THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.15086 of 2025

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“……to issue a Writ or Direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for temporarily raising the tin shed with screw and jacks in open plot bearing its No. 67, in survey No. 6. to an extant of 465. Yards, situated at RTC Colony, Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar, Under GHMC, Saroornagar Circle, Ranga Reddy district and pass…..”

2. Heard Sri Alluri Raghu Rama Aurava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pachwa Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that one Tummala Sree Laxmi w/o Lokesh Kumar is the owner and possessor of the open plot bearing No.67 admeasuring 465 square yards covered by Sy.No.67 situated at RTC Colony, Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar and the same was taken on lease on 08.02.2025 for running a mess under the name and style of Sri Shiva Balaji Mess. In the said plot, there is no construction. Basing on the lease agreement, the petitioner started construction of the tin shed for running of mess and he has not made any permanent structure with RCC roof/ceiling slabs or pillars/columns/beams. Respondent No.3 issued show-cause notice on 10.03.2025. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted a written explanation on 25.03.2025. Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order on 26.04.2025 for demolition of the unauthorized construction within a period of 15 days on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained building permission. On 29.04.2025 the petitioner has submitted a representation that due to ill-health, she was admitted in Kamineni Hospital and therefore, requested respondent No.3 to grant permission and the petitioner is ready and willing to pay necessary charges. However, respondent No.3 without properly considering the said representation, issued the impugned proceedings dated 07.05.2025 for seizure of unauthorized construction. Hence the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is unemployee women and eking out her livelihood by running mess. She has taken the subject premises for running mess and for that purpose, she made temporary construction of shed and she is not making any permanent construction and therefore, the petitioner requested the respondent authorities to grant permission. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay necessary charges and the petitioner invested huge amounts, which was borrowed from the private finance. If the said shed is demolished, she will be put to great hardship.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner is claiming rights over the shed through rental agreement. Neither the petitioner nor the original owner has submitted any application seeking permission for construction of the shed as on today. In the absence of any permission, the petitioner is not entitled for seeking any relief.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner has not questioned the impugned notice dated 07.05.2025 issued by respondent No.3. Petitioner has only questioned the action of the respondent authority in not considering the representation submitted by the petitioner for construction of the temporary shed in the subject property. Even according to the submissions made by the respective parties and also the averments made in the affidavit, neither the petitioner nor the original owner of the subject property have not submitted application seeking permission for c