##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

WRIT PETITION No.38560 of 2013

DATE: 06.04.2026

Between:

Ch.Damodhar Reddy …Petitioner

AND

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the

Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and four 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 2 and 3 not taking any action against the illegal construction which is being made by the respondents no 4 and 5 in the open place admeasuring 1450 square yards left for park in survey no 59 Teachers colony Arjun Rao layout Hasthinapuram, Hyderabad, considering the representation dated 17.12.2013 is nothing but arbitrary illegal null and void and violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of the Provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India Consequently direct the respondents no 2 and 3 to protect the place of the park admeasuring 1450 square yards in survey no 59

Teachers colony Arjun Rao layout Hasthinapuram Hyderabad…”

2

2. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record. 3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner claims ownership of Plot No.104 in Survey No.59, Teacher’s colony, and asserts that an extent of 1450 sq.yards

in the layout was reserved for a public park.

4. It is alleged that respondent Nos.4 and 5 encroached upon the said park land and commenced illegal construction. Though earlier intervention by respondent No.3 halted such activity, the said respondents allegedly resumed construction, and respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to take action despite

representation dated 17.12.2013.

5. Aggrieved by such inaction and illegal construction, the petitioner seeks a direction to restrain respondent Nos.4 and 5 from encroaching with the land earmarked as a public park

and making illegal construction.

6. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the despite the interim order granted by this Court, the unauthorized and illegal construction has already been carried out and the compound wall has been completed and no such steps have been taken

3

for removal of the illegal construction made by respondent

Nos.4 and 5 in the park place of the approved layout.

7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to conduct a physical inspection of the site, and if it is found that any illegal constructions are being made by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the park place of the layout, take further actions for removal of such illegal constructions strictly in accordance with law. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand

closed.

_________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J

Date: 06.04.2026 Pav