Telangana High Court
N. Dhanraj Singh vs The State Of Telangana on 15 July, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
***
WRIT PETITION No.20226 OF 2025
Between:
Mr. N. Dhanraj Singh
... PETITIONER
v.
The State of Telangana and others
... RESPONDENTS
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 15.07.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newpapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals. : Yes
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish
to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
2
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
+ WRIT PETITION No.20226 OF 2025
% Date: 15.07.2025
# N. Dhanraj Singh
... PETITIONER
v.
$ The State of Telangana
Rep. by tis Principal Secretary,
(Municipal Administration), Government of
Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.
... RESPONDENTS
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Aadesh Varma
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned
standing counsel for the GHMC,
appearing for respondent Nos.2 and
3.
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? CASES REFERRED :
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.20226 OF 2025
ORDER :(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:
"... to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents no.3 in issuing an intimation letter bearing No.9939/TPS/C23/KPZ/GHMC/2025 dated 03.07.2025 sreceived on 08.07.2025 and an Order No.9939/UC/2025 dt. 08.05.2025 declaring the petitioners temporary container as unauthorized construction thereby directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized portion within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said Notice, failing which action will be initiated, as illegal arbitrary capricious and over reaching of power and in violation of the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights which the constitution guarantees contained in Article 14, 19 Article 300 A of the constitution of India consequently quashing the Order No.9939/UC/2025 dt. 08.05.2025 and intimation letter bearing No.9939/TPS/C23/KPZ/GHMC/2025 dated 03.07.2025 by setting aside the same and to pass ..."4
2. Heard Mr. Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ravi Mahender, learned standing counsel for the GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the owner and possessor of the property bearing Plot Nos.483 and 484/HIG admeasuring 800 square yards in Survey No.1009 on M.C.K., Block No.31, situated at KPHB Colony, Phase VI, Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District i.e., schedule property. The property was given for development to a builder under registered Development Agreement
- cum - General Power of Attorney bearing document No.3991 of 2003 dated 09.06.2003. Thereafter, building permission was granted vide proceedings No.G2/41/BA/767/2003 dated 12.05.2003 for construction of multi-storied complex. The permission was accorded by leaving road affected area and setback areas. The building was constructed way back in the year 2003 as per the sanction plan. It is submitted that the petitioner is eighty-eight (88) years old and for his livelihood he erected a small temporary container for running a flower bouquet shop. 5
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said container was kept way inside the building of the petitioner. Neither occupants of the building have raised any objection for erecting container, nor it is causing nuisance to anyone. The container cannot be treated as an illegal structure. It is not in the road affected area. In fact it is in the set-back area of the petitioner's property.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that show-cause notice dated 27.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner to which he has submitted his reply on 08.04.2025. The GHMC authorities without considering the reply, issued the impugned intimation letter dated 03.07.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the container within seven (7) days. The intimation letter dated 03.07.2025 is issued for extraneous reasons and is contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (for short 'GHMC Act').
6. Learned standing counsel for the GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, placed on record written instructions and 6 submitted that the container was kept in the setback area of the schedule property. After issuing show-cause notice dated 27.03.2025, the petitioner submitted his reply, which was found to be unsatisfactory. Hence, impugned intimation letter dated 03.07.2025 was issued directing the petitioner to remove the container which is an unauthorized structure within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the GHMC Act.
7. Learned standing counsel for the GHMC refuted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the flat owners residing in the schedule property lodged complaint with the GHMC regarding the inconvenience being caused to them due to erection of the container in the front setback area of the subject property, and also the grills erected by the petitioner in the cellar portion.
8. Section 2(3) of the GHMC Act reads as under:
"(3) 'building' includes a house, out-house, stable, latrine, godown, shed, hut, wall, fencing, platform and any other structure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or of any other material whatsoever;"7
It is clear from the above definition that any structure made of metal, or any other material is a building. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not taken any permission for keeping the container in the setback area of his building. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the container is a temporary structure and cannot be treated as an unauthorized construction is devoid of merits. The further contention that the container is placed in the setback area and is not causing inconvenience or nuisance to anyone is also unacceptable for the reason that the impugned letter has been issued pursuant to the complaint from the owners of the schedule property. Even, if there is no complaint, the petitioner is liable to remove the container as otherwise the very purpose of leaving setback area would be defeated. A 'setback' area is meant for proper ventilation, safety, ingress and egress etc., the setbacks minimise the damage to the building and occupants from potential hazards like accidents, fires etc. Therefore, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned intimation letter dated 03.07.2025. 8
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed.
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J July 15, 2025 Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
(BO) MS