Smt. J. Latha v. 1. State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or directions particularly in the nature of Writ of lVlandamus calling for the records pertaining the file No.BPS 1765llllKJlN2l2008 for regularization of the Building House Bearing 25-401731111, Gourishankar Mansion, NN/DC Colony, East Anandbagh, [/lalka.igiri, Hyderabad on the file the 3rd and 4th Respondent by declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the building of the petitioner despite of complete the formalities as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violative of Articles 14,16 & 21 of the constitution of lndia, discriminative in nature, ultra-virus and official bias, in the interest of justice I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPM P. NO: 4218 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151i 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 3rd & 4th Respondents to cornpfdte the process of the application pertaining to file No. BPS/765/IVKJ/N2/2008 for regularization of the Building Hguse Bearing 25-401731111, Gourishankar M-ansion, NMDC Colony, East Anandba$r, wel[aiOiri, I* EE Hyderabad without reference of the New Scheme 2015, ir re interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.V. RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR MUNICIPA- ADMINIS'IRATION & URBAN DEVELCIMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI G. MADHUSUDi AN REDDY (sc FoR GHMC) The Court made the following: ORDER L rE!,. a IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.331O of 2016 DATED: 22.12.2025 Between: J. Latha AND The State of Telangana. Rep. b"v its Principal Sccrelary., M.A & U.D, Dcpartment, Secretariat, Hvderabad and 3 others. ...Petitioner ... Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petitron is filed to declare thc action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not considenng the application of the petitioner uid.e No.BPS/765lMKJ lN2l2OO8, ior regularization of building bearing H.No.25-4O/731 1. I 1, situatcd at Gourishankar Mansion, NMDC Colony, East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Hl,derabad (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property'), as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 arld 27 o[ the Constitution of India and for consequential relief. ,(# L^'.1..1 |t/. P \o.i.) I0 of 2aIri ? .n;Jt t:

2. Heard Sri M.V.Raja Ram, lezrrned Courrs r . for- and Sri C} . N,ladhusudhan Rcddr,, learnecl S r I rd ing the pctitioncr Counsel ibr respondent Nos.2 to 4 (GHMC).

3. Brief facts of the case a s averred in r...: r alfidaviL :rre thar petitioner has t:onstructed a building consistinll .. l-1ocrs b_r, dlrl1. obLarning permission from M:LIk:rjtl ' Ground - 2 upper 'i Munrcip:rlit;' uit: pcrmission Na.G21206120O4, dated 08 04.2001 -hat ort r r: ri licaLior: of buildir-rg, r'trtrnicipal authorities i-rave assesst.c -he .proper t\- tax ar l{s.16.9381- rrlde Ictter daLed 18.09.2007 ancl rl t sarne \\'its pilic'l b\ the pctitroncr; th.it pelitioner \t.as paying prope r l tax regularl,v till 2Ol4-15. Hou,ever, the property tax for the ycar. 0 15- 1 6 s,as shor.rL as Rs.9,71 .610 I : thal on enquiry with rcsporir , came to know that the property tax from 2(l l nt No.4, ltetitioncr l- 13 onu,ards rvas cnhanccd ibr q'ant of BPS; that petitioner made Ln application uide irpplication No.BPS/765lMKJ lN2/2OO8, befor: respondent No.4 under BPS Schcme by paying Rs.5O,000,/- arr 1 the respondcnts Corpora[ion has issued a notice uide rotice No.765lC- t7 /2/GHMCl20, dated 05.05.2010, for payme- of Rs.2,03,430/, and also clirected the peEitioner to submit so re clocumcnts for scrutinv. Accordingly, petitioner paid thc sar- amount Lhrough Demand Draft bearing No.{QO397. dated 30.12 - ( 12, and submitted ,{) LNA,J W.P lto 33l0 of 2016 3 required documents and the same was acknowledge d by the respondents Corporation on 31.12.2012, but the same was kept pcnding till 07.03.2015; that o11 enquiry w.ith respondcnt No.4, petitioner w.as advised to submit fresh application :rgain under BRS- 2015 Scheme by paying Rs.10,000/- n'ith a market valuc certificate, D.C and other documents along u,ith latest tax pa).ment receipt. Aggricved by the same present u,riL petiuon is llleci.

