[ 3383 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

WRIT PETITION NO: 3281 OF 2026

Between:

Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society Limited, A Society Registered

under Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 R€d. Office at Road No.17-A,

Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its President, Mr. B. Ravindranath.

.....PETITIONER

AND

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration

and Urban Development Dept., At Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, At Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad,

Rep. by its Commissioner.

3. M/s. Jubilee Hills Education Society, 8-2-293182'1, Road No.71, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad -500033. Rep. by its President K.Krishnadev.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition Under Anide 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Mandamus,

(a)To declare the action of action of 2nd Respondent in granting building

permission to 3rd Respondent, vide Building Permit Order vide Permit

No.6202/GHMC IKHB12O14-BP in File No.003808/GHMC/1 8821KHB1 t2023-BP

daled 20.11.2024, without considering the objections raised by the Petitioner

Society vide Representation dated 17.08.2023 vide Ref .No.HJCHBSU281l2O23,

as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of provisions of Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and in violation of Article 14 and

3004 of Constitution of lndia. (b)Consequently, to quash/set aside the Building

Permit Order vide Permit No.6202lGHMC 1KHB|2024-BP in File

No.003808/GHMCI 18821KH8112023-BP dated 20.11.2024 r iued in favour of 3d

Respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

I.ANO:I OF 2026

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou- may be pleased to

direct the Respondents herein to stop the construction activ ties of the proposed

construction of three (. 3) upper floors over and above t-he bL lding existing on the

lease premises/subject property i.e., an area of Ac.6-02 ( untas equivalent to

29282 sq. yards or 24596.88 sq. meters in Ward No.8, Bloc< \o.2 of Jubitee Hi s,

Hyderabad, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the vrit petition.

I.ANO:2 OF 2026

Between:

Jubilee Hills Education Society, 8-2-29318211, Road No.71, Jr.,b tee Hills, Hyderabad-

500033. Rep. by its President K.Krishnadev.

...PETITIONERS,RESPONDENT No.3

AND

{ubilee

H_ills Cooperative House Building Societz

legistered

under Telangana Co-operative So-cieties A ;

Road No.17-A. Jubitee Hi s, Hyderabad, Rep. by

Ravindranath.

.....RESPONDEi UWRIT PETITIONER

I1" 9Fl"

of Telangana, R_ep. by irs Principat Secretar,,. Municipat

Administration and Urban Develbpment Dbpt., At Secr,: rriat, S'aifaOad,

Hyderabad.

The GreaterHyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation, At Lorni

-Tank

Bund,

Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commiisioner.

.....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDI NT Nos.1 & 2 in W.p.

1

2

Limited, A Society

1964 Regd. Office at

:s President, Mr. B.

3

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the ci ;umstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High co r t may be pleased to

vacate the interim orders passed on 11.02.2026 in .A.No.1 of 2O26 in

WP.No.3281 of 2026.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.HARI HARAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI ROHIT POGULA

Counsel for the Respondent No.l ; GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI VIVEKJAIN

The Court made the following bRoen

IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF "ELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NAITAYA {. ALISHETTY

WzuT PETITION No.328l of 2025

Dated:30.03.2026

Between:

Jubilee Hills Co-Operative [-louse

Building Society Lirnited, Hyderabad,

reptd by its President-B.Ravindranath.

...Petitioner

And:

The State of Telangana,

rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Municipal Administration and Urban

Development I)epartment,

Hyderabad and two others.

. . . Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the actior, rl respondent No.2

in granting building permission to respondent No. l frducation society,

vide Buitding Permit No.6202lGHMC/KlIll 2024-BP, dated

20.11.2024, without considering the objections rais: I by the petitioner-

Society, vide representation, dated 17 .08.2{'. 3, vide Ref.No

HJCHBSL/28 112023, as arbitrary, illegal, withour urisdiction and in

violation of provisions ol the Greater Hyderabad ML ricipal Corporation

I

)

tl

i

T

LNA,.I

W.P.No.328lof2026

Act, 1955 (hereinafter refened to as,the GHMC Act,) and Articles_14

and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, to quash,/set

aside the same.

