B.Sathaiah Goud v. 'l . Govemment of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the impugned final notice issued by the 3'd respondent bearing No. G2l17899/UC/TPS/1 1/201'l dt-01-08-20'14 served on 01-09-2014 in Plot No B-472 Phase-ll threateoing to .defnolish the construction made Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad within couple of days, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequehtly set aside the same by directing the respondent No.31o consider the representation dt 03-09-2014 submitted by the petitioner. 1 l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 4(WPMP. NO:424 78 0F 2014) Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr; tmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court ma/ be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the demolition of th: structures made in Plot No.B-472, Phase-ll, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad pursl i nt to the impugned final notice bearing No. G2l17899lUCfiPSl11l2O1 1 dt: 01-0t;2014 served on 0',I- 'Og-2O14, pending disposal of the main Writ Petitiirn. Counsel for the Petitioner: MS. SOWMYA SANISETTY, SRI VENKATESWARLU SANISEl TY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN-U|i 3AN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 AND 3: SRI SRINIVAS R/ O PACHWA' SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITIO N No.3395 1of2O14 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the final notice dated 01.08.20 14 issued by respondent No'3 to demolish the construction of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside and the same. Heard Ms.Sowmya Sanisetty, learned counsel' rcpresenting Sri 2 Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned Counsel for thc petitioner on record and sri srinivas Rao Pachwa, learned standing counsel for GHMC. tearned counsel for ttre petitioner would submit that petitioner 3. is the absolute owner and possessor of house property bearing H.No.B-472, Municipal No.6-2-520, LIG Phasc-ll of Vanasthalipuram Residential Complex, admeasuring i50'19 Sq'yrds in Sy'No'2Ol of Sahebnagar Kalan Village, L'B'Nagar Circle' R'R'District' having purchased the same under registered sale deed No'1839 of 2OO8 dated 07.05.20O8. Since the house building was very old, petitioner intended to construct a new buitding by removing existing old buitding and commenced constructing Ground + 2 Upper Floors arrd Pent House. While the matter stood thus' respondent No'3 issued rrotice under Section 452 of HMC Act, 1955, alteging that petitioner f 2 raised structures without any permission; that th,: petitioner filed a suit uide O.S.No.638 of 2Oll on the lile of I_Sr: rior Civil Judge, R'R'District and obtaine d, status-Quo orders and the said suit was dismissed on 21.O3.2O14; that petitioner submittt,r applications on 29.O4.2O14 and Og.OZ.2OI4, before resporLr lent No.2 lor regularization of building. In the meanwhile, respolr lent No.3 issued impugned notice dated 26.06.2or4, under section {> 16 of GHMC Acr, 1955, for demorition of structures raised by the p: .itioner and also issued final notice dated Ol.Og.2Ol4. Aggrieved by -l re same, present writ petition is filed.

4. lrarned Standing Counsel for respondent I os.2 and 3 by referring to the counter filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would submit that petitioncr has undertaken construc,rrn without any permrsslon; that respondents, Corporation by follorv ng due process of law issued notice dated 31.03.2011, under Se,: ion 452(l) and 46 l(l), basing on the complaint submitted bv cne P.Lakshmr Narayana' Since the petitioner did not give reply tc :he said notice, respondents' Corporation issued notice dated 13 r 14.2g1l , under Section 452(2r of HMC Act and thereafter; issued fir al noticc dated 2l.O4.2Ol l, under Section 636 of HMC Act. Sut,rcquentlv, afrcr filing the writ pet il ion, petitioner has submitted arr application for of G.O.Ms.No.t52, MA & r. D (Ml), dared regularization in term s ,/

02.11.2015 uide application reference No.20OO03176 and the same 3 is pending.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 would further submit that the application filed by the petitioner IS pending consideration and once the BRS application 1S disposed of, the respondents' Corporation will take further action basing on the outcome of the BRS application of the petitioner.

6. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record.

7. It is relevant to note that the Government o[ Telangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized/illega-l constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plan or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015. As per the said G.O., the application for regularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 6O days from the date of notilication of the said Rules along with 50% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs. IO,OOO/- whichever is less. The competent authority, i.e., Municipal Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporations, Metropolitan Commissioner in case of HMDA, shall, on scrutiny of applications and inspection of sites, 4 either approve or reject the applications and commur icate the same to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications.

