##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

WRIT PETITION No.27013 of 2013

DATE: 02.04.2026

Between:

R. Hari Krishna …Petitioner

AND The Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning,

Warangal & others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents no. 1 to 3 in not taking any action against the respondents no. 4 and 5s illegal construction of stilt + 5 floors in Sy.No.193/situated Vaaninagar, Jagtiyal Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District, considering the representation filed by the petitioner dated 21-112012, 22-11-2012 for cancelling the permission granted dated 18-5-2012 even though the respondents no. 4 and 5 not complied the conditions imposed by them in the letter dated 7-4-2012 and notice issued dated by the respondent no.2 dated.3-5-2012, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently direct the respondents no. 1 to 3 to pass appropriate orders considering the representation dated 21-11-2012 and 22-11- 2012 for cancelling the permission obtained by the respondents no. 4 and 5 by playing fraud upon the respondents no. 4 and 5 and not fulfilling the conditions imposed in letter dated 7,-4-2012 and 3-5-

2 WP.No.27013_2013 SCR, J

2012 and take appropriate action for removing the illegal action which is being made by the respondents no. 4 and 5 in the survey no. 193/ situated at Vaaninagar, Jagtiyal Proper and Mandal,

Karimnagar District and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation, for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Smt. D. Pramada, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

Perused the record.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would contend that his client is no more. Smt. D. Pramada, learned counsel for respondent No.5, would contend that the Managing Partner of M/s. Sri Aditya Constructions had expired, however the firm is

continuing with the substituted partner.

4. The basic assertion of the petitioner in the writ petition is that, despite specific representations submitted before respondent No.2, no action has been initiated against the illegal construction made by respondent Nos.4 and 5 and on the contrary, the application submitted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was considered without issuing any notice to the petitioner. It is also stated that the father of the petitioner,

3 WP.No.27013_2013 SCR, J

through the petitioner acting as his GPA holder, filed a suit in O.S. No. 103 of 2012 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of an extent of Ac-0.08 guntas of land. Along with the said suit, an application was also filed seeking to restrain respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from changing or altering the said extent of land. As on the date of filing of the present writ petition, the said suit was pending and suppressing all the said facts and by playing fraud, respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted their application for building construction and obtained permission for construction of G+4 floors through orders dated 07.04.2012 and despite the petitioner submitting the representation, as no action has been taken by respondent

Nos.1 to 3, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though notice has already been issued, subsequent action has not been taken. However, the fact remains that respondent Nos.4 and 5 allegedly interfered with the possession of land belonging to the petitioner, to an extent of 0.08 guntas, and thereupon the petitioner’s father filed a suit in O.S. No. 103 of 2