IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WP.No. 15221 of 2015 Dt.17.03.2026 Between:

Ch.Chandra Sekhar …. Petitioner and State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.

…Respondents

O R D E R:

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed to declare the impugned notice of the 3^rd respondent No.G1/19/UC/TS/2015, dt.29.05.2015, and the Memo ROC.No.3501/2015/M3, dt.18.05.2015, issued by the 2^nd respondent as arbitrary and illegal and set aside the same and consequently direct respondent No.1 to 3 not to demolish the structures of the petitioner in Plot No.4, admeasuring 300 sq. yards in survey No.355, 356, 357 part situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without following due procedure of law.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of plot No.4, admeasuring 300 sq. yards in survey No.355, 356, 357 part situated at Pedda Amberpet Villge, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from his vendor Sri M.Durga Prasad, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.792 of 2013, dt.02.02.2013, who in turn had purchased the said property from one Mohd. Niaz Ahmed Khan under a registered sale deed bearing No.7965 of 2007, dt.30.06.2007, and thus it is contended that there was flow of title from the predecessors in title since 1982.

3. The petitioner further contended that his vendor had obtained building permission on 22.12.2007 for constructing a house in the said site and the said construction permission was renewed on 12.08.2011 and thereafter the respondent issued a notice, dt.06.11.2013 under Section 228(1) & (2) of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 seeking explanation, as to why the structures made by the petitioner should not be pulled down as they have been constructed without valid permission and without there being any regularization of the said plot, as the said plot has been falling in an unapproved and illegal layout.

4. It is further contended by the petitioner that only a compound wall along with a shed has been constructed so as to protect the said property from encroachers and pursuant to the notice, dt.06.11.2013, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 22.11.2013 and thereafter, the 3^rd respondent issued another notice, dt.03.12.2013 clearly noting all the above said facts, but stating that as the subject plot No.4 is in an unapproved layout, LRS is required before granting construction permission, and as such, the reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered and directed the petitioner to remove the structures within (07) days from the date of receipt of the said notice.

5. It is further contended that pursuant to the said notice, dt.03.12.2013, the petitioner had applied for regularization of the said plot and also for issuance of construction permission on 12.12.2013 by paying the requisite LRS fee and construction permission fee of Rs.1,28,917/- by way of Demand Draft, for which the legal opinion was also obtained by the 3^rd respondent from the learned Standing Counsel, who stated to have advised for the consideration of the application of the petitioner for LRS and construction permission, and inspite of the same, the petitioner’s application for LRS and construction permission was kept pending for consideration till the filing of the writ petition.

6. Petitioner further contended that pending consideration of the petitioner’s application as stated above, on 30.05.2015, the impugned notice No.G1/19/UC/TS/2015, dt.29.05.2015 was issued directing the petitioner to remove the structures within (03) days and along with the said notice, copy of the impugned Memo in ROC.No. 3501/2015/M3, dt.18.05.2015 issued by the 2^nd respondent, was also served upon the petitioner, wherein the 3rd respondent was directed by the 2nd respondent to take action fo