IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.39241 of 2012

23^rd MARCH, 2026 Between:

Thatta Sudhakar.

...Petitioner and The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, A.P. and (2) others.

...Respondents

ORDER:

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

“…to issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent No.1 and 2 in taking necessary action against Respondent No. 3 herein in removing her unauthorized construction at premises bearing House No. 121(Lower Quarter), TRT Colony, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500044, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove the unauthorized construction at premises bearing House No. 121(Lower Quarter), TRT Colony, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad- 500044.....”

2. Heard Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a resident and absolute owner of the property bearing H.No. TRT 122, Municipal No. 2-2-3/131, First Floor, TRT Colony, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad, and that Respondent No. 3, who is a resident of H.No. TRT 121, Ground Floor, in the same building has encroached the ground floor abutting TRT Quarter No.121 and constructed a superstructure over the common area pertaining to Quarters No. 121, 122, 123, and 124, despite the building being constructed for the use of all occupants, and inspite of the petitioner making representations, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not taken any action thereon.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that, having issued the notice on 19.07.2012, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not initiated further action, pursuant to the notice dated 19.07.2012 issued under Section 636 of the GHMC Act, till date, even after lapse of thirteen (13) long years, which shows the casual approach on the part of the respondent authorities.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC contended that the concerned officers have inspected the site and issued a notice dated 18.05.2012 under Sections 452(1) and 461(10) of the GHMC Act, 1955. In response, respondent No. 3 submitted a vague reply dated 24.05.2012. Thereafter, the son of respondent No. 3, Mr. M. Mallikarjuna, filed O.S. No. 1694 of 2012 before the City Civil Court and obtained ad interim injunction orders in his favour, pursuant to which the concerned officers submitted necessary remarks to the Municipal Standing Counsel for vacating the said orders. Subsequently, the complainant/petitioner herein filed the present writ petition against GHMC and respondent No. 3, wherein this Court passed an interim order dated

24.12.2012. Meanwhile, O.S. No. 1694 of 2012 was dismissed on 06.08.2012. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 3 filed A.S. No. 254 of 2013, which was also dismissed on 23.08.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent Corporation informing it of the dismissal and requesting further action. However, before the Corporation could proceed with final demolition action, respondent No. 3 availed the BRS Scheme and submitted BRS Application No. 200003441 by paying initial charges of Rs. 10,000/- which is pending consideration. It is further contended that due to the pendency of the civil suit, the appeal, and subsequently the aforesaid BRS application, the respondent Corporation could not proceed further, and that it would take further action pursuant to the notice dated 10.07.2012 based on the outcome of the said BRS application.

6. Be that as it may, since the application of respondent No.3 is pending for regularization, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pro