N. Vijaya Lakshmi v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring qre action of the respondents herein in trying tq demolish the structures over the property without following due procedure, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and against Articles '14, '19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. a l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 16932 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to demolish the structures of the House bearing No.11-13- 1428 and 11-13-1429 on o Plot No.11, admeasuring 1'l87.5 sq. yards in Sy.No.7/6 situated at Margadarshi Colony, Saroornagar Village and Mandal, L.B.Nagar, Circle-lll, East Zone, Greater Hyderabad [Vlunicipal Corr rration, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition; Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. CHANDRA MOHAN REDD 1 Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR MUNICTPAL ADi IINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMEN'T Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI SRINIVAS RAO I ACHWA, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER a - ar IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITI ON No. 12880 of 20t5 DATED: 3o.L2.20.2s Between: N.Jaya Lakshmi AND The State ol Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Depart men t, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others ORDER: ... Petitioner ... Respondents This writ petition is liled to declare the action of respondents in trying to demolish the structures of the petitioner's property without following due process as ,legar, arbitrary and in violation of Articres L4, 19 ar d 2l of the Constitution of India ald for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri S.Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas Rao pachwa, learned Standing counser for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing Nos. 11_13_ i l I I I t, 2 3/EZ/1HNIC/2OO8, rg 1187.5 Sq.yrds in oornagar Village and Cerabad (hereinafter sed the same under ).O2.1929 from one tructed a building and submitted an er BpS Scheme as and amended 1428 arrd 11_13_1 1.429, plot No. 1 l, admeasuri Sy.No.7/6, situated at Margadarshi Colony, Szc Marrdal, L.B.Nagar, Circle _ III, East Zone, H5 referred to as ,subject propertyJ, having purch: registered sale deed No.1OS4 of 1979, dated t V.Laxmi Narasimha Rao; that petitioner conr consisting of Ground + 2 upper floors long bacl application for regularization of the building unr per G.O.Ms.No.901, MA dated 31.12.20C., G.O.Ms.No. l12, MAdated 31.01.2008, and the s:L by respondents Corpora tion uide proceedings dated 24.09.2013. He furrLr petitioner has made certain modifications and ; vastu requirements; that respondents, officiais r i property on 22.04.2015 and tried to demolish Aggrieved by the same present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, petitioner h,.s submitted an application for regu lar .lzation in terms of G.O.Ms.No 152, MA & UD (M1), datea O2.11.2O)S uid.e application refr relerence l o'398 and the same is pending. He furtho" ",,:_,.-"." submitted that this c: rt uid.e order dated 28 04.2015, di.:tther :cted the respondents not t{) demolish the vo.BPS/ 13122/C_ r submitted that lterations as per ;ited the subject the structures. ae \vas regularized i J 3 structures of the petitioner and a-lso directed the petitioner not to proceed with any further construction in respect of subject property

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 would submit that the application filed by the petitioner 1S pending consideration and once the BRS application 1S disposed of, 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 lor both the parties and perused the entire materia-l on record. 7 . It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized/ illegal 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 notification of the said Rules along with 50% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs.10,OOO/- whichever is less. The competent authority, 1.e Municipa,l Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporations, Metropolitan Commissioner in case oi HMDA, shall, on scrutiny of applications and inspection of sites, 4 either approve or reject the applications and comrr nicate the sarne to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, br t not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications.

8. The Regularization Rules were notified on Olt 1 1.2015, as per which, applications for regularization were to be fik:, I within 60 days from the said notified date and the same were lupposed to be processed within a period of six months from the [:.: t date of receipt of applications

9. The regularization scheme under GO. M s 02.11.2015 was challenged in Wp (ptl-).No.63 ol No. i52, dated 2O 16, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Bench )f this Court on

