THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28453 OF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in failing to act upon his representations/complaints dated 31.01.2025, 12.05.2025 and 23.05.2025 against respondent Nos.5 to 9 in carrying on illegal construction of building on open Plot Nos.168 and 169 in Survey No.265, admeasuring 567 square yards, situated at Budvel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Mr. Rupendra Mahendera, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Raparti Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 submitted that on complaint of the petitioner, show-cause notice was issued to respondent Nos.5 to 9. It was found that respondent Nos.5 to 9 have obtained building permission for stilt for parking + 4 upper floors, as against which they constructed cellar + stilt + 4 upper floors. Thereafter, as respondent Nos.5 to 9 did not submit reply to the show cause notice, speaking order dated 21.08.2025 was passed directing them to remove unauthorised cellar.

4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unauthorised constructions are made by respondent Nos.5 to 9 in deviation of the sanctioned plan.

5. Taking note of the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC that the speaking order dated 21.08.2025 already been passed and the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the speaking order, construction is going on in the subject property i.e., open Plot Nos.168 and 169 in Survey No.265, admeasuring 567 square yards, situated at Budvel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in deviation of the sanctioned plan, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to forthwith seal unauthorised cellar - construction being made by respondent Nos.5 to 9 contrary to the sanctioned plan. As this order is passed without entering into merits, notice to respondent Nos.5 to 9 is dispensed with. However, if respondent Nos.5 to 9 are aggrieved by this order, they are at liberty to seek modification of this order. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed.

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J September 22, 2025

vv/bj