- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
MD ZAFAR ANSAR v. PRL.SECRETARY ( MUD) AND 5 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.8165 of 2017
DATE: 11.06.2026
Between:
Mohd. Zafar Ansari
…Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Prl. Secretary Municipal Administration Secretariat, Hyderabad and 5 others
…Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Mr. M. Sai Prakash Goud, learned counsel representing Mr. J. Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.4; and Mr. Vamheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
2. The 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 by declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 in restraining the illegal construction and not taking action under Sec.
1
461 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act being carried out by the 6threspondent at premises bearing No.5-7-164 admeasuring 134 sq. yards situated at Tek-ki-Masjid, Agapura, Hyderabad in pursuance of representations dated 16-01-2017, 08-02-2017 and 20-02-2017 as arbitrary, illegal, void abinitio and contrary to Sec. 461 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and further may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 & 3 herein to take appropriate action as contemplated under Sec. 461 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act against the 6threspondent in respect of the illegal construction being carried out by the 6th respondent at premises bearing No.5-7-164 admeasuring 134 sq. yards situated at Tek-ki-Masjid, Agapura, Hyderabad; and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that despite the representations submitted by the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not taken any action against the illegal construction made by respondent No.6.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC would contend that the grievance of the petitioner would be addressed by following due process of law by issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the affected party.
2
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 would contend that the petitioner has no title over the disputed property and alleges that the documents filed by the petitioner are fabricated. It is further contended that several suits have been filed in relation to the subject property and that the petitioner has not succeeded therein.
6. Evidently, though the representations were submitted in 2017, respondent No.6 has placed certain documents on record opposing the relief sought by the petitioner. However, respondent No.3, being the statutory authority, is bound to consider the petitioner's representations by following due process of law, by issuing notice to all affected parties, affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.6, permitting them to file all relevant documents, and thereafter passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representations by following the due procedure envisaged under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, by issuing notice to the petitioner and respondent No.6, affording an opportunity of hearing, permitting them to file all the necessary documents and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12
3
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
Date: 11.06.2026 bj
4
Alert