The High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ Mandamus. a. Dectaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned Show Cause notice in Procd No.141l TPS/C18/ GHMC/ 2019 Dt. 17.04.2019 and Procd. No.14'liTPS/C1O8/GHMC/ 2019 Dt. 10.07.2018 as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and mechanical and contrary to Gotvls No.1 52 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Ml) Dept. Dt. 02.1 'l .2015 and set aside the same b. and consequentially direct the Respondents to consider and pass orders on the BRS Application No.2000115510 Dt.'19.02.2016 for regularization of the flat of extent of 274 Sq.Ft on the 4th Floor of Akhila Residency H.No.8-3-833/14l'l-52, (New No. 8-2-293lk/141), Akhila Residency, Phase-lll Kamalapuri Colony, Hyderabad-73. l.A.NO:1 OF 2019 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c't ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nt the demolition of residential flat in the 4th Floor, Akhila Municipal no. 8-3-833/141 , (New No. 8-2-293iki141) adme 277.44 Sq. Ft situated at Phase lll, Kamalapuri Colony, Hyc of Show Cause notice issued in Procd. No.141/TPSrt 17.04.2019 and Procd. No.141l TPS/C108/GHMC/2019 Dt. y be pleased to stay Residency, bearing asuring an extent of erabad in pursuance )'18/GHMC/20'19 Dt.

0.07 .2018 issued by the Respondent No.2, pending further orders in the main wri: retition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. JANAKI, AOVOCATE FOR I RI R,ANURAG Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI M.ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI PASHAM KRISHN/\ REDDY The Court made the following ORDER \ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY UIRIT PETITION No.I O38O of 2O19 ORDER: This writ petition is hled declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned show cause notice in Proc.No.141/TPS/C18 /GHMCI2Ol'9, dated 17 'O4'2019 and Proc. No. 14 1 /TPS/ C 1 OS I GHMC l2O 19 dated lO '07 '2018 ilIegal, contrary to G'O.Ms'No' 152, Municipal Administration and. Urban Development (M1) Dept', dated 02.11.2015 and to direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on the BRS application No'200011551O, dated t9.o2.20t6.

2. Heard Sri Ms.Janaki, learned counsel representing Sri R.Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC' appearing for resPondent No.1-

3. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased a residential flat in the 4it, floor of Akhila Residency admeasuring 274.44 Sq. Ft. (including the common areas) together with undivided sha::e in land measuring 09 --\*s 2 Sq.yards out of 3OO Sq.yards in the pren ses bearing Municipal No.8-3-833/141, (New House No.8-,l 293lkl l4ll, Plot No.144 in Sy.No.103 (Old) and 51.. 'lo. i26(New), Kamalapuri Colony, Hyderabad, (for short'subj :ct property') from M/s. Shivakula Builders vide registered sa e deed dated

10.O3.2O16. The land originally belongs to one limt Siddique Sultana, who entered into a registered )evelopment Agreement-cum-GPA Holder with M/s. Shivak rla Builders and after obtarning permission and approved F,l rns from the Municipa-l authorities, a residentia-l apartment :onsisting of stilt + three floors was constructed in the yezr 1999. The vendor of the petitioner made an application ur der Building Regularization Scheme in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1>2 MA & UD (Ml) Dept. dated O2.11.2015 for regularizz tion of the residential flat constructed on the 4th floor of tL e building of an extent of 274.4 sq.ft vide application No. |OOO1i5510, dated L7.02.2016 and the requisite fee of Rs., O,O00/- was paid by way of D.D.No.64314 drawn on SII , Madhapur Branch and complied with all necessary formzr .ties and the -) sarne was duly acknowledged by the respondent authorities and the same is pending for consideration.

4. On lO.O7.2Ot8, the staff of respondent No'2 have affixed a show cause notice dated 10.O7'2018 under Section 428 and 433 of HMC Act, 1955 stating that illegal construction has been made in the cellar and pent house in violation of G.O.Ms.No.168 MA & UD Dept' dated O7.O4.2O72 and to sholr.' cause why action should not be initiated under Sectioo a52$) and a61(1) rlw. 441 and 443, HMC Act, 1955. The petitioner gave a reply on l7'O7 2Ol8 duly bringing to the notice of the respondents that there are no additions or modifications to the existing original construction from the year 1999 and that the BRS application is pending with the respondent and thereafter respondent No.2 did not take any steps. Another show cause notice was issued on 17 -O4.2O19 by respondent No'2 and on 2O.O4.2Olg, the petitioner gave a reply to the show cause notice. Respondent No.2 without considering his reply has came to the apartment complex on 02.05.2019 at about 11:30 AM along with the staff and demolished the room in !r- \ +Fr5 4 the cellar area inspite of the protests made by -he residents of the apartment complex. Respondent No.2 zr rng with the staff carne on 06.05.2019 to demolish his re idential flat Aggrieved by the sarne, present writ petition is fi ed.

