The High Court · 2025

Petition under Sec{ion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in UCR No. GUMCM/1212014-15 dt.3-1- 2015 issued by i I I I I I i I I I I ! i the 2nd respondent by directing the 2nd respondent not to :emolish the building at door No. 1-10-295/1 of situated at Deen Dayalnagar, National High Way, Metpally, Karimnagar District pending disposal of the writ po tion. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI POLISETTY RADHA KRISI- NA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN'I RBAN DEV Counselfor the Respond'ents No'2 , l S|'I"TElffRlsHNp IEDDY' The Court made the following: ORDER (' d THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.E77 of 2Ol5 ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the confirmation Order in UCR No.Gl/MCMl12/2014-15, dated 03.0 1.20 15, of respondent No.2, without considering the explanation dated Ol.12.2Ol4, submitted by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri Polisetty Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the house bearing No.l-10-295/ I IN Sy.No. 1333/1 of Metpally Municipalit_r', admeasuring 808.33 Sq.yrds, originally belonged to grandfather of petitioner; that the petitioner has become owner of the sub_1cct property by virtue of registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.843 of 2013, dated 30.03.2013, executed by his father. As the house was constructed long back by his grandfather and the sarrle was in dilapidated condition, petitioner intended to construct a new building by removing existing old building and as such, he made an application to respondent No.2 for construction of residenlial building with stilt + G+3 upper floors and permission was sanctioned by respondent N<>.2 uide proceedings bearing No.Gl/5a/ 163 l2Ol3- I 2 14, dated 25.02.2014, basing on the approval of tegional DePutY Director, Warangal, uide proceedings bearing No'98{ dated 07.12.20 13. Petitioner has undertaken constr sanctioned plan without any deviations and hir construction. However, respondent No'2 had .r 26.11.2014 under Section 228(ll of A'P' Municip;t that building has been constructed in deviation < plan without providing setbacks on all sides; th submitted his explanation on Ol '12'2015' considering the said explanation and withor"L' respondent No .2 passed the impugned Order rl directing the petitioner to demolish the constructi /2013/wRo/w, rction as Per the completed the sued notice on ities Act, stating f the sanctioned rt petitioner has )wever, without proper notice, rted 03.01.2015, ,n made contrary to the sanctioned plan. Aggrieved by the sarne' plr sent writ Petition is hled. lcarned Counsel for the petitioner would filther submit that sanctioned Plan,

4. petitioner has constructed the building as per th( however, there is minor deviation, therefore, : submitted an application for regularizatior G.O.Ms.No.l52, MA & UD (M1), dated 02'11'2Ol !e petitioner has in terms of > vide application reference No.054 20i60301-10 and the same is 1r nding. He further submitted that this Court uide Order dated 2ll

11.2015, directed both the parties to maintain Status quo. ./ 0' o J

5. [,earned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 would submits that the application filed by the petitioner is pending consideration and once the BRS application is 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 plan or w,ithout permission, vide GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015. As per the said G.O., the application for regularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 60 days from the date of notification of the said Rules along with 5oo/o of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs. 10,0OO/- whichever is less. The competent authority, i.e., Municipal Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporations, Metropolitan Commissioner in case of HMDA, shall, on scrutiny of applications and inspection of sites, either approve or reject the applications and communicate the same -"' 4 to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, L -rt not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications.

8. The Regularization Rules were notified on () . 1 I .2015, as per which, applications for regularization were to be fi1 d within 60 days from the said notified date and the same wer. supposed to be processed within a period of six months from the I tst date of receipt of applications

9. The regularization scheme under GO. \ O2.L1.2015 was challenged in WP (PIL)'No.63 s.No.152, dated f 2016, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Benr: r of this Court on

18.10.2016 as under:- oWe consider i oppropnate, in such circt' modifu th.e earlier order, and direct that the a.: regularization be processed in accordant regularization scheme notifietl in G.O.Ms.,\ 02.11.2015. In case the GH,WC or the ot'' Corporations in the State of lelangana, aft t th.e applicaLions for regularization, decide request for regulariz,ation, it is open ammunicate the orders of rejection to t '' concerned, and thereafter take action for det illegal structures in accordance with lau. In cases ultere the GHMC, or the othe 1- Corporation.s, tentatiuelg decide to regulanz stntctures, .such a decision shall merelg be r: tstances, to >lications for z uith the >.152 dated r Municipal considering c reject tle o th.em to t applicants clition of the uch of those ' Municipal z the illegal :orded in the ./ 0 o 5 file, and stnll neither be giuen effect to nor sLnll it be communicated to the qpplicants, pending furltter 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 18.10.2016 passed in W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016 shall continue to operate till a decision is taken by the Supreme Court on W.P.(Civil) No. 1236 of 2020.

11. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaJendra Kumar Bartatga and qnother Vs. U.P, Aurrs Euam Vikas Parisho.d and othersL, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, UU K.Rc,mrrdas Shenog Vs. Chief Officers, Toutn Munlcipal CounciP, Dr. G.N.KhaJuria qnd others Vs. Delhi Development Authot-ttg and. otherd, M.I. Builders (Petltloner) Ltd. Vs. Rodheg Shgam Sahua, Esha Ekta Apartments Co-Op Houshtg Societg Limited Vs. Munlclpal Corporation of Mumbais, SupetAech Limlted Vs. Emerald Court Outner Resident Welfare Assoclatlon and otherss, Kerala Sto'te Costal Zone Management Authoritg Vs. t 2024 SCC Online SC 3767 'z lrsz+; z scc soo r (1995) 5 scc 762 o (1999) 6 scc 464 5 1zote.1 1;;cc lctvit; se 6 lzozr; ro scc t ^ 6 Maradu MuniclpalitglT, State of Haryana lls' Sr tpcF, has issued further directions in ,addition to the directio s. given in Re; Directlons ln the ma,lter o;f demolltion o;f str,r:tl,zres, vide order dated 13.11.2024 in WP(Civil).Nos.295 anc 328 of 2023, reme Court has WP(Criminal).No.162 of 2022. The Hon'ble Stl specifically directed that application/appeal/revision being filed by the )wner or builder 'ent of 3 against non-issuance of completion certilicate or li r regularization of unauthorized construction or rectification of devial on, etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerrr :d, including the pending appeals/revisions, as expeditiously as pos ;ible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided'

12. In the instant case, since the grievanct of the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of the I RS application, in the light of . the aforesaid order dated 28 .o4 . )- Division Bench of this Court in WP(PIL) No.63 ol 2 )2 I passed by a )13 and its batch, as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble )upreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya's case (cited supra), tL : respondents are directed to process the application submitted bi the petitioner for \ regular\;ation of unauthorized / illegal con str - :tion, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the irr erim order dated '(2021) L6sccgzz 8 (2023) 6 scc 643 J,.,. I I I I I I 1 I i i I I I I r.) 7

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 )ad respondent is directed to take appropriate action in respect of subject property strictly in accordance with law.

13. Subject to above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ,. D To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. T.SREEN ASSrS REDDY STRAR REGI SECTION OFFICER 1 The Principal Secreta ry, Municipal Administration a Depft, Telangana Se cretariat, Telangana State, 2. The Commissioner, Metpally Municipality, Metpal 3. One CC to SRI POLISETTY RADHA KR|SHNA, Ad 4. One CC to SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, SC FOR MUNtCtpALtry/MC. rban Development bad. rimnagar District. te. [OPUC] toPUCl

5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV, High Court br the State of Telangana. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies. BSK TKS Nr HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 ORDER WP.No.877 of 2015 dLr$t STATI t1 tts ts OESPAl /, * o t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS s r\* 7