2. Heard Sri V.Hari Haran, leamed senior counsel, appearing for

Sri Rohit Pogula, learned counsel-on-record for petitioner, Sri Vivek

Jain, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 Education Society and

Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC-

respondent No.2.

3. Briel facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that the

petitioner, a registered society, was allotted land admeasuring Acs. 1,39g

in Sy.No. 120/403-l ol Shaikpet Village and Sy.No. 102/l of Hakimpet

Viltage, Golkonda Taluk, Hyderabad District; that the petitioner-society

developed the said land and divided rhe same into plots along with

necessary amenities like parks, open spaces, etc.,; that as part of its

objects to provide infrastrucrure inctuding educational facilities to

members and their families and residents of Jubilee Hills Township, it

has earmarked an extent of Acs.6.02 guntas equivalent to 29,282 square

yards in Ward No.8, Block No.2, for setting up of schooUeducational

linstitution;

that the said land was leased to respondent No.3- Education

2

'I

rl

I

I

l

)

)

LNA,J

lv. P.No 3281 of2026

J

society vide lease deed, dated 21.08.1987, b aring document

No.2098/1997, after duly passing appropriate resolu: rns to that effect,

lor establishment of school/educational institution; thz the lease was for

a period of 30 years; that respondent No.3-Edtrci rion Society was

permitted to raise structures for setting up o I ;chool/educational

institution at its own cost and after expiry of the lease period, the

petitioner-society has option to take over the said str ctures at the price

mutually agreed upon; that respondent No.3- Educz .ion society raised

necessary infrastructure from time to time for runni .g of school in the

name of Jubilee Hills Public school.

3 . I . It is further averred that the structures ha r : to be raised by

respondent No.3- Education Society on the leased lrL'mises on express

wriften consent of Managing Committee of the pct tioner-society; that

the lease period of 30.years expired on 20.08.20 l7; and that in view of

differences/disputes between the petitioner-society rr Ld respondent No.3-

Education Society and further, as respondent No. -Education Society

defaulted in payment of yearly lease rents, the lease las not renewed.

3.2. It is further averred that respondent No.3- [],1 roation Society filed

a suit in OS.No.797 of 2018 on the file of the Ch:f Judge, City Civil

-r"

t1

I

LNA,J

W.P.No-3281o12026

Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance of agreement of lease deed

dated 21.08.1987 and to direct the petitioner-society to renew the lease

for another term of 30 years, as per Clause- I 5 ol the said lease deed, and

also to grant perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner-society from

interfering with the allairs and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

subject property by respondent No.3- Education Society; that the

petitioner-society, after receipt of summons, filed written statement

denying the suit claim

3.3. It is further averred that the petitioner-society came to know that

respondent No.3- Education society through its President applied for

permission for construction of three upper floors over and above the

existing building and also another buitding without express consent lrom

the petitioner-society; that the petitioner-society has submitted a

representation dated 17.08.2023 to respondent No.2 not to grant building

permission or extension for construction to respondent No.3- Education

society without producing No Objection Certificate from the petitiorier-

society and also without there being any valid lease agreement from the

petitioner-society; that respondent No.2, without considering the said

representation, accorded permission for construction to respondent No.3-

4

\

LNA,J

W.P No.32tll of 2026

Education Society through the impugned proceedinEis ,nd therelbre, the

impugned order is illegal and violative of the provis'r ns of the GHMC

Act as well as the TG-bPASS Act and hence, aggriev: i by the same, the

present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Counter is fited on behalf of respondent No.3- rducation Society

stating that it is a registered society and it has bee r leased out land

admeasuring Acs.6.02 guntas in Ward No.8 Block

'r.2,

Jubilee Hills,

vide lease deed dated 21.08.1987, however, it was hz tded over only an

extent of Acs.4.30 as against Acs.6.02 guntas, which ; mentioned in the

lease deed; and that respondent No.3- Education rociety established

school in the name of Jubilee Hills Pubtic School arL, the same is being

run since 40 years.

