AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr. Y.Sai Dev Rohan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4; and perused the material on record.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned speaking order vide file No.G1/476/2026 dated 24.09.2026 was passed by respondent No.3 wherein it is alleged that the petitioner has made unauthorized construction and deviations to the building permit order dated 04.01.2024 in respect of the property of the petitioners bearing Plot Nos.82 to 85 in Survey No.1063, Ward No.17, Vasavi Nagar, Road No.1, Paripally Street, Siddipet. It appears from the speaking order, notices dated 16.06.2026 and 29.06.2026 were issued to the petitioners alleging unauthorized construction in the road affected portion of Ward No.17. Reply dated 10.07.2026 was submitted by the petitioners and after giving opportunity of hearing to them, the order dated 24.09.2026 was passed.
As seen from the impugned order dated 24.09.2026, it is alleged that construction has been carried out by the petitioners over the subject property in deviation of the building permit order dated 04.01.2024. It was observed that the road affected portion had not been left/maintained and construction had encroached upon the road affected portion. Later, intimation was issued to the District Task Force Team vide letter dated 05.09.2026 to attend the meeting in the chambers of respondent No.3. By stating that the file was examined, the DTF committee directed the applicants (petitioners herein) to remove the deviated portion falling within the road affected area within a period of seven (7) days failing which penalty will be imposed and further action will be taken under Sections 174, 178, 180, 181 and 185 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. The impugned order does not point out deviations allegedly made by the petitioners to the building permit order. The structures made in the road affection portion were also not pointed out clearly. According to the learned Senior Counsel, it would be difficult for the petitioners to remove such deviations allegedly made in the road affected portion as the speaking order does not clearly specify the extent of structures made on the road affected portion.
In view of the above, the impugned speaking order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned speaking order dated 24.09.2026 is hereby set aside. Consequently, respondent No.3 is directed to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the complaints dated 19.02.2025 and 10.03.2025 by taking note of the reply dated 10.07.2026 submitted by the petitioners within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such exercise is done, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained in respect of the subject property and the petitioners are also directed not to proceed with any further construction over the subject property. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition, stand closed.