The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the crr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court nr ry be pleased perrnit the petitioner to file additionat affidavit in Wp No.2863T of 2O O. l.A. NO: I OF 2010 (WPMP. NO: 36542 0F 20101 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the ci r Jmstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High courl may be preased to suspend the operation of the proceedings No.1032/Tp/c( /GHMC/2008 dated 25.10.2010 issued by the respondents 1 and 2 herein, pe r iing disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI E.VENKATA SIDDHARTHA Counsel for Respondent No.1&2:SRt G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY,l C FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO w.P.No.28637 of 201O Dt.2L.LL.2025 Between: M/ s Avanthi Constructions, a partnership firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act rep by its Managing Partner Sri A.Shashank. S/o late A.Dinkar, and another And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation GHMC rep by its Commissioner, Hyderabad and two others. Petitioners . . . Respondents ORDER: The instant Writ Petition has been hled challenging the proceedings No. tOaZTfeT Cg / GHMC I 2008, dt'25' 10'2010' issued by the 1st and 2'd respondents as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 3ooA of the constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice, and consequentially to set aside the same. -F"-=] \ \ i \l \r\t\ 2

2. The brief facts of the case are that, tht: into a Development Agreement with one Sri C'lt the owner of the land admeasuring 754 sq petitioner entered - Prabhakar, who is yards situated at premises bearing Door No.3-4-462, Narayant guda, Hyderabad. Pursuant to the said agreement, the buildi r g permission was obtained from the erstwhile Municipal Corpo:'i uid.e Permit No.28/50 in File No'ot tion of Hyderabad slcsclTP3/2oO3, dt.0B.O5.2OO3, for construction of a building t: ,nsisting of ground plus three-floors.

3. It is the further case of the petir ioner that entire construction of the apartment was complett:r ald the building rvas named as "Sai Avanti CRS Villa' and thz'1 in deviation of the sanctioned plan, an additiona-l floor was alsc constructed. The petitioner submitted an application.for regula 'ization of the said additional floor under A.P. Regularization anrl authorized Constructed Buildings Sch requisite charges. It is stated that purs application, the l"t and 2"a respondents :'' Penalization of Un- )me by paYing ralt to the said gularized the said unauthorized fToor uide proceedings No' 1032 / 3PSIC-9lCZ/2OO8, dt.21.o7.2010. a r- 4 . It is further contended by the petitioner that under the active influence of the 3'd respondent alleged to have submitted an application, dt.25. 10.2010, before the 1"t arld 2"d respondents for cancellation of the said regularization proceedings by enclosing the interim order passed by competent Civil Court in IA'No'682 of 2o06inoS.No.3936of2006,dt.22.og.2oo9,whichisallegedtobe operating against the writ petitioner' It is further contended that the l"t and 2"a respondents, through the impugned proceedings No. 1o32lTP/ Cg I CZ / GHMC / 2OOS, dt'25' lO'2020' cancelled the earlier regularization proceedings, dl'21'O7 '2010, stating that the petitioner had obtained the said regularization proceedings by suppressing the pendency of civil suit ald also by suppressing the inter se disputes between the petitioner and the 3'd respondent' Now by the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenges the said revocation proceedings, dt.25. 10'20 10'

5. When the matter came up for hearing on 'admission" this Court on 3O.\2.2OIO, this Court directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date with regard to the structures in question, and the said interim protection was extended on 19.01.2011 for a further period of two(02) weeks' and it is seems 4 that thereafter there is no extension of the said ir erim protection granted by this Court.

6. The 3.d respondent liled an interlocutory ap1: ication uide l.A. No.1 of 2011 (WVMP No.903 of 2Ol1) seeking to vacate the aforesaid interim protection granted by this Cc'r .rt. In the said vacate petition, the 3'd respondent, while denyir 1 the averments made in the writ petition, asserted that the plan originally sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Hyd': 'abad permitted construction of ground plus three upper floors, ' rith the ground floor ealmarked for parking, and that the writ pe -itioner had not filed the original sanctioned plan issued b1' the competent authority along with the writ petition. She further contended that the petitioner had constructed an unauthorizerl fourth floor, in respect of which she had instituted O.S. No.396l of 2006 before the competent Civil Court and obtained an c :der of interim injunction restraining the petitioner from proceec ing with further construction or from alienating the property to 11 ird parties, ald that further contended that in violation of thr, said order, the petitioner completed the construction of the adc i jonal floor, and challenging the same, she alleged to have ir i .iated contempt proceedings, which are pending adjudication. 5

7. It was also contended by the vacate petitioner/3.a respondent that the petitioner filed the buitding pena.lization application subsequent to the gralt of the s/afus quo order passed by the Civil Court, and that even such application was submitted in her name without any authorization or consent. The 3.d respondent further stated that she immediately brought these facts to the notice of the GHMC, pursuant to which the authorities cancelled and revoked the regularization granted earlier in respect of the fourth-floor flat, and thus contended that the revocation order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, particularly as the regularization had been obtained by the petitioner during the pendency of the civil proceedings initiated by her, as such stated that continuation of the interim order relating to the structure was causing serious hardship and accordingly prayed to vacate the interim order.