1. Le arned counsel for the petitioner submitted th.rt as per G.O.Ms.No. 1i2 dated 31.O1.2008, respondents Corporation is supposed to regularize rhe building b""- collecting penal charges and as per the scheme, the entire process ought to have been completed rvithin a period of six months, but, the respondents. intentionally did not'proce ss the applicarion arbrtrarily, contrary to the scheme.

5. Counter has been filed on behalt of respondent No.4 stating that pctitioners filed an application for regularization of the building by remitting an amount of Rs.50,O0O/- as initial payment. Subsequently, the respondents Corporation inlormed the petitioner Lo pay the balance amount along with required documents for scrutiny, accordingly,. lhe petitioner has paid an amount of Its.2,03,43O/-, but the petitioner lailed to change the nature of land lrom residential to commcrbialty paying nccessary tee. Suppressing Ll:) .l ll..P lt1t.33l0 o/ 2t)i4 4 Lhe said fact, pr:titioncr liled an application se(r ( ns r-cgur:rrization ol building and ihus, the application hlcd bv tl.r rcLiiioncr. u,as keDr pe r-rcli n g. (.,. Learned Standir-rg Counsel lor responcleri Nos.2 t:r 4 u.olrld submir thrLt the Govr:rnment of Telangana has ntrocluced Building Rcqulaiizzrrion Schcrnc-2O15 uncler G.O.M: No.l 52 \lA. oi,. t)2. i 1.2015 for rcgularizarion ol building consLrl rtcd unar.Lil-rorizedh and in deviation to the sanctioned plan and :ris _r qir.cn opportunitr 1o the applicants of pending applications srti), irtcd undcr earlicr. BPS 2008 in tcrnis of G.O.NIs.No.gO1 MA dateci .' L l i.2O0;. LhrouglL l.",.rO"O online on or beloic 3l .12.20 15 and the said de r llinc r,r,as up to 01.01)..2O16: that the petitioner was inlortr t C 1o subntrt. rcviserd plan unde r URS-2O [ 5 frrr regularizatton. Sinr : the BpS 2O0E Schemc r,vers closed, the application filed by the )ctiLioner could nor be entertaincd and therefore, this writ petition ir; lcvoid of any meril ancl is iiablc to bc dismissed. CONSIDERATION:

7. Petitioner- has filed an applicati(): uide rel'erence No.BPS/765lMIi.J/N2/2.008, by paying is.50,000 / -, r, Hular izari,rt't ,,r thr- sui,,J,-ct. property The resp r rdcnts Corporatiorr after scrutinv, noticecl shortfall of document: and accordinglr', n LNA,./ W.P.No.33l0 o/2016 f addressed a letter dated 05.05.2010, informing the petitioner to submit some documcnts and accordinglv, the pctitioner submitted the said docllmcnts and also paid an amount ol Rs.2,03,430/ through Demancl Draft No.400397, datcd 30.12.2O12. As the :rpplica iion wil s pending for long time and aggrieved by the inordinate delay, petitioner approachcd respondent No.4 and the responclent No..1 inlormcd the petitioncr lo lilc fresh application under llRS - 2015 Scheme. Aggricved b1' thc same, present writ pctition is filcd

8. It is thc spccific contention of the petitioner that application for regularization of construction has been made under BPS - 2008 and as inlorrned by the respondents Corporation uide lelter datcd

05.05.201O, pelitioner has paid ar-r amount ol Rs.2,O3,430/- along u.ith rcquired documents and the same has to be considered under BPS - 2008 and therefore, the respondents committed error in not considering the applicalion on the ground that old BPS - 2OO8 was closcd and that no application can be entertained under said G.O.