4.1. It is further averred that as per Clause- 12 .lf the lease deed,

respondent No.3- Education Society sha[[ givt tirst priority for

admission to Jubilee Hills Public School to tf t members ol the

petitioner-society and their children; as per Clause- L . the President and

Secretary of the petitioner-society shall be ex-: licio members of

respondent No.3- Education society; that as per (-

rluse-8, respondent

No.3-society is entitled to raise structures on the leas:d premises without

/

/

5

\

,l

LNA,J

tt/. P. No.3281 of2026

6

requlrement of obtaining consent from the petitioner-society;

and that as

per Caluse- 15, subject to compliance of Caluses_2 to 6, 12 and t3, the

lease shall be renewed for another term of 30 years at the option of the

lessee i.e., respondent No.3- Education society.

4.2. It is further averred that respondent No.3_Education Society vide

lefters dated 17.04.2015 and 27.04-20t7 requesred the petitioner-society

to renew the lease for another term of thirty (30) years as per Caluse_15

of lease deed; that petitioner-society vide reply dated 16.07.201g,

alleging that Clauses-I2 and 13 of the lease deed were not adhered to,

called upon respondent No.3- Education society to surrender 3,000

square yards of the leased property in order to execute a fresh lease

deed.

4'3' It is further averred thar the president

and Secretary of petitioner-

society as ex-officio members have been attending the meetings of the

respondent No.3- Education Society and therefore, the allegation of non_

adherence of Clauses-I2 and 13 was created only with an intention to

evict the respondent No.3- Education Society from the leased premises.

4.4. It is further averred that respondeint No.3_ Education Society

filed a suit in oS.No-797 of 20rg and the triar court granted interim

\

I

LNA,J

ll/.P.lio.J28lof2026

orders restraining the petitioner-society from irt:rfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of responderrr No.3- Education

Society over the Ieased premises and also the alfairs r I respondent No.3-

society and the said interim order was extended frr,r r time to time and

finally, by orders, dated 15.06.2022,it was extended r ntil l.urther orders.

4.5. It is further averred that the petitioner-so,) :ty lbrmed a sub-

committee on 29.07.2020 to examine the issue of rcr ewal of lease deed

and basing on the report of the sub-committee, the

1 etitioner-society in

its Managing Committee meeting held on 30.09.202 ) passed resolution

extending the lease in favour of respondent No.3- Ir lucation society for

further term of 30 years in terms of Clause- 15; t Lat a joint meeting

between the members of the petitioner-society iur L respondent No.3-

Education Society was held on 12.10.2020, wherei it was agreed that

the lease deed would be renewed on the same rental structure with other

modifications as applicable and on even date, lease rleed was executed

for another term of 30 years; that all these develr,; ments were part of

record in suit in OS.No.797 of 2018; that respon( enr No.3_Education

society is entitled ro raise structures in the leased

I roperty and there is

no requirement of obtaining express wriften conser.r liorn the petitioner-

\/

-\

't

I

LNA,J

ll.P.No.128l ol2026

society for raising structures; that respondent No.3- Education Society is

intending to commence Cambridge curriculum in the school for benefit

of the students to gain exposure to intemational curriculum for which

purpose, it intended to construct three additional floors over existing

Block-A and another block namely Block-C for sports complex and

parking blocks; and that accordingly, it submitted an application to

respondent No.2 for pBrmission duly enclosing alt requisite documents

and also disclosing the pendency of suit in OS.No.797 of 2018.

4.6. It is further averred that upon payment of requisite amount as

well as fumishing of the Underraking-cum-lndemnity Bond by

respondent No.3-Education Society, respondent No.2, being satisfied

with the documents filed by respondent No.3-Education Society,

accorded permission lor construction, vde Permit dated 20. I 1.2024; that

respondent No.3- Education Society commenced construction in the year

2024 and at present, slab work of three additional floors is completed

and some walls are also raised; that while the mater stood thus, the

petitioner-society, after a period of about two years from the date of

commencement of building work, suddenly approached this Court

alleging that respondent No.3-Education society is in illegat possession

\/

8

LNA,J

Ll'.P.No.3281 ol2026

of the leased premises and obtained interim orders [ ) suppressing the

execution ol lease deed dated 12.10.2020 only to anrtwrstrespondent

No.3-Education society to succumb to its unlav lul requests and

surrender land as demanded by them and hence, pra ied to dismiss the

Writ Petition.

