't. Sri.Methuku Shankaraiah v. '1 . The State of Telangana

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 to consider the representation mzLde by the petitioner dated 01 .o7.2024 for assessment of house for property tax and also allotment of individual house number to the petitioners constructed as pr:r sanctioned plan for 1st petitioner vide permit No.3060A/V17l2O2OlO294 and 0298. Permit No.3060M17/2O2OtO2gB, tor 2nd petitioner vide permit No 3060/ w17l202ol3oo and 301, for 3rd petitioner vide permit No.3060M17/202010303 and 305, for 4th petitioner vide permit No.3060M17/2O2Ot0296, for 5th petrtioner vide permit No.3060/W17/2O2OtO3O7, for 6th petitioner and 7th p-'titioner vide permit No.3060M17/202O|O29O,0291 and 0292 all dated 05 03.2r)21' pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI S.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN '\ND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : G.P FOR REVENT'E Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA IIEDDY The Court made the following ORDER \ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETIT IO N No.5l99 OF 2025 ORDER: Notice vide Lr.Roc.No.4 l0B8Ol2022lK2 dated, 24.06.2024 issued by respondent No.4 the Commissioner, Ieeja Municipality, Ieeja, Jogulamba Gadwal District, invoking the power under Section 180(1) of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019, to rhe petitioners by levying a penalty of Rs.37,60,152l- (Rupees thirty seven lakhs sixty thousand and one hundred and fifty two only) tbr itlegal construction of building in Survey No.908 of Ieeja Torvn and Municipality, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, is challenged in this writ petition as being illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought a consequentiat relief to direct respondent No.4 to assess the subject building for house tax under the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act 201 9.

2.1. It is stated that the petitioners are owners of the land admeasuring Acs.2-00 (now converted into plots) ln Survey No.908 situated at Ieeja Town and Municipality, Jogulamba-Gadwal District The said property was divided into plots and partitioned among the petitioners and thereafter applications tbr grant of individual building permissions have been made. Horvever, as the petitioners belong to one famity, they have constructed common roof lbr all the structures. !E\ \l \ --'! 2 Il\ R..r $P 5t9r 2025 \ Respondent No.4'has informed that the building c()nstructed by the petitioners is in violation of the sanctioned plan. The tonstruction of the building was stopped by respondent No.4

2.2. It is stated that the Director of Town snfl for.rnllJ l'lanning has addressed a letter to the Director of Municipal Administration stating that as per Section I 80( I ) of the Telangana Municipalities ./rct 2() I 9 (for short 'Municipalities Act'), penalty can be imposed orl unauthorised constructlons. On receipt of the said letter, the Director of Municipal Administration has requested respondent No.4 to take action against thc petitioners as per Section 1 80( 1 ) of the Municipalities, Act Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued show cause notice dated | 4.02."1023 inlbrming thc petitioners that the building constructed by them is in c,rntraverrtion of the building permission and the Municipal Council has cal':ulated the penalty ol Rs.37,60, l52l- for construction of the buitding irr deviation ol the sanctioned ptan. It is stated that subsequently another shou cause notice dated 14.02.2023 under Sections 178(6) and (8) and 181 of the Municipalities Act was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why the unauthorised buitding constructed in dcviation of the sanctioned plan shall not be removed. Questioning tire said show cause , BVR,J uP 5199 2025 notice, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners belore the Regional Director cum Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad wherein order dated 20.06.2023 was passed vide Proceedings No.E-557392/RDMNAll2O23 dated 20.06.2023 holding that issuance of one show cause notice against atl the petitioners lor unauthorised construction in deviation of the sanctioned plans is not correct. The appeal was allowed and respondent No.4 was directed to issue individual show cause notice to each building permission holder by specifically mentioning about the extent of deviations made by the individuals in contravention to the sanctioned plan. It was further observed that the petitioners have to take immediate action for removal of the deviated portion as per the individual building permission sanctioned by the Municipality within the stipulated time.