9. It is the further case of petitioner that petitioner flle d the application under BPS - 2OO8 within time and for delay and laches on the part of respondepts C-orporation, petitioner cannot be penalized, more so, when BR$-[; 2OOB stipulated a time pcriod o[ 6 T,N-1 I ll. P No.33l0 ol 201{i 6 months for sc.rutiny and processing of appli(.r tion submif tecl lo: rcgr-rl.rrizar io n. (ln thc other hand, rcspor Jents Ccrr.ltorzrtiorr contenderd th.rt pelitioltcr has not taken an1, .tep to chrlngc the naLure of rhr: Iand l'rom residenlial to cor: rercial bv pavinq necessitr\' l-cr_- i: nci Lhcrelorc. thc samc cannoL bc ( ltertaine .1.

10. It is .r:lr:r:rnt to r.toLo tl-*rt thr: applicat,( I sutrmitlrd It' rhc petiliol)e. rtrrclcrr BPS - 2008 h:rs not been rejecL(), anrl pelitioner u.as dirccled Lo p.rv a sum of lls.2,O3,zl3o/- along u i h some <iocuments and thus, it has Lo be construed that applicatio has been penclinq lor consicler-:ttiorr ancl rcspondents Corporat r n ought to h:l c: entertaincci t he rL:r,ised plan and pass appropria., Orders in terms of BPS 2008 Schemc.

11. As pcr thc RPS 2008 Scheme, the zrppli,: Ltion subrnitted lor regulanzalion uas strpposed to bc processed u.i hin a perrod of sir months, hou'ever, no stcps have been taken I v the respondcnts Corporation to process the application filed rv the pctitioners. contrary to thc timc frame stipulaled under tl-r: Scheme and rvhen BRS - 20 l5 Scheme \\,as camc into existe - :e, petitioner was informcd to file iresh application under BRS - 20 15 Scl-rerne anci cxcept saying thal BPS:- 2008 u,as closed, no )ther reasons wcre :rssigncrl bv thc .."1r,ri'rddfirs Corporation. Th,, eibre', thc reasorL-s I,NA,.I W.P No.3310 of 2016 7 assigned by the respondents Corporatron Lhat petitioner's application cannot be cntertained in view of ciosure ol BPS 2008 is unsustainable. CONCLUSION:-

12. In thc hght of above, the u'rit petition is allowed and rcsponcients Corporation is directed to consicler thc petitioner's applicalion and pass appropriate Orders strictll in accordance rvith BPS - 2008 Scheme, in tcrms of G.O.Ms.No.901 MA, dated

31.12.2OO7 and G.O.Ms.No.112 MA, dated 31.01.2008 and rules framed Lhereunder and also the directions giverL by a Division Bcnch of this Court in WP (PIL).No.63 of 2076, dated 18.1O.2O76, withrn a period of three monlhs from the date of receipt of a copy of this Ordcr. There shall be no ordcr as to costs. Misccllaneous peLitions pending, il .rny, shall stand closed. SD/.P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,{(v SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// The Principal Secretary, l\'4 A & U'D Department' State of Telangana' Secretariat' ?il:T',"bf,*'..,""er and Director, ["lunicipal Administration' state of relangana Hyoerabad >ration, Hyderabad I . The G rea te r Hvd e ra bad M u n rci pa I c^9 roc tr{ lt"oirli l rt,o "e Thc Deputv co.r,rs,onet -t"!iiii *i: : :':" S' U J"itfi jft g*lSslll"llx';ar;Llfl ';lr'xi,"-LB'#(scrorcH^'{c)roPUCl Two CD CoPies BN GJP : ivi"iJo'a uuhicipal corporation Hyderabao , [ffi iS il,!1.5+3'fffi f' *' * u o' D E v E L o P I\4 E N r -WL I 1 I E To,

1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 HIGH COURT D ATED:2211212025 I ORDER WP.No.3310 of 2016 d J (j 1 ( I S q q r;rS ilffi t l ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /tr L- I_- i.L - lr ( vltl>".