18.10.2016 as under:- "We constder it appropriate, in such circurn: modifg ttre earlier order, and direct that the appt regularization be processed in accord.ance regularization scheme notified in G.O.Ms.No 02.11.2015. In case the GHMC or the othe; Corporations in the State of Telangana, afier c the applications for regularization, d ecid.e to request for regularization, it ls open to communicate tLLe orders of rejection to th<: concented, and thereafier take action for d-emo,r illegal structures in accordance with latu. In suc cases tuhere the GHMC, or the other Corporations, tentotiuely decid_e to regulari^z,e tances, to :ations for utith the 52 dated Municipal tnsideing reject the them to tpplicants ion of the t of those Municipal he illegal I ) structures, such a decision shall merelg be recorded in th'e file, and shall neither be giuen effect to nor sho,ll it be communicated to tlrc applicants, pendirug further orders from this Court."

10. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with a batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 28 'O4 '2021 ' with a direction that the interim order dated 18' 10'2O16 passed in W.P.(PIL).No.63of2016shallcontinuetooperatetilladecisionis taken by the Supreme Court on W.P.(Civil) No.l236 of 2O2O' 1 1. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaJendra Kumar Bariatga and another Vs' U'P' Aaas Eaam Vikas Porisho,d and otherst, wherein the Hon'b1e Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, uiz', K.Ramadas Shenog Vs, Chief Offtcers, Towrt Municipal CounciP, Dr. G,N.Khaiuria and others Vs. Delhi Deaelopment Authoritg and other*, M.I. Builders (Petitioner) Ltd Vs' Radheg Shgam Sahua, Esha Ekta Apartments Co-Op Housing Societg Ltmited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbais, Supertech Ltmited Vs' Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Associatlon @nd ' 2024 SCC Online sc 3767 'zrrszq)Y scc soe ' irsgs) ilscc zoz 4 (1999) 6 scc 464 s (2013) 3 scc (civil) 89 6 builder WP(Criminal).No.162 other#, Kerala State Costal Zone Managetz ent Authoritg V".( Mq.radu Municipatitgl, State of Haryana Vs. ;iatpata,has issuecl further directions in addition to the direcl i rns given in Re.. Directions in the mantter of demolition of str, rctures, vide order dated 13.11.2024 rn Wp(Civil).Nos.295 an: 328 of 2023, of 2022. The Hon,ble S l rreme Court has specifically directed that ( vent of application/ appeal/ revision being filed by the rwner or agarnst non-issuance of completion certificate or 1t r regularization of unauthor2ed construction or rectification of devia. f,n, etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerr ( d, including the pending appeals/revisions, as expeditiously as pos{ ible, in ary event not later tharr 90 days as statutorily provided. 12. In the instant case, since the grievalce , f the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BF S application, in the light of the aforesaid order dated 2g.O4.2C, I passed by a Division Bench of this court in wp(pll) No.63 of 2c 3 and its batch, as well as the directions issued by the Hon,ble Sr- preme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatga,s case (cited supra), the espondents are directed to31"""" the application submitted by rl e petitioner for 6 (2021) 10 scc I ' (2021) 16 SCC 822 ' (2023) 6 scc 643 7 regula-rization of unauthorized/ illegal 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 filed by the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to take appropriate action in respect of subject property strictly in accordance with law

13. Subject to above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. B.REKHA RANI STANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER o,T d Hyderabad. lll, L.B.Nagar, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. rban Development cipal Corporation,

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, 2. The Commissioner, The Greatei Hyderabad Muni 3. T.he Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle- 4. T.he Assistant City Planner, Gieater Hyderabad Ir/unicipal Corporation, Circle- 5. One CC to SRI S. CHANDRAIIOHAN REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl ' 6. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADM|N|STRAT|ON & URBAN _ DEVEL_OPMINI, High Court for the State of Tetangana. [OUT] 7. One CC to SRt SR|N|VAS RAO PACHWA, SC for 6HUC1Oe0C1 B. Two CD Copies lll, L.B.Nagar, Saroomagar, Hyderabad. a BN fi, HIGH COURT DATED:3011212025 ORDER WP.No.12880 of 2015 s Cl t:

1., 1 t it1 (.1, t ! ,i $:3 s* l\r * 113!',4 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t