Common Order

1. Since the subject matter in both these writ petitions is same and the parties are common, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner in W.P. No.22223 of 2025 is respondent No.5 in W.P. No.35678 of 2025 and the petitioners in W.P. No.35678 of 2025 are respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. No.22223 of 2025.

3. W.P. No.22223 of 2025 is taken as leading case for disposal of both these writ petitions.

4.1. The case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are owners of the house property bearing No.1-8-868, admeasuring 346 square yards, situated at Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have obtained building permission vide Building Permit No.381908/GHMC/4725/2024 dated 14.03.2024 from respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle - 30, Begumpet, Secunderabad, for construction of stilt for parking + three (3) upper floors. In the north and south, the subject building is bounded by 20 feet wide road, and east (H.No.2/3 RT) and west by neighbours houses. As per the building permission, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have to leave setbacks of 2 meters in front and 1.5 meters on three sides; respondent Nos.4 and 5 have mortgaged the second floor in favour of respondent No.3 under the registered mortgage deed dated 29.02.2024 vide document No.466 of 2024.

               4.2. It is stated that as per Rule 4(a) of G.O. Ms. No.168 dated 07.04.2012, if the abutting road is less than 30’ width, additional 5 feet setback should be left for road widening. As the subject property of respondent Nos.4 and 5 is abutting to 20 feet road, they are required to leave 5 feet in addition to 2 meters as setback on the front side of the subject building. It is submitted that respondent Nos.4 and 5 not only violated terms of the building permission by not leaving mandatory setbacks but also encroached 2½ feet existing 20 feet road. Hence, the petitioner lodged complaint dated 19.06.2025 to respondent No.2 - GHMC requesting to take action against the unauthorized construction raised by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Further, the petitioner sent separate letters to the concerned Electricity Department, HMWS&SB and the Sub-Registrar requesting them not to provide electricity, water connection and not to release the mortgaged property until Occupation Certificate is issued by the GHMC.

               4.3. It is stated that though show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 was issued by the GHMC to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to submit explanation within fifteen (15) days as to why the deviations made to the sanctioned plan should not be demolished, there was no response from respondent Nos.4 and 5. Hence, respondent No.3 issued another notice dated 17.04.2025 to respondent Nos.4 and 5. However, instead of giving explanation to respondent No.3, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed a civil suit in O.S. No.157 of 2025 along with I.A. No.430 of 2025 against the GHMC and obtained status quo order dated 23.04.2025 which was extended up to 20.06.2025.

5. Heard Mr. D. Jagadishwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Rama Rao Immaneni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5; Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC; and perused the material on record.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the status quo order was violated and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are continuing with the construction activity in the subject property. While so, respondent No.3 passed the speaking order dated 13.06.2025 stating that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have violated building permission and constructed the subject building without leaving setbacks.

7. Grievance of the petitioner is that even after passing the speaking order dated 13.06.2025, respondent No.3 is not taking steps to demolish the unauthorized construction made by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Order dated 30.07.2025 was passed by this Court in the W.P. No.22223 of 2025 directing respondent No.3 to stop construction activity undertaken by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the subject property by implementing the speaking order dated 13.06.2025. Thereafter, W.P. No.35678 of 2025 has been filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 to declare the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the Notice in L.No.868/TPS/DC/C-30/SZ/GHMC/2025 dated 11.09.2025 directing them to stop the construction activity in the subject property.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the petitioner is not the resident of Prakash Nagar Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad, where the subject building is situated. The petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged deviations made by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the subject property. The petitioner is a resident of Balanagar which is five (5) kilometers away from the subject building of respondent Nos.4 and 5. The petitioner has filed about twenty-five (25) similar cases and is targeting gullible people and indulging in blackmail and extortion. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, subject building of respondent Nos.4 and 5 has been sealed.

9. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that deviations, if any, are minor in nature and within 10% of the permitted deviations. No resident of Prakash Nagar Colony, Begumpet, has grievance nor lodged any complaint regarding unauthroised construction or road encroachment by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Assuming that there are any deviations, the same will be rectified. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.3 may be directed to remove the seal effected to the subject building and respondent Nos.4 and 5 may be permitted to proceed with the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject building is constructed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in deviation to the sanction plan and that the speaking order dated 13.06.2025 was not challenged. Therefore, the question of respondent Nos.4 and 5 requesting this Court to unseal the subject property does not arise. Respondent No.3 may be directed to implement the speaking order and demolish the unauthorized constructions.

11. In the light of the above rival contentions, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to submit explanation to the speaking order passed by respondent No.3. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of, at the admission stage itself, directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to submit representation to respondent No.3 with a request to unseal the subject building and also to take necessary steps to remove the deviations pointed out in the speaking order dated 13.06.2025. On such application being filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, respondent No.3 shall unseal the subject building enabling them to remove the deviations pointed out in the speaking order dated 13.06.2025. Further, if deviations are not removed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, respondent No.3 is at liberty to seal the subject building. However, if such deviations are rectified / removed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, the subject property shall be inspected by respondent No.3, and if the building is in conformity with the sanctioned plan, respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall be permitted to proceed with further construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. At later stage, if it is found that there are any deviations to the sanctioned plan in the subject building, appropriate action shall be taken by respondent No.3 against respondent Nos.4 and 5. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.