IN THE COURT OF IV JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,
HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: MS. KATTA KEERTHANA,
IV JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Thursday, this the 05 th day of March, 2026
ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 1057 O F 2019
Between :
N. Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o. N. Satyanarayana Reddy, Age: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1-1-421, Flat No.401, Vivek Vardhan Apartments, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad – 500080.
...Plaintiff
AND
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. By the Asst. City Planner, Circle No.15, GHMC, Hyderabad.
...Defendant
This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Mrs. I. Sujatha, Learned Counselfor the plaintiff, Mr. B.
Ajay, Learned StandingCounsel for defendant corporation (GHMC) and upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court passed the following:-
-:J U D G M E N T:-
1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his men and his representatives from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property i.e., extension of 500 sft to the flat No. 401 in the 4th floor and pent house admeasuring 280 sft above the extended
2/9
4th floor, situated in Vivek Vardhan apartments bearing MCH No.1-1- 421/1, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad – 500080.
Brief averments of plaint are as follows:-
2.It is submitted that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the Flat No. 401, in fourth floor with a build up area of 1945 sq. ft.
With an undivided share of land of 80 sq. yds out of 673 sq. yds.
Including common area and car parking area of 225 sqft + storage room behind Electrical panel room (floor marked as no. 401 adjacent to stair case) and an extent of 80 sqft. Of the scooter parking in the north west corner, beside common toilet room in the north east corner of stilt floor ear marked as 401 scooter parking in Vivek
Vardhan Apartments bearing MCH No. 1-1-421/1, Gandhi nagar,
Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property). He purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed number 1098 of 2012, dated 09-04-2012.
2.1.It is submitted that the plaintiff made an extension to the flat No. 401 to the extent of 500 sft in the 4th floor and pent house admeasuring 280 sft above the extended 4th floor leaving the area of lift, which is more particularly described in the schedule of property.
2.2.It is further submitted that the plaintiff is ready to apply for
BRS and approached the authorities several times. But the defendant corporation did not inform him anything about BRS. But instead of that, the defendant corporation issued the notice, dated 07-05-2018
3/9
against plaintiff. Through his reply on 09-05-2018, plaintiff expressed his intention to comply with BRS.
2.3.However, the plaintiff is under apprehension that at any moment the defendant may forcibly enter into his flat with his men to demolish as on 27-04-2019 defendant once tried to enter into the flat of plaintiff forcibly with his men and threatened to demolish the structure. Plaintiff is regularly paying tax, they are also paying electricity bills regularly. Due to the urgency and threat of demolition of the suit schedule property, this suit is filed without issuing notice under section 685 of GHMC Act.
3.After registration of original suit, summons were ordered to be issued to the defendant corporation. Mr. G. Parashuram, advocate represented defendant corporation and filed written statement. Later
Mr. B. Ajay, advocate represented defendant corporation.
3.1.In the written statement, defendant corporation denied the material averments of the plaint. It is the contention of defendant corporation, that the corporation has received a complaint petition,
dated 30-04-2019, from Vivek Vardhan Welfare Association, against
the illegal and unauthorized construction on the terrace of Premises
No. 1-1-421/1, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad, wherein it is stated that the apartment in the above premises has been constructed in the year
4/9
1993, by obtaining permission, in the year 1992, and all the flats in the said property were sold to various purchasers and that the ground floor parking area is sufficient for only existing flats. It is further stated that after the lapse of 23 years, the plaintiff herein has made illegal construction on the terrace of the apartment. The defendant officials have inspected suit property and found that the plaintiff has made illegal construction of pent house on the terrace of the 4th floor and also made extension to the flat no. 401 in 4th floor without obtaining any permission from the defendant corporation, as required under section 428 and 433 of GHMC Act. Therefore, defendant officials issued notice, dated 13-05-2019, Under section 452 (1) and 461 (1) of GHMC Act, but the plaintiff did not reply to the said notices and directly filed the present suit by suppressing the material facts.
Plaintiff failed to issue notice under section 685 of GHMC Act, before filing this suit. It is submitted that the plaintiff himself admitted that he has made construction for extending Flat No. 401 for which there is no permission from the defendant corporation. It is further submitted that the allegations of the plaintiff that he approached the defendant officials for BRS in respect of the above illegal construction, that the defendant officials have not informed the plaintiff about the
BRS etc., are all false and denied. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff has made such false, baseless allegations only to mislead this
Hon'ble Court. As a matter of fact, at present there is no Building
5/9
Regularization Scheme is pending and hence the plaintiff is not entitled for regularization of the illegal construction in the present circumstances. Hence, the defendant corporation requested to dismiss the suit.
