stating that the petitioners have constructed tin sheet room without any permission, as such it is treated as illegal and unauthorized. Learned counsel further submitted that it is not mandatory to demolish every unauthorized construction and relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Kukatpally Municipality v. P. Satyanarayana, 1990 LawSuit(AP) 320 wherein at para No.6 it is held as follows:

“……6] Construing Section 452 of the hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act which is quite similar to Section 228 of the andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, a division Bench of this Court in Municipal corporation Hyderabad Vs. Shamshuddin hasan (1) 1978 (1) APLJ 459 held as follows:"a reading of this section shows that if a building is constructed contrary to the provisions of the Act or the bye-laws, and if the person concerned fails to show sufficient cause as to why the said building should not be removed, altered or pulled down, the Commissioner 'may' remove, alter oi pull down the said building. It is not mandatory on the part of the Commissioner to remove or pull down the building. The word 'may' does not mean 'shall' in all cases, though in some cases it may mean that. No compelling reasons are shown as to why we should interpret the word 'may' in Section 452 as 'shall'. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is left to the discretion of the Commissioner either to remove or pull down the building. He has to exercise that discretion not arbitrarily or capriciously, but reasonably depending on the circumstances of each case, It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down the conditions in which he could direct the demolition of a building. For instance, a person may construct a building in persistent disregard of the material provisions of the Act, or its construction may be injurious to public health or sanitation or public interest, or it may have been done by encroaching on Municipal land or public street or it may cause inconvenience to the neighbours. Similarly, its construction may be so offensive to town planning that it may not be desirable to retain it. Then, the Commissioner may direct its demolition. The circumstances we have stated just now are only illustrative. It should not be construed that they are exhaustive. Ultimately the Commissioner has to exercise the discretion depending on the facts of each case. "the same view has been taken by this court in P. Hemalatha Vs. Rajahmundry municipality (2)

1988 (1) APLJ 188.……”

3. Learned counsel further submitted that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioners and respondent No.5 with regard to title of the subject property in O.S.No.39 of 2025 on the file of the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and pending disposal of the said suit, respondent No.5 cannot file an application before the GHMC to dispossess the petitioners from the property and I.A.No.180 of 2025 in O.S.No.39 of 2025 has not attained finality, and, the respondent authorities cannot act upon the complaint filed by respondent No.5, as such requested this Court to permit the petitioner to file an application for regularization of the said constructions and to direct the respondents to consider the application without demolishing the existing structures.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2