8. The l"t and 2"a respondents filed counter affidavit contending that the writ petitioner constructed al additional floor without any permission and failed to bring the same to the notice of the l"t and 2"a respondents as to the pendency of civil suit filed by the 3'd respondent herein against the writ petitioner r,,rde OS.No.3963 of 2006 on the fiIe of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City 6 .o Civil Court, Hyderabad, at the time of Iiling :' the application seeking regularization of the unauthorized construction of additional floor. It is contended that upon the r pplication of the

3.d respondent, the respondent-Corporation inv,r <ing Section 450 of the HMC Act, 1955 has rightly revoked .l ,e regularization proceedings, and that there is no error or infirr rit5z in the order passed by the 1"t and 2"d respondents and pralt d to dismiss the writ petition. 9 . Heard learned counsel for I :titioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Cc unsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos. i & 2.

10. The main grievance of the writ petiticr er is that the application/ complaint filed by the 3.d resp ( ndent was on

25.lO.2OlO and the 1"t arrd 2"d respondents, wir.l out issuing any notice and without affording an opportunity to th : petitioner, and without conducting any enquiry as to the gerr allegations made in the said application, h a.r rineness of the , cancelled the regularization proceedings on the very same da1 rf receipt of tJre application of the 3*t respondent. 7 11' Learned counsel for the petitioner wourd submit that the 1"t and 2nd respondents being the statutory bodies are duty bound to follow the due process of law and no order carr be passed without issuing a notice and conducting enquiry by following due process of law, and thus contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

12. per contra, learned Standing Counsel 2nd respondents while rerterating the counter supported the tmPugned order passed by the respondents and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. I have given earnest consideration to the the counsel appearing on either side and peru

13. record. appearing for I"r and averments, I "t and 2.,a submission made by sed the material on

14. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the l"t and 2"d respondent, it is evident that the 3.d respondent submitted an application on 25'70 '2010 seeking cance,ation of reg,rarization proceedings granted in favour of the petitioner by producing a copy of the order passed by the jurisdictional Civil Court and the impugned proceeding was also passed on the very same day i.e., on 25'10'2070 and in the counter also the l"t and 2-d respondents 8 .\l x+ - have not controverted the said fact, and thus, it s clear that the 1"t and 2.d respondents did not issue any notice o the petitioner nor afforded any opportunity to the petitioner no' have conducted any enquiry prior to the passing of the impugned c -der

15. It is trite law that any administrative or qu€.r i judicial action having civil consequences on the rights of parti:; is required to follow the principles of natural justice and such leviation to the procedure is in excess of their jurisdiction, whictr is vested under law and such procedure should be deprecated.

16. Inasmuch as the revocation of the regularizz,t Lon proceedings has the effect of prejudicially impacting the exislirg rights of the petitioner and the said order being quasi-judicial rr character, this Court is of the considered view that the instar 1 case warrants interference to interdict with the impugned ordt:r and thus, the impugned order, dt.25.10.2010, passed by t.r : 1st and 2nd respondents, revoking the regularization granted n favour of the petitioner on 21.07.2010, being violative of due p ocedure of law as well as violative of principles of natural jus _ice cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, the writ petitior deserves to be ailowed. 9 17 . In view of the above hndings, the Writ Petition is allowed and impugned proceeding No.1O32lTPlC9/GHMCl2OO8, dt.25.to.20Lo, ls hereby set aside. However, the 1"t and 2"d respondents sha-ll be at liberty to consider and dispose of the application, dt.25.10.2010, hled by the 3.d respondent, by following due process of law including issuance of notice to both the petitioner as well as the 3.d respondent by conducting an enquiry axd pass orders, take action pursuart thereto, strictly in accordalce with Iaw.

18. Since, the interim order granted by this Court on 30.1,2.2010 was not extended after 19.01.201i, it is deemed that the sarne stands vacated automatically and accordingly, the interlocutory application uide l.A. No.l of 2011 (WVMP No.9O3 of 2011) 1S closed. No order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Dt.2t.1t.2025 -That Ruli! Nis i has been made absol ute as above' ESH KUMAR SINGH, on this TICE APAR mber Two Th ousand And TwentY Five witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUS Of Nove FridaY, The TwentY First DaY SD/.P. PO NNA KRISHNA ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR ,/: l-/ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER j l The Commissioner' Greater Hyderabad [r/lunicipal Corporation (GHMC)' Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)' To, 1 2 Hyderabad. The Dv- Commissioner' Circle No.9, HYderaoao - \

3. One CC to SRI E.VENKATA SIDDHARTHA' Advocate ( rPUCI 4. One CC to SRI G.IvIADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR (i {l\4C lOPUCl 5. Two CD CoPies. BSK BS k( $W.,:r. t t 1 HE T,TAT t''r il lilt: I ( ) ) L I t s Z l:) I A. , HIGH COURT DATED:21 1.1112025 ORDER WP.No.28637 of 2010 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ (A- \t