IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.14605 of 2013 DATE: 23.03.2026 Between:

Mohd Mateen Ul Ali and others …Petitioners AND The Office of the Municipal Council, Mahboob Nagar District, Rep. by its Commissioner, having Office at Mahboob Nagar District.

…Respondent

ORDER:

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

“…to pass an order direction or a writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that impugned notice issued by the respondent on 22.04.2013 vide notice No. G/TPBO/II/UCR/17/2013 is illegal arbitrary and in violation of AP Municipalities Act. Consequently this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent not to demolish the petitioners property bearing No.5-3-68/B/2/2, 2/3, 2/4, and 2/5 total admeasuring 1069 sq yards situated at Habeeb Nagar, Mahboob Nagar District, Andhra Pradesh pursuant to impugned notice dated 22.04.2013 vide notice No.

G/TPBO/II/UCR/17/2013 and pass.....”

2. Heard Sri M. Mohammad Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing counsel for Municipality appearing for respondent. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the absolute and lawful owners of the property bearing Nos. 5-3- 68/B/2/2, 2/3, 2/4, and 2/5, admeasuring a total extent of 1069 square yards, situated at Habeeb Nagar, Mahboob Nagar District, Andhra Pradesh (presently Telangana). The petitioners stated that they initially constructed a summer house with a tin shed over four walls, and later obtained a license from the respondent in October 2012, and thereafter converted the summer house into a function hall. However, it is stated that no permission was accorded by the respondent-Municipality, and that the impugned notice has been issued solely on the ground that permission was not granted for the construction of the function hall, and also that there was no parking space.

4. It is further contended that, initially, when the authorities proposed to take action, W.P. No. 20264 of 2011 was filed by the petitioners before this Hon’ble Court, and this Court, by order dated 01.08.2011, disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:-

In my opinion, the question whether the petitioners have constructed a summer house or a function hall without prior permission needs to be adjudicated by the respondent, who is vested with such power under section 228 of the Act. As the respondent has initiated proceedings in exercise of the said power, the writ petition is premature. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that an explanation has already been filed in response to the show cause, it is appropriate that the respondent considers the same and takes a final decisions under the provisions of section 228(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that till passing of a final order and communication of the same, the respondent shall not take coercive steps for demolition of the structure in question".

5. It is also contended that the question as to whether the petitioners have constructed a summer house or a function hall without prior permission is required to be adjudicated by the respondent under Section 228 of the Act, and that since proceedings have already been initiated in this regard and the petitioners have submitted their explanation to the show cause notice, the respondent is bound to consider the same and pass a reasoned final order under Section 228(2) of the Act. It is further contended that till such final order is passed and communicated, no coercive steps, including demolition of the subject structure, ought to be taken by the respondent.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent contended that due enquiry has been conducted, and found that the petitioners constructed the function hall without obtaining permission, and that t