IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.5829 of 2015 DATE: 18.02.2026 Between:

Sri Kamlesh Sharma and another …Petitioners AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.1 and 2 in not taking any action against Respondent No.3, as he has been constructing the building in D.No.21-1-199, Rikab Gunj, Bhalder Wadi, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad contra to the sanctioned plan i.e., Permit No.28629/Dc/SZ/Cir.5/2013 dated 09-10-2013, without leaving any set backs on any side, laid 2 Floor and also raised pillars for 3rd Floor and contra to the G.O.Ms. No.168 dated 07-04-2012 is arbitrary, illegal, irregular, unfair, unconstitutional and against to the provisions of The Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act 1955, The Building Rules and also violation of Articles 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to take appropriate action against Respondent No.3 as per the Act and its Rules and consequently direct the Respondents to remove the un- authorized constructions made in contra to the approved plan and to pass.…”

2. Heard Sri CH. L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel representing Sri G. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Balu Dudekula, learned counsel representing Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel representing Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.3 has undertaken construction at D.No.21-1-199, Rikab Gunj, Bhalder Wadi, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad, in deviation of the sanctioned plan, without leaving the required setbacks and in violation of the applicable statutory provisions, and that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 3 is no more.

5. In view of the above submission, this Court is of the opinion that the appropriate course would be to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to proceed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the GHMC Act”), and the Rules made thereunder, if the constructions on the subject property are found to be illegal. In the event respondent No.3 is deceased, respondent Nos.1 and 2 may issue notice to his legal heirs and shall strictly adhere to the procedure contemplated under the GHMC Act by issuing a duly framed statutory notice, affording them a reasonable opportunity to submit explanation along with all relevant documents, and, upon due consideration thereof, pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, and any further action shall be taken only pursuant to such order.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Date: 18.02.2026 myk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.5829 of 2015 Date: 18.02.2026 myk