5. The petitioner-society filed reply to the counter filed by

respondent No.3-Education Society denying the avr,r nents made in the

counter and it is further stated that the issue relatin6. o renewal ol lease

and other disputed facts cannot be decided by this t ourt and the same

are subject matter of pending suifOS.No.797 ol'1018; that the trial

Court has passed interim order dated 13.11.2018 directing both the

parties to maintain status quo as on that date; the. respondent No.3-

Education Society by violating the interim ordcrr of status quo has

indulged in unlawlul acts including obtaining bui r ing permission for

construction of additional floors.

5.1. It is specifically stated that in fact, no rep()r t was submitted by

the sub-committee; that the Managing Committ,e has not passed

resolution renewing the lease deed in favour respondent No.3-

9

()

Education Society in its meeting held on 30.09. 1020; and that the

a\

l

LNA,J

W P. No.328l of2026

t0

purported lease deed dated 12. 10.2020 was signed by

president

and

Secretary of the previous Managing Committee, after constitution of

Person-in-charge committee with effect from 01.r0.2020, therefore, the

same has no basis and the tegality and genuineness of the same is

doubttul.

6. Rejoinder is filed on beharf of respondent No.3-Educarion Society

inter alia stating that the allegations of the petitioner-society that

renewal of the lease deed ought to have been signed by

president

acting

as person-in-charge and not by Secretary of the previous Managing

committee are all false, since there was no specific direction from

Co-Operative Department that it is only person-in-charge

who is

authorized to sign such document and more over, the renewed lease deed

was signed by one Hanumantha Rao, Secretary, in the capacity of Office

Bearer of the petitioner-society, therefore, the objection raised by the

petitioner-society in this regard is trivial and further, the renewed lease

deed, dated 12.10.2020, was duly stamped in accordance with law.

7. This Court is not inclined to refer to the various allegations and

counter allegations made in the reply-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, as

this Court is not going to adjudicate upon those allegations, since the

*t/

LNA,J

tv. P.No. J)81 of2026

ll

same are factual in nature and are also subject matt,r o[ pending suit in

OS.No.787 of 2018

8. Leamed counsel for petitioner submitted thrr the lease deed in

lavour olrespondent No.3-Education Society expire( on 20.08.2017 and

there was no renewal of the said lease deed and tt' )refore, respondent

No.2 erred in granting building permission t(, respondent No.3-

Education Society without looking into the prinr lacie title of the

subject property and as such, the impugned order is i legal and arbitrary.

9. In support of his submission, learned counr;, I for the petitioner

relied upon the judgments of the erstwhile Hip,l Court ol' Andhra

Pradesh in Hyderabad Polteries Private Limi ed Vs. Collector,

Hyderabad and anothert and Rameshwar i 's. Commissioner,

10. Leamed senior counsel also specifically referr :d to Section 450 of

the GHMC Act, 1955, as per which, the Commiss.r ner has authority to

cancel or revoke permission, if such permission Ir,s been obtained by

material misrepresentation, fraudulent statements, c,r suppression of facts

reglding the property.

)

|

200t scc ontinc AP 197

I2006

scc onlinc AP 269

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Others2

o,

I

LNA,J

tl/.P.N<t.32610f2026

T2

I l. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in the present case,

the lease deed expired on 20.08.2017 and the same was not renewed;

that the alleged renewed lease deed \2.|O.ZOZO is not registered,

therefore, it has no legal sanctity in view of Sections 17 and 49 of the

Registration Act and Section 107(3) of the Transfer of

property

Acr. He

further submitted that suppressing all the said material facts, respondent

No.3-Education Society obtained building permission. He further

submitted that the renewed lease deed was executed by Hanumantha

Rao, Secretary of the previous Managing Committee when, at the

relevant time, Person-in-Charge was at helm of affairs of the petitioner-

society, therefore, respondent No.3-Edcuation society has no valid title

over the leased premises which disentitles it from applying and

obtaining building permission.

