The High Court · 2025

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 respondent No.2 not to demolish or otherwise interfere with the building in Door No- 4-8-89, Ir,4an.ieera Nagar, Kalvakunta, Sangareddy by suspendingthenoticesthenotiCesdated3l-3-2015videNo.G1/348/MC SRD/2015 and CO No. UCl24l2O15, pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MANOJ KUMAR REP SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY' SC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY 1VRIT PETITION No.11488 of 2015 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the Show-cause notice dated 31.03.2015 uide No.Gl/348/MC SRD/2015 and final Order dated 31.03.2015 in CO No.UC/2412015 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar representing Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 186 1 Sq.yrds, situated at Majeera Nagar, Sanga Reddy District, having acquired the same under three registered sale deeds i.e., sale deed Nos.4146, 4910 and 54 11 of 20 11 dated 27.O4.2O1L, l2.O5.2}ll and 27.05.2011 respectively; that petitioner applied and obtained permission for construction of two Cellars + Ground + four upper floors uide proceedings No.Gl/ 11 /2012, dated 29.02.2012 lrom respondent No.2 Municipality; that petitioner has completed the construction and also obtained fire clearance from the concerned depentment uide proceedings No.RC.No.38 1 / MSB / CR / MDK I 2014, dated 23S3.20 14. While the mattcr stood thus, respondent No.2 had issued two notices on 17 .O4.2O 15 i.e., Show-cause notice dated 2

31.03.2015 and final Order dated 31.03.2015, alleging that petitioner has erected Gate towards southern side in 10 to 12 feet road, erected gas pipe towards residential houses, fixed large number ol big size air conditioners, erected big size generator, erected electric transformer near to residential house, constructed compound wall on the municipal water supply pipe line and Stt' floor contrary to the sanctioned plan. Aggrieved by the sarne, present writ petition is filed. 4 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner had submitted an application for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152, MA & UD (M1), dated 02.11.2015 uide application No.BPS/53/2015 and the same is pending.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the application fiied 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 of Telangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized / illegal constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned pla, or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.l52, dated 02.lt.2OlS.As per the said G'o'' the apprication for regularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 60 days from the date of notification of the said Rules al0ng w.ith 50% of regurarization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs.1O,OOO/- whichever is less. The competent authority, i.e., Municipal Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporations, Metropolitar Commissioner in case of HMDA, shall, on scrutiny of applications ard inspection of sites, either approve or reject the applications and communicate the same to the apprica,t(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications. B. The Regular izati,on Rules were notified on O2.1 1.2015, as per which, applications for reguiarization were to be filed within 60 days from the said notified date and the same were supposed to be processed within a period of six months from the rast date of receipt of applications

9. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated (PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein was chalienged in Wp

02.r1.2075 interim directions were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 4

18.10:2016 as under:- "We consider it appropnate, in such circumstances, to mod{g tl'te earlier order, and direct that the applications for regulaization be processed in accordance utith the regularization scheme notified in G.O Ms'No'152 dated 02.11.2015. In case the GHMC or the other Municipal Corporations in the State of TeLangana' afier considering the applications for regulaitzation, decide to reject the request fo, regulaization, it is open to them to communicate the orders of rejection to the applicants concented, and thereafier take action for demolition of the illegal structures in accordance uith lau-t. In such of tlnse cases uthere the GHMC, or the oth-er Municipal Corporations, tentatiuelg decide to regularize the illegal sttuctures, such a decision shall merelg be tecorded in the fiLe, and shall neither be giuen effect to nor shall it be communicated, to the applicants, pending further orders from this Court."

10. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with a batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 28'04 '2021, with a direction that the interim order dated 1B'10'2016 passed in w.p.(pll).No.63 of 2016 shali continue to operate till a decision is taken by the Supreme Court on W.P'(Civil) No.1236 of 2O2O' 1 1. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble $upreme Court in Raiendra Kumar Bariatga and another Vs' U'P' 5 Aaas Eaqm Vikas parishad q.nd otherst t wherein the Hon,ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions , uiz., K.Ramadas Shenog Vs. Chief O!ftcers, Totrin Municipal Councip, Dr. G.N,Khajurta and others Vs. Delhi Deoelopment Authoritg and other$, M.I. Buitders (petifioner) Ltd Vs. Rad.heg Shgam Sahua, Esha Ekto. Apartments Co-Op Housing Societg Limited. Vs. Municipal Corporo;tion of Mumbais, Supertech Limited. Vs, Emerald, Court Ouner Resident Welfare Association and other*, Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authoritg Vs, Marq.du Municipalitgit, State of Haryana Vs. SatpaE, has issued further directions in addition to the directions given in Rer Directions in the matter ol d.emolition of structures, vide order dated 13.11.2024 in Wp(Civil).Nos.295 arrd 328 of 2023, WP(Criminal).No.162 of 2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifica,lly directed that application/appeal/revision being filed by the owner or builder against non-issuance of completion certificate or for reg,lar ization of the event of unauthorized construction or rectification of deviation, etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the 1 2024 SCC Ontine sc 3767 'z lrsz+; z scc soo ' (1995) 5 scc 762 ' lrsssj o scc +o+ I izor:y : scc (civit) 8e ' (2021) 10 SCC 1 ' (2021) 16 scc 822 ' lzoz:1 o scc o+: 6 pending appeals / revisions, as exp_editiousiy as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.

12. In the rnstant case, since the grievance of the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS application, in the light of the aforesaid order dated 28.04.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(PIL) No.63 of 2013 and its batch, as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatga's case (cited supra), the respondents are directed to process the application submitted by the petitioner for regularization of unauthorized/ ilIegal 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, the 2na respondent is directed to take appropriate action in respect of subject property strictly in accordartce with law.

13. Subject to above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Nl,iscellaneous petitions pending, if any, qhall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-B. REKHA RANI ISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER \ To, M

1. The Princip al Secretary, MuniciPal Administra n, and Urban Development 2. The Sanga Reddy MunicipalitY, Sanga ReddY, Department , Secretariat, Hyderabad. Medak District \"* 3 One CC to SRl. SREENTVASA RAO VEL|VELA. Advr 4 o;; cc i" sni Fijirl'xniSnllx nedbv !T AHSSite 5. rwo ccs to cp Fo.R u_urriiciinl-Aorr,r*rilisrirnrroN AND uRBAN . ?$yEr"3S=,Ir 'High court r".. ine stite bi-i.lii"i,l'r: ;t Hvolii6rd t6lii , . B M/DAN h,.7 [oPUC] I 1 \ HIGH COURT DATED:2511112025 ORDER WP.No.11488 ot 2015 I I 1 EH s ( I t t * t/l,t] 6 6?07 * R( DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 v- ).3