HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.1-60/4/A/4 (PTI No.1119979065) old No.1-60/4/A/4, Northern Part, admeasuring 120 Sq.yds, situated at Gachibowli, Hyderabad, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.17223 of 2021, dated 01.10.2021. She has obtained building permission order, dated 03.01.2024 for construction of Stilt for Parking + 2 upper floors. According to the petitioner, she is proceeding with the construction strictly in accordance with the said building permit order. Even then, respondent No.3 has issued show cause notice, dated 13.11.2024 stating that the petitioner is making construction in deviation to the said building permit order. The setbacks are specifically mentioned in the said show cause notice. Seven (7) days time was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation. She has not submitted any explanation within the said seven (7) days period. Therefore, respondent No.3 has passed speaking order, dated 06.12.2024 directing the petitioner to remove the said unauthorized construction. Challenging the same, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. In paragraph No.7 of the writ affidavit, petitioner has specifically contended that respondents have already demolished the road portion construction and cellar portion construction on 23.11.2024, subsequently after demolition, the cellar portion was closed down by the petitioner herself. Even then, respondent No.3 has not referred the said aspects in the speaking order, dated 06.12.2024. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted reply to the show cause notice, dated 11.12.2024 narrating the said facts.

Even then, respondent No.3 is not considering the said aspects. On the other hand, respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to stop the construction and insisting to remove the unauthorized construction. Challenging the said speaking order, dated 06.12.2024, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Whereas, Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner herein failed to submit the explanation to the notice, dated 13.11.2024. Even seven (7) days time was granted to the petitioner herein. On consideration of the said aspects, respondent No.3 has passed speaking order, dated 06.12.2024 directing the petitioner to remove the construction made by the petitioner in deviation to the building permit. The setbacks, floor wise setbacks are specifically mentioned in the tabular form. It is a reasoned order. There is no error in it.

5. As discussed supra in paragraph No.7 of the writ affidavit, petitioner has specifically contended that the respondents have already demolished the road portion and cellar portion of the construction on 23.11.2024 by the respondents. The said fact was not mentioned in the speaking order, dated 06.12.2024. The setbacks were specifically mentioned by the petitioner in the reply, dated 11.12.2024 submitted by her to the show cause notice, dated 13.11.2024.

6. In the light of the said discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to inspect the subject property, consider the aforesaid aspects more particularly reply, dated 11.12.2024 to the show cause notice, dated 13.11.2024 and if the contentions made by the petitioner are found to be incorrect, he shall take action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the speaking order, she has to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 655 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. On inspecting site, if respondent No.3 comes to a conclusion that