IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.29767 of 2015 DATE: 11.03.2026 Between:

Apparaju Naresh Kumar …Petitioner AND The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Rep., by its Commissioner, Warangal.

…Respondent

ORDER:

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

“…to issue a writ, order or direction particular in the nature of mandamus declaring the order/notice issued by the respondent Corporation dated 05.09.2015 under Section 636(1) of HMC Act, 1955 vide proceedings ROC.No.GWMC/TPS/PV/Cir- 10/W.No.46/2015 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent not to demolish the shop bearing No.5-9-63/A/C in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. M. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel for Warangal Municipal Corporation, for respondent No.1.

Perused the record.

3. The basic assertion of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the petitioner has purchased the shop bearing No. 5-9-63/A/C from Thumma Ramakrishna Reddy under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 121 of 2014, dated 04.01.2014, who inturn purchased the same from one S. Rajaiah under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 6491 of 2010, dated 20.08.2010, and since then the petitioner has been in possession of the said premises, and running business therein. It is further stated that M/s. Anurag Builders had obtained due permission from the then Warangal Municipality and constructed the said shops.

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, when the said shop was purchased, the builder, i.e., M/s. Anurag Builders, had shown a sanctioned plan wherein the said shop purchased by the petitioner was reflected, and relying version of the builder and under bonafide belief, the petitioner purchased the same. However, the impugned notice dated 05.09.2015 issued by the respondents states that the said shop is not part of the sanctioned plan and is an unauthorized structure. As such, without conducting a proper enquiry, the impugned proceedings under Section 636(1) of the GHMC Act, 1955 were issued.

5. It is further stated that even before issuing the said notice, the then Warangal Corporation ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner, being the affected party, who purchased the property under bonafide belief from the original owner. If that had been done, the petitioner could have produced the appropriate permissions obtained before the Warangal Municipal Corporation to clarify the sanctioned plan. Therefore, the impugned notice, having been issued without following the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955 and without prior notice, is unsustainable, and proceedings under Section

636(1) of the GHMC Act cannot be invoked in such a manner.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 on the other hand would contend that, although it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had filed different plans, before this Court in earlier writ petitions, as per the plan available in records of the Court, it does not show the permission for construction of petitioner’s shop under any proceedings issued for the Warangal Municipal Corporation, and therefore, the impugned notice was issued.

7. However, in light of the above facts and the assertion made by the petitioner that no notice was issued before passing orders under Section 636(1) of the GHMC Act, the authorities are duty-bound to issue notice to the petitioner, calling for an appropriate explanation and thereafter, consequent orders under Section 636 of the GHMC Act have to be passed.

8. In that view of the matter, the impugned notice dated 05.09.2015 is hereby set aside. However, liberty is accorded to the respondent-Corporation to follow the due procedure under