2.3. It is further stated that after receipt of individual show cause notice dated 22.06.2023, each of the petitioners gave a reply on23'06'2023 stating that they will remove the deviation portion of the structures as directed by the Municipality and accordingly deviation portions were removed on 03.07 .2023 which is evident fiom the letter of respondent No.4 dated l0.l1.2023. 4 8\ R.J 'l

2.4. It is stated that deviations of the subject buil,ling were removed and rcspondent No.l - the principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Hyderabad, issued a Memo Roc No'51673912022/c2 dated 08.05.2024 stating rha, as per rhe earrier. Memo ROC No.516739/202021C2-1 dated 23.12.202i:, a direction was issued to take necessary action on the recommendation otthe vigilance and Enforcement and submit action taken report, but no action rvas taken.

2.5. It is submitted that deviation portion of the building was removed and the same was verified by the Municiptrlity. Hence. the petitioners made application to respondent Nos.3 and 4 tc, assess the subject building for house tax. However, respondent No.4 hls referred to the earlier proceedings / Vigirance Report of the Town prarning section and stated that the penalty which was imposed earrier has to be paid for taking further action in the matter. on receipt of the said letter. a detailed representation was made by the petitioners on 0l .07.20114 stating thar the subject building is constructed in accordance with the sancrioned pran and that it is a residential building, as such, demanding penalt' amount of Rs.37,60,152l- is ittegal and invalid. T ) BVR.J

3.1. The case of the respondents as per the counter affidavit of respondent No.4 is that Mr. M. Shankaraiah and others have obtained eleven ( I I ) individual building permissions for residential purpose in Survey No.908/B, but they have clubbed all the permissions and constructed commercial shops as a single unit without maintaining permitted setbacks. The petitioners filed w.P. Nos.2002 of 2022 and batch before this court not to demolish the subject building and the same were disposed of by this court by the common order dated 12.01 .2022 directing the respondents to follow due process of law' Thereafter' one Mr. N. Prahalad Reddy filed W.P. No.15486 of 2023 which was disposed of by the order dated 20.06.2023 directing the Regional Director cum Appeal commissioner of Municipal Administration to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners within a week from the date of receipt of' a copy of the said order and thereafter the appeat was disposed of within two (2) weeks in obedience of the said order. The appellate authority' passed orders on 20.06.2023' Accordingly, respondent No'4 issued eleven (1 1) individual notices to M. Shankaraiah and others in respect ol each building specifically mentioning the unauthorised construction / deviations in respect of the individual building permissions and they were directed to remove the same within twenty four (24) hours from the date of receipt ot' -- \ ^--1 6 lr!R_.I wP 5t99 2025 the notice. The petitioners have submitted letters dated 23.06.2023 requesting four (4) weeks time to comply with the directions due to labour issues, machinery problem and other technicalities.

3.2. Respondent No.4 had issued another show cause notice vide GNCI2 Shops / leeja I 2023 dated 01.08.2023 to Mr. Methuku Chandra Sekhar and Mr. Mekala Aravind Kumar who constructerl six (6) shops (2 + 4) without permission from the Municipality and the.r rvere directed to remove unauthorised constructions within seven (7) dal s from the date of receipt of thc notice. As the directions were not complie d with, shops were demolished on 21 .10.2023 with the assistance of the EnJbrcement Squad of the District Task Force under the cover of panchanz,ma. lt is further submitted tl.rat under Section 180(1) of the Muni<:ipalities Act, the Municipality has calculated the penal . amount which is 25yo (Rs.37,60,1 52/-) of the total value of the property (Rs 1,50,40,160/-) and notices vide Lr.Roc.No.5l6739l2022lcZ-1 dated 23.12.2022 and Lr.Roc.No.5l6739l2022/C2-l dated 08.05.2024 were issued to Mr. M. Shankaraiah and others to pay the penalty amount. 7 BVR..' \rP 5190 !025

4. Heard Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, leamed senior counsel, appearing for Mr. S.V. Ramana, leamed counsel for the petitioners; learned Govemment Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development - respondent No.1; leamed Govemment Pleader for Revenue - respondent Nos.2 and 3; and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed standing counsel for respondent No.4, and perused the material on record.

5. The leamed senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that penalty can be levied under Section 180(l) of the Municipalities Act only when the deviations are not removed. The petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. No.2002 of 2022 and batch and thereafter availed statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 252(l) of the Municipalities Act, and after orders have been passed by the appellate authority, the deviated / unauthorised structures have been demolished. In case, the unauthorised structures are not removed, respondent No.4 has power to lely penalty. However, if unauthorised structures are removed, the question of levying penalty does not arise.

