IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO.28674 OF 2010 DATE: 09.01.2026 Between:

M/s. R.K.Constructions & Developers, Rep.by its Managing Director, M.Ramesh Babu, r/o.H.No. H-42, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad.

…. Petitioner and The Greater Hyderabad Municipality Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderbad and another.

…. Respondents

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to proceed with the construction of the building at Plot Nos.112, 113, 113/1, 114 and 115 in Sy.Nos.442, 444, 445, 448 and 449 situated at Vignanapuri Colony, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjustified, unconstitutional and unsustainable.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, none appears for the petitioner. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Mr. K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondents has categorically stated that building permission for construction of cellar, stilt for parking + 5 Upper floors for five residential flats was granted in the name of E.Narsireddy and others, and the name of the developer is shown as M/s.Yashodha Builders and Developers through File No.665/CSC/TP-14/2009, Permit No.14/11, dated 24.11.2009 in respect of plot Nos.112, 113, 113/1, 101 and 105 situated in Sy.Nos.442, 444, 448, 449 of Vignanapuri, Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, the then Ranga Reddy District. As per the said permit, construction shall be commenced before 23.11.2010 and completed before 23.11.2012. The present writ petition is filed by M/s. R.K.Constructions & Developers alleging that the respondents are interfering with the construction activity stating that said land belongs to them. It is also categorically stated that the respondents have not issued any permission in favour of the petitioner, however, they have granted permission for the said plots in favour of above named E.Narsireddy and others, and it is also not known on what basis, the petitioner is alleging that the respondents are interfering with their construction activity. It is also stated that the construction of the residential building was completed in terms of the above said permit issued by the respondents and that they have also issued an vide Occupancy Certificate proceedings No.665/CSC/TP14/2009, dated 16.01.2013. It is categorically denied that the respondents have interfered with the construction activity of the petitioner.

3. In that view of the matter, construction permission granted to the said E.Narsireddy and others and Occupancy Certificate is also issued. Though permission is not granted to the petitioner over the subject land, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

4. In the light of the Occupancy Certificate having been granted vide proceedings No.665/CSC/TP14/2009/OC, dated 16.01.2013, in favour of E.Narsireddy and others, the subsequent transfer of the property, if any, cannot be gone into at this stage. However, it would suffice to dispose of the writ petition by observing that, if E.Narsireddy and others have constructed the said flats and have been granted an Occupancy Certificate by the respondents, the respondents shall follow due procedure of law, in the event they find any lacunae or violations in the construction activity. It is also made lis clear that the respective between the petitioner and E. Narsireddy and others, shall not be gone into by the respondents, at the most, the respondents may examine and determine whether there are any deviations of the sanctioned plan or statutory provisions and as the permission is not granted to the writ petitioner, the nexus between the writ petitioner and Mr. E.Narsireddy and others, is also not established by him.

5. In view of the same, Writ Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no ord