IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Date: 24.02.2026 Between:

P. Seetha Sambamurthy, W/o.Late P. Sambamurthy, aged 83 years, Occ: House Hold, R/o H.No.10-5-14/3, Masabtank, Hyderabad.

…. Petitioner and The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others.

…. Respondents

ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the Notice and Order dated 5-6-2015 vide Notice No.1352/TPS/C7/W10/2015 issued under Section 636 of H.M.C Act, 955 by the 2^nd respondent proposing to demolish the Shops bearing Municipal No.10-5-14 A to E / in front portion of H.No.10-5-14/3, Masabtank, Hyderabad without assigning any reason and without providing any opportunity of being heard is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principals of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the aforesaid premises...”

2. Heard Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation representing respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s grandmother is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property bearing H.No.10-5-14, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 12-06-1963. It is stated that she obtained necessary permission in File No.1229/68-69 and constructed both residential premises and shops in the front portion, which were later assessed by the Municipal Corporation as Nos.10-5-14/3 A to E. It is further submitted that she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property for more than five decades, regularly paying property tax and maintaining electricity connections, without any objection from the authorities at any point of time.

4. It is contended that the Municipal Corporation had earlier issued notice dated 20-11-2013 under Section 461 of the HMC Act calling for ownership documents and sanctioned plan, to which a detailed explanation along with supporting documents was submitted. The said explanation was acknowledged and the matter was closed. However, despite such closure and after a lapse of several decades, the respondents have reinitiated proceedings based on a complaint dated 30-09-2013 by a third party, which is arbitrary and unsustainable.

5. The learned counsel further submits that subsequent notices issued under Sections 452 and 636 of the HMC Act, culminating in the impugned notice dated 05-06-2015, were passed without properly considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner’s grandmother on multiple occasions. It is contended that no effective opportunity of personal hearing was granted, despite specific requests, and the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s grandmother, being aged about 91 years, was not even properly served with the impugned notice, which was merely affixed on the premises during her absence.

6. It is also contended that the respondents failed to verify their own records regarding the sanctioned plan and instead proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the construction is unauthorised. The learned counsel submits that the impugned action is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside. He, therefore, prayed this Court to declare the impugned notice/order dated 05-06-2015 as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and restrain the respondents from demolishing the subject shops.

7. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 that the allegations made by the petitioner that the notice and order dated 05-06-2015 issued under Section 636 of