4. On 23-12-2020 following issues were framed for trial :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant corporation as prayed for ?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable without issuing mandatory notice under section 685 of GHMC Act 1955 to the defendant corporation prior to the institution of the suit ?
3. To what relief ?
4.1.During the trial plaintiff was examined as pw1 and exhibits
A1 to A7 were marked. No defendant evidence was adduced. Heard both sides learned counsel for plaintiff requested to decree the suit by considering the oral evidence adduced and documentary evidence marked during trial. He filed written arguments. Learned counsel for defendant corporation requested to dismiss the suit. As no cause of action arose in favor of plaintiff against the defendant corporation and the suit is filed without issuing notice under section 685 of GHMC Act.
Issue number 1 and 2:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction
against the defendant corporation as prayed for?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable without issuing mandatory notice under section 685 of GHMC Act 1955 to
6/9
the defendant corporation prior to the institution of the suit?
4.2.Chief examination of PW1 is nothing but reiteration of contents of plaint in the form of an affidavit. Exhibit A1 is the notice under section 461 of GHMC Act 1955, dated 07-05-2018, which shows that defendant corporation instructed plaintiff to submit the sanctioned plan, relevant registered documents, etc for verification within 3 days from the date receipt of the notice following which further necessary action will be taken as per the provisions of GHMC
Act 1955. Exhibit A2 is the Reply, dated 09-05-2018, it is the reply to notice, dated 01-05-2018. It shows that the plaintiff has requested defendant corporation to estimate the BRS challan payment for his unauthorised construction which was finished in 25-05-2009 but the plaintiff couldn't complete the formalities according to GHMC BRS norms as he was living in abroad at that time. Exhibit A3 is the registered sale deed document No. 1098/2012 dated 09-04-2012, which shows that plaintiff and his wife Smt. N. Jayasree were the owners of house bearing address. H.N.1-1-421/1,Flat No.401, Vivek
Vardhan Appartments, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. Exhibit A4 is the photograph of the suit scheduled property, it is devoid of evidentiary clarity and fails to provide the Court with a clearrepresentation of the apartment. Exhibit A5 is the property tax receipt, dated 29-04-2019, for the period from 01-04-2018 to 31-03-2020, shows the name of
7/9
plaintiff and his wife Smt. N. Jayasree for the address H.N.1-1- 421/1/401, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. Exhibit A6 is the electricity payment acknowledgment, dated 04-04-2019, which shows the name MS
VIVEK CONSULandamp CO. Exhibit A7 is the orginal Aadhar card of plaintiff showing the address same as suit scheduled property.
4.3.During the cross examination PW1 stated that his application for regularization is pending.
4.4.At this stage, this Court is of the opinion that as the present suit is filed by plaintiff against defendant corporation for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the corporation from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property, either in whole or in part. Therefore, it was the burden of plaintiff to show that the application for regularization was pending.
No documentary evidence has been adduced regarding the same, without which it cannot be concluded that plaintiff has made an application to defendant corporation for regularization of illegal construction i.e extension of 500 sft to the flat No.401 in the 4th floor and pent house admeasuring 280 sft above the extended 4th floor.
Thus, this court is of the opinion that plaintiff is not entitled for relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant corporation and suit is not maintainable without issuing notice under section 685 of GHMC
Act.
8/9
Issue number 3 :
3. To what relief?
In the result, the suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the opinion that both parties shall bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 05 th day of March, 2026.
IV JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.
9/9
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:
PW1: Madhusudhan Reddy. DW1: Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiffs: Exhibit A1 is the Notice Under Section 4611 of GHMC Act 1955,
dated 01-05-2018.
Exhibit A2 is the Reply, dated 09-05-2018.
Exhibit A3 is the Registered Sale Deed document No. 1098 of 2012,
dated 09-04-2012.
Exhibit A4 is the Photograph of the suit property.
Exhibit A5 is the Property Tax receipt for the period from 01-04-2018 to 31-03-2020.
Exhibit A6 is the Original Electricity payment receipt, dated 04-04- 2019.
Exhibit A7 is the Original Aadhar Card bearing No.969297957408.
For Defendants: NIL
IV JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.