I l.l. Leamed counsel further submitted that the ftle pertaining to

lease is missing from the office of petitioner-society and a criminal case

is also filed to that effect, therefore, suit lor eviction could not be trted,

however, the petitioner-society is taking steps to initiate appropriate

pqceedings for eviction.

I

./

(

LNA,J

ll P.No.))81 of2026

t3

11.2. Learned senior counsel further submitted 1at as per Section

429 of the GHMC Act, the Commissioner may requ re plans and other

documents to be fumished and as per Section 429-l',aa) of the GHMC

Act, a copy of title deed of land duly attested by p.i zette officer of the

Govemment together with Urban Land Ceiling c I arance Certificate,

as the case may be, should be filed along with the ap'; lication.

I 1.3. Learned senior counsel further submittecl that in the present

case, the petitioner-society filed an objection o r 17.08.2023 with

respondent No.2 not to grant building permission tt respondent No.3-

Education society and despite submitting the sanr, and without there

being any valid lease in favour of respondent No,. -Edcuation society,

the Commissioner accorded permission contrary to he provisions of the

GHMC Act and that too, without any notice to the : :titioner-society and

hence, the impugned building permit dated 20.11 .2124 is unsustainable

and the same is liable to be set aside.

12. Per contra, leamed counsel f,or responc:nt No.3-Education

Society submitted that as per Caluse-15 of the lease deed, the lease shall

be renewed for further term of 30 years at the r ption of lessee i.e.,

rdspondent No.3-Education society subject to cor: tliance of Caluses-2

I

LNA,J

W.P.No 3281 of 2026

t4

to 6, 12 and 13 thereof; that respondent No.3-society addressed letters

dated 17 .04.2015 and 27 .04.2017 with a request to renew the lease deed

for another term of 30 years, however, the petitioner_society gave reply

dated 16.07 -201 8 calting upon respondent No.3-society to surrender

3,000 square yards to renew the lease deed and also alleging non_

compliance of caluses-12 and l3 of the lease deed. He further submitted

that prior to letters seeking renewal, at no point of time, the petitioner-

society had pointed out non-compliance of any of the terms of the lease

deed and it had raised the alleged non-compliance for the first time after

addressing letters for renewal and the same is invented only for the

pulpose of forcing respondent No.3-Education society to surrender

3,000 square yards of land.

12.1. Leamed counsel for respondent No.3 has further specifically

contended that the Managing committee of the petitioner-society passed

resolution on 30.09.2020 renewing the lease deed, basing on report of

the sub-committee, and the renewed lease deed was executed on

12.10.2020 and the same was duly stamped and therefore, respondent

No.3-society has valid title entitling it to grant of building permission.

{

LNA,J

fi/.P.No.3281 of2026

t5

12.2. Learned counsel further contended that re; )ondent No.2, taking

into consideration the documents submitted t I respondent No.3-

Education Society and the Undertaking-cum-ln(l

,mnity

Bond, dated

28.08.2024, of respondent No.3-Education Societl has rightly granted

building permission; that the petitioner-society ap:roached this Court

belatedly after respondent No.3-society raised str rctures substantially

over the lease premises, therefore, the Writ Petit i ln is devoid of any

merlt.

12.3 . Learned counsel further submitted th a the structures are

being raised only for the benefit of the str" r ents for providing

intemational Cambridge education programme. i ty submitting thus,

leamed counsel prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition

13. This Court is not inclined to delve nto the aspect of

genuinity/validity o[ the resolution dated 30.09.1] )20 or the renewed

lease deed dated 12. 10.2020, since the same are sut ject matter of suit in

OS.No.797 of 2018 and in view of lact that this lourt exercising the

writ jurisdiction under Article 225 of Constitution o India cannot decide

the disputed questions of fact.

e

\

LNA,J

lY.P.No.326l of 2026

t6

14. Suffice to say that this Court is required to only adjudicate the

issue as to whether the Commissioner was right in granting permission

for construction to respondent No.3-Education Society.

