Lateef Mohammed Khan vs The State of Telangana

Court
High Court for the State of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD

The Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh
and
The Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy
Writ Appeal No.1009 of 2026
(CNR No.HBHC010617362026)

Dated: 17.09.2026
Between:
Lateef Mohammed Khan
S/o.Naseer Mohammed Khan
...Petitioner
and
The State of Telangana
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department,
Secretariat , Hyderabad and others.
...Respondent
Order :
Mr. Mahadev Anyarambhatla, learned counsel for the appellant
(writ petitioner) appears through virtual mode.
Mr. G.Bhaskar, learned Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Department appears for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appears for respondents
No.2 to 4.

::2::


2. Petitioner in W.P.No.1829 of 2021 has preferred the instant
Writ Appeal against order dated 25.08.2026, passed by the learned
writ court, dismissing the said Writ Petition.
3. In the impugned order, learned writ court has referred to four
different notices issued under Sections 450, 452(1) and 461(1) of the
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the
GHMC Act’), which according to respondents were endorsed as ‘wall
pasted’, and held that the appellant (writ petitioner) could not assail
the same as misconceived as the respondents have followed the
procedure prescribed under Section 630 of the GHMC Act.
4. The matter related to alleged demolition of a structure
belonging to the appellant by damaging its roof in pursuance of the
impugned notices, which the appellant contended as arbitrary and
illegal on the ground that there is a valid building permit order
dated 18.12.2020 in respect of the subject property bearing plot No.1
and permit order in respect of plot No.2 was yet to be issued when the
impugned action was taken without compliance of the principles of
natural justice.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the notices
were affixed on wall without following the other procedures

::3::


prescribed under the relevant provisions of the GHMC Act, and as
such, the appellant had denied receipt of any such notices.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
placed on record including Section 630 of the GHMC Act.
7. Section 630 of the GHMC Act prescribes various modes of
effecting service of notice. As per clause (d) thereof, if none of the
means provided under clauses (a) to (c) is available, a notice, bill,
schedule, summons or other document could be affixed on some
conspicuous part of the building.
8. Respondents contended that the notices have been endorsed as
‘wall pasted’ in terms of Section 630(d) of the GHMC Act. They,
however, did not disclose as to whether the other modes were
exhausted before such pasting of notices on wall.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned Standing Counsel for
GHMC submits that further impugned action could be taken after
proper service of notice upon the appellant in accordance with law.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a recent
decision of the Apex Court in Directions in the matter of

::4::


1
Demolition of Structures, In Re and specifically referred to the
directions contained at paragraph 93 thereof.
11. Needless to say the respondents would follow the procedure
prescribed under the GHMC Act and also the directions of the Apex
Court in the decision referred to hereinabove.
12. The appellant shall also cooperate by accepting any such notice
served upon him in accordance with law, whereafter further
proceedings could be undertaken by the respondents.
13. Let it be made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the
case of the parties.
14. The instant Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed.
____________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ


________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
Date: 17.09.2026
LUR




1
(2025) 5 SCC 1