5. l,earned Standing Counsel for responrl nt No.2 on written instructions would submit that rn: rdor of the petitioner has submitted al appiication N,r application No.2OOO 1 155 10, for regularization of unauthcr sed building consisting of Ground plus three upper flootr under BRS scheme in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152, MA&UI) (Ml), dated

17.O2.2016; and that the said application pending consideration. He further submit that as BRS Lpplication of the vendor of the petitioner is pending, the 2'r respondent did not take further action, however, as artd ''r ren the BRS application is processed and disposed, the 2't respondent wiil initiate further action depending upon the esult of BRS application. 6 {t is relevalt to note that the Governmen I of Telangana regui:.I ization of formulated Rules - ) unauthorized llllegal constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plan or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.1i'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 regtiarization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs.lO,OOO/- whichever is less. The competent authority, i'e'' Municipal Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporationsand Municipalities, Metropolitan Commissioner in case of HMDA, shall, on scrutiny of applications ald inspection of sites, either approve or reject the applications and communicate the same to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of aPPlications.

7. The Regular tzation Rules were notified on O2'11'2015' as per which, applications for regolarization were to be frled within 60 days from the said notified date and the same were supposed to be processed within a period of six months from the last date of receipt of applications. 6

8. The reguiarization scheme under GO.Ms IIo.152, dated O2.ll.2Ol5 was challenged in WP (PIL).Nct.13 of 2076, wherein interim directions were passed by a I) vision Bench of this Court on 18.10.2016 as under:- "We consider it appropiate, in such circunt: I modifu the earlier order- and dtrect that the appi t regularization be processed in accordance. regulari-z.ation scheme notified in C.C.Ms.Nc.' 02.11.2015. In case the GHMC or the oth.e r Corporations in the State of Telangana, afier cor,:i applicotions for regulaization, dectde to reject rL for regulariz,ation, it is open to them to comnu.t j orders of rejection to the appLicants conce 1 thereafier toke oction for demolition of the illegui in accordance uith lau-t. In such of those case:: t GHMC, or the other Municipal Corporations. t decide to regalarize the illegal sttuctures, suclt ( shall merelg be recorded in the fle, and shaI r giuen effect to nor shall it be communicotl, applicants, pending further orders from this Couri' tnces, to ttions for uith the i2 dated Wunicipal tenng the ? request icate the ed, and tructure s there the 'ntati uelg dectsion either be to the

9. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along wit I a batch of Writ Petitions were disposed of vide order, datec 2a.O4.2O21, with a direction that the interim order date( 19.10.2016 pasGfin W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016 sha-ll contir re to operate 7 tilladecisionistakenbytheSupremeCourtonW.P'(Civil) No.1236 of2O2O

10. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raiendra Kurnar Bariatga and orrrother Vs. tI.P. Avas Eaam Vikas Parishad and othersl ' wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, uiz., K.Ramado,s Shenog Vs' Chtef OfJlcers' Toutn Munlclpal CounclP, Dr. G.N'Khaiur-ta and others Vs. Dethi Deuelopment Authorltg and others3, M'I' Bulld.ers (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Radheg Shgam Sahu4, Esha Ekta Apartments Co-Op Housing Societg Limited Vs' Municipal Cotporatlon of Mumbai'' Supertech Linited Vs. Emerald Coura Outner Resident Welfare AssoclatTon and. other*, Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authorttg Vs. Maradu Municlpalltg/, State of Haryana Vs. SatpaP, has issued further directions in addition to the I 2024 SCC Online SC 3767 (1974) 2 scc so6 'z 3 (1995) 5 scc 762 o (1999) 6 scc 464 s (2013) 3 scc (civil) 89 6 (2021) 10 scc 1 7 (zo2r) t6 scc ezz 8 (2023) 6 scc 643 I

6. 8 directions given in Re: Directlotrs {n the matter of demolitlon of strucfitres, vide order datecl I l.ll.2O24 rn WP(Civi1).Nos.295 and 328 of 2023, WP(Crimr r ri).No.162 of

2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specrfir a1ly directed that in the event of any application/appeal/ -, vision being filed by the owner or builder against nott issuance of completion certificate or for regularizatron o1' rnauthorized construction or rectification of der.iation, etc., iI c same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, i rcltLding the pending appeals/revisions, as expeditiously :rs possible, in any event not later thal 9O days as statutorily : -ovided I 1 . Since the grievance of the petitior er remalns unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS : pplication of the vendor of the petitioner, in light of the a i resaid order dated 28.O4.202 1 passed by a Division Bench rf tl-ris Court t in WPeIL) No.63 of 2O13 and its batch, :i:; well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour-- in Rajendra Kumar Barjatga's case (cited supra), the 2"d r :spondent is directed to process the application submitt i r bv the 3'1 respondent for regularization of unaut lr rrized/ illegal 9 construction, and to pass appropriate orders in accordalce 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 vendor of the petitioner, the 2"d respondent is directed to take appropriate action to redress the petitioner's grievance, strictly in accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, 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/.S.MALUKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ration, CC ComPlex'

1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Munici Lower Tank Bund HYderabad The Asst. CitY Planner Circle 18' Jubilee Hills' HYderabad' One CC to SR IR.ANU RAG, Advocate IoPUCI One CC to SRIM.ARU N KUMAR, Advo cate [O PUCI One CC to SRIPASHA M KRISHNA RE DDY, Advocate (oPUC) Two CD CoPies \ To

2. J 4 6 6 SA ,.lT \ \ z. ':_;::\. . ,.ri t c) {r t JAt 202i 'i:. HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 ORDER WP.No.10380 of 2019 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \/ \ r,\ f,' t\