Telangana High Court
J. Shankar vs The State Of Telangana on 31 October, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33015 OF 2025
ORDER :(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondents No.3 and 4 in not acting upon the illegal construction of cellar + ground + 6 upper floors undertaken by respondent No.5 in the premises bearing Plot No.39-P, situated at Ayyappa Society, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
2. Heard Mr. B.Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4; and perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.5 raised cellar + ground + 6 upper floors in the subject property without any valid building permission. In that regard, the petitioner submitted representations dated 10.03.2025 to the respondent authorities requesting them to take necessary action, but so far no action has been initiated. As there is inordinate delay on the part of the respondent authorities in 2 considering the representation of the petitioner, he is constrained to approach this Court.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that appropriate action will be taken on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
5. Recording the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.03.2025 made regarding the unauthorized construction of cellar + ground + 6 upper floors undertaken by respondent No.5 in the premises bearing Plot No.39-P, situated at Ayyappa Society, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.5, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. As the order is passed without entering into the merits of the case, notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with. However if, respondent No.5 is, in any way aggrieved by this order, it is at liberty to approach 3 this Court seeking modification of this order. 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 October 31, 2025 RRK