I 5. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to lease deed in

favour of respondent No.3-Education society dated 21.08.1987 for a

period of 30 years and respondent No.3-society establishing a school

named Jubilee Hills Public School. As per Clause-l5 of the said lease

deed, the lease term can be extended for further term of 30 years at the

option of lessee i.e., respondent No.3-Education Society, subject to

compliance of Caluses-2 to 6, 12 and 13, therefore, the contention of the

petitioner-society that lease is renewable on mutual consent is incorrect.

16. As per Clause-8 of lease deed, the lessee is empowered to raise

structures for sefting up of school/educational institution and there is no

requirement for obtaining express written consent from the petitioner-

society. In the teeth of the said clause, the contention of petitioner-

society that respondent No.3-Education society cannot raise structures

without express consent of petitioner-society is untenable. However, the

fact remains that the lease deed expired on 20.08.2017 and the same was

l

.".r"*.) vide renewed lease deed dated 12.10.2020. As per Section 107

I

t7

of the Transfer of Property Act, any lease exceedin6,

is mandatorily registerable. It is pertinent to note tha

deed dated 12.10.2020 purported to have beert

petitioner-soc iety in lavour of respondent No.3-soci

the requirement of Section 107 of the Transfer ofPrl

Sections-17 and 49 ofthe Registration Act, though st

17. Furthermore, it is relevant to refer to Secticr

Act, as per which, the Commissioner may requi

produce title document of property lor which p t

sought by the applicant. Further, as per the rali,)

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Hyderan

Limited's case as well as Pavan Raj Vs., the Commi

facie

examine the title and possession of the appli

permission for construction.

LNA,J

II/.P.No.3281 of 2026

nore than one year

. the renewed lease

executed by the

:ty does not satisff

lerty Act as well as

Lrnp duty is paid.

429 of the GHMC

e the applicant to

rmission has been

laid down by the

d Polteries Private

sioner has to prima

;ant while granting

I 8. In the present case, the petitioner-soc i )ty has submitted

representation dated 17.08.2023 to respondent No.2-Commisioner

requesting not to grant any permission to responJ :nt No.3-Education

societry without there being any valid lease deed rom the petitioner-

society and without producing No Objection : :rtificate from the

(\

LNA,J

tv.P.No.328lol2026

18

petitioner-society, however, respondent No.2-Commissioner granted

permission without relerring to the objections raised by the petitioner-

society, which is contrary to the ratio laid down in T.Rameshwar,s case

(cited supra), wherein it was held that the Commissioner is required to

consider objections as and when they are raised for grant of permission

on the ground of title in a pragmatic manner taking into consideration

only prima facle factors.

l9 For the loregoing reasons, the impugned proceedings are liabte

to be set aside

20. Accordingly, The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned

Building Permit, vide No.6202/GHMCIKIIBI2O24-BP, dared

20.11.2024, ol respondent No.2 is set aside and the matter is remanded

back to respondent No.2 with a direction to consider the objections

raised by the petitioner-society and to pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law, after duly aflording opportunity of hearing to both

the parties. This exercise shall be completed within a period one month

from the date olreceipt ofa copy of this order.

\

/

LNA,.I

Ll P No.32E I of2026

l9

21. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, r,J all stand closed. No

costs.

//TRUE COPY//

SdIMOHD. ISMAIL

I ,EPUTY REGISTRAR

..n

.a+

-../

SECTION OFFICER

To

1 . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and '

Dept., At Secretariat, Saifabad, State of Telangana al ll

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corp'

Bund, Hyderabad.

3. The President K.Krishadev, M/s. Jubilee Hills Education

293t82t1, Road No.71, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-50003:

4. TWO CCS tO GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVE

Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI ROHIT POGULA, Advocate [OPUC]

6. One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate (OPUC)

7. One CC to SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHM(

8. Two CD Copies

SA/PMK

ban Development

,derabad.

ration, At Lower Tank

Society,8-2-

-OPMENT,

High

Advocate (oPUC)

.,,

HIGH COURT

DATED:3010312026

ORDER

WP.No.3281 of 2026

ALLOWING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

\i1!);

-L,

*9'

,f

oB

SIA

0 2 lPB

2026

t

U

i.;

6

Q'I

a

?

z