6. The learned standing counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that penalty was imposed in accordance with the law in terms of Section 180(l) of the Municipalities Act. It is an admitted case of the petitioners that they 8 BVR ,I wP 5199 2025 have made unauthorised structures in deviation of the individLral sanctioned plans and there is no illegality on the part of respondert No.4 who issued the impugned notice dated 24.06.2024 in compliance ol the directions issued by the higher authorities and the Vigilance Departmcnt

7. Section 180( I ) of the Municipalities Act reads rLs uncter: "Section 180. ( l) Penalty lor unlawful Iluildings,- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, an1 pcrson who. whether at his ou.n instance or at the instance olany cther person or anybody including a department of the (iovenrment, undertakes or carries out construction or developmert olany law in contravention ol thc statutory Master Plan or tvithout permission. approval or sanction or in contravenlion ol any condition subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted shall be punished with imprisonme rt lbr a terrn which ma1 sxtend to three years, or eithcr fine which may extend to tvventy five percent (25%) of the value ol land or building including land in question as fixed by the Registration Departmcnt at the timc ol' using the land or buildir g: Provided that the finc imposed shall, in no case be less than fiflr,pcr cent of the said amount besides demolition ol the building and recoverv ol'demolition cost lrom the owner olthe building."

8. lt is the categorical case of the petitioners that they have removed the deviations / unauthorised constructions made in th: subject building. The petitioners have also asserted in their reply dated 01.07.2024 to the I 9 BvR..l \,t P 5t99 20!5 notice dated 24.06.2024 that they have removed the common slab which was erected for construction of complex and as on today, they have residential houses only and they are not using the subject building for commercial purpose. So also, respondent No.4, in paragraph No.7 of its counter affidavit, stated that the six (6) shops which were constructed without permission have been demolished on 27.10.2023 with the assistance of the Enforcement Squad of the District Task Force, under the cover of panchanama.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, when unauthorised constructions have been removed and there is no rebuttal to the statement of the petitioners that the subject buitding has not been used for commercial complex and there are only residential houses in the subject building which are being used by thepetitioners for residential Purpose, levying of penalty does not arise in terms of Section 180(l) of the Municipalities Act: \ It is pertinent to note that the unauthorised shops have been demolished on27.10.2023 after the show cause notice dated 22.06.2023 have been issued in compliance of the order passed by the appellate authority on20.06.2023. The petitioners, in fact, gave reply on23-06.2023 to the show cause notice stating that they will remove the deviation E\f -*1 \! l0 B!'R"J rvP 5199 2025 portions and that from 03.07.2023 onwards deviated portions have been removed. [t is clear fiom the afbresaid provision that penalty can be levied only when the unauthorised building is used which is n.t the case herein. In view of the same, the question of imposing penalty rrnder Section lg0(l) of the Municipalities Act does nor arise.

10. Therefore. the writ petition is alrowed setting asidc the impugned notice vide Lr.Roc.No.4l0ggo/2022rK2 dated 24.06 2024 issued under section 180(1) of the Municipariries Act directing rcsJrondent No.4 nor to lery any penalty towards the subject building. ResponJe,t No.4 is further directed to assess the subject buirding of the petitione-s tbr house tax by causing inspection and by following due process of law under the provisions of the Municipalities Act. No order as to cos s. As a sequel thereto. miscellaneous applications. i1- any, pending in the writ petition stand closed //TRUE COPY// S D /. K SIIEPTT+HI SIB|IIX SEC ftftorr,".* To 1

2. J. 4. 5. t) 7 I 6- SA BS rban Deveropment -Secretary, YyL':'3iitl#J:::ii'lr1:?,\ rhe Principar Deoartment, Secretariat' Sti i[5bii'i'"t'c"rr;cior, Josuramba 33i5;.lij[1, Gadwar District. iHH$[:e+Hi#$i,]dfl l$[i"*ri"H:*1*;:i:, Court for the State of Telan Two CCs to GP FOR REVE Hlt"3tijdfl 'lii"utsll'lxt*LTl6e$uca'ie(rPuc) Two CD CoPies =-ffi 'li. FTTDW:-q:-Ffu;E*= | s c t) , \ rrt S i,1f e' ,. tt' ll2 sEP 205 t ]r r;ca \.-a_- IC t1(:-tl HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 ORDER WP.No.S199 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. v