IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.32266 of 2013 DATE: 31.03.2026 Between:

M.A.Saleem …Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and Another …Respondents

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“to issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing impugned proceedings dated 8-11- 2013 in demolishing the petitioner’s house bearing Nos.5- 12-272/2 and 5-12-270/3 situated at Gajulpet, Nirmal Municipality, Adilabad District is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Municipalitites Act, and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and as well as Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish/interefere the petitioner house bearing Nos.5-12-272/2 and 5-12-270/3 situated at Gajulpet, Nirmal Municipality, Adilabad District and pass such other order or orders.”

2. Heard Sri Battu Mahender, learned counsel representing Sri A.Jagan, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Administration and Urban Development.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner’s father purchased the subject property in the year 1960, and his name was incorporated in the Gram Panchayat records, which were subsequently continued after merger into Nirmal Municipality. It is further contended that the petitioner obtained permission for construction of residential house under proceedings dated 27.04.2011, and constructed the house strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned proceedings dated 08.11.2013, directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized construction within a period of three days, failing which the Municipality would remove the same and recover the costs. It is further contended that the impugned action is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as the construction was made pursuant to valid permission granted by the competent authority. It is also contended that the respondent Municipality has ventured into adjudication of title, which is beyond its competence, and that the impugned action is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the respondents would contend that the impugned action is justified and is in accordance with law, and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. Taking into consideration the submissions of both the counsel and perused the material available on record. The point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the impugned proceedings dated 08.11.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent proposing demolition of the petitioner’s house are sustainable in law?”

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted construction permission under proceedings dated 27.04.2011. The impugned proceedings dated 08.11.2013, directing the petitioner for removal of construction within a short period, indicate that the action of the respondents is primarily based on the allegation that the land belongs to third parties.

7. This Court is of the opinion that the respondent-

Municipality, being a statutory authority, cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title. Once permission has been granted after verification of records, the respondents cannot proceed to question the title and direct demolition on that basis. Further, the impugned action is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to the petitioner before issuing the impugned proceedings. However, it is always open to the respondents to take appropriate action,