8. The Regularization Rules were notified on 02.11.2015, as per which, applications for regularization were to be filecl within 6O days from the said notihed date and the same were i rpposed to be processed within a period of six months from the las,t date of receipt of applications

9. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms. {o. 152, dated 02.11.2015 was challenged in WP (PIL).No.63 of 2O16, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Bench < f this Court on

18. 10.2016 as under:- "We consider it appropiate, in such circum;; antces, to modtfu th.e earlier order, and direct that tle appti:ations for regularization be processed in accnrdance with ttte regularization scheme notified in G.O.Ms.No.) 52 dated 02.11.2015. In case the GHMC or th.e otter Municipal Corporations in the State of Telangana, afi,er . nsidering tte applications for regulari-z,ation, decide to reject the request for regularbation, il is open to them to communicate the orders of rejection to tle tpplicants concented, and th.ereafter take actioi for demoti:ion of the illegaL structures in accord.ance with law. In srtt Lt of those cases where the GHMC, or the other Municipal Corporations, tentatiuelg decid.e to regularize :he illegal 5 strltcture s, such a decision shnll m.erelg be recorded in the file, arud shnlt rueitlwr be giuen effect to nor shall it be communicated to tle applicants, pending furtter orders from this Court."

10. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with a batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 2a'O4'2O21, with a direction that the interim order dated 18' 10'2016 passed in w.p.(PIL).No.63 of 2O16 shall continue to operate till a decision is taken by the Supreme Court on W'P.(CiviU No. 1236 of 2O2O'

11. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raiend'ra Kumar Bartatya and another Vs' U'P' Auos Eaam Vikcrs Parishad and othersr, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions , uiz'' K.Rcrmcrdcrs Shenog Vs. Chtefl Offi.cers, Toun Municipal CounciP' Dr.G.N.KhajuriaandothersVs.DelhlDeoeloptnentAuthoritg and othersf, M.I. BuiLders (Petttlonerl Ltd Vs' Radheg Shgam Sahua, Esha Ekta Apartments CoOP llouslng Socletg Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbo;F, Sug,ertech Limited Vs' Emerald Court Owner Resldent Welfare Associotion and 1 2024 SCC Online sc 1767 '](1974)I scc so6 I 1rsss1 s Scc zoz " (1999) 6 scc 464 s (2013) 3 scc (civil) 89 6 otherss, Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authority Vs. Maradu Municipalitg/, State of Haryana Vs. Scrl,; rcrF, has issued further directions in addition to the directions given in Re.. Directions ln the matter of d.emoritton of sttttctrres, vide order dated t3.11.2024 in wp(civit).Nos.295 and \28 of 2023, wP(criminal).No. 162 of 2022. The Hon'bte Suprr.me court has specifically directed that the ev-..rt of ary application/appeal/revision being filed by the ov ner or builder against non-issuance of completion certif-rcate or for -egularization of unauttrorized construction or rectification of deviatio: r, etc., trre same shall be disposed of by the authority concerrre i including the pending appeals/revisions, as expeditiously as possil rle, in any event not later than 9O days as statutorily provided.

12. In the instant case, since the grievance o the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BII i apprication, in the light of the aforesaid order dated 2g.O4.2O,.2,t passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Wp(pll) No.63 of 2Ol3 and its batch, as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble S-preme court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatga,s case (cited supra), the .espondents directed \ R.o"."" the application submitted by r.l e petitioner for 61zozr; ro scc r '(2021)76s/C:C822 8 (zoz:) o scc o+s 7 regularization of unauthorized/iflegal construction, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the interim order dated

18.06.2016 passed in WP(PIL) No.63 of 2016, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to result of the BRS application hled by the petitioner, the 2"d respondent is directed to take appropriate acticin in respect of subject property strictly in accordance with law.

13. Subject to above directions and observations, ttre writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-A. JAYASREE SISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Admn. Departme Government of Telangana' Hyderabad. Secretariat,

2.TheCommissioner,GreaterHyderabadMunicipalCorporation'TankBund' Hyderabad,

3. The Deputy Commissioner' Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' L.B.Nagar Circle. HYderabad.

4. One CC to Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration Urban Development' High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI

6. One CC to Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa, SC for GHMC[OPUCI 7. Two CD Copies (r TJ BS HIGH COURT DATED:1 4 11012025 ORDER WP.No.33951 of 2014 lHE S rA 1R () a 5 l{[fl 202fi t )es DATC}' * -_4--{trtl*-"+F P S ING OFTHEWRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS .,d"b \o h*