The High Court · 2025

Dt. .l .5.2015 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unre void and without following the principles of natural justice il and against the regularization scheme and set-aside the r regularization proceedings of the 1st respondent vide perrr 29.5 1 998 regularizing the ground floor flat of the petitic r direct the respondents not to demorish the petitioners house Laxmi Arcade, bearing lvlunicipal No. 2_2_647ll7lF, Srinivasanagar Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad. rsonable and null and rd due process of law ame and confirm the it No. 1 7'1l1 703.1 , Dt. er and consequenfly r the Ground Floor of Lakshmi Arcade, t.A. NO :1OF 2015(WPMP . NO: 21 395 0F 2015) Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court ma1 be pleased to direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioner,s house in 1re Ground Froor of Laxmi Arcade, bearing Municipal No 2-2-64717ilF Lakshmi Arcade, Srinivasanagar Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, penri rg disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI p. VISHNUVARDHANA REDI) / Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: SRI G. MADHUSUDI{ \N REDDY, S.C. FOR GHM(] Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4: SRI E. SHIVA KUMAF a The Court made the following: ORDER It HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION N o.16466 of 201 5 ORDER: This Writ Petirion is flled to issue a writ of' Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Order No.647lACP/TpS/Cir-lX/CZIGIIMC, dated

01.05.20 15, olrespondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary ro rhe regularization scheme and to set aside the same and consequently. to direct respondent Nos. I and 2-Corporation not to demolish the petitioner' house in Ground Floor of Laxmi Arcade bearing Municipal No.2-2-647 l71iF, Srinivasanagar Colony, Bagh Amberpet, I.tyderabad (hereinaftcr rel'crred to as'subject flat').

2. Heard Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Counsel lor petitioner, Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel lor rcspondent Nos. I and 2. Though, Sri E.Shiva Kumar, learned Cor.rnsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, did not appear before this Court

3. Learned counseI lor petitioner submitted that petitioner purchased a land admeasuring 40 square yards under registered sale deed No.79611995, dated 07.03.1995, and subsequently entered into \r' - -+rF!rgl \'l \ \ \ LNA,J It ' No 16466 of2015 - 2 agreement with the builder on29.12.1995 for construr ion of a flat; that the subject flat rvas constructed in stilt floor of I-axrni Arcade; and that the same was rcgularized vide Perrnit No.l7ll1703 l. r ated 29.05.1998. IJe lurther subrnitted that one K.Ramadevi ancl wo othels filed W.P.No.24463 o1200 I and the sanle was disposed,r with a direction to resporldents thelein to consider ltre representatiorr r atecl 05.08.200 I , within a period of 4 weeks and therealter, contempr vas llled and the same was closed, since the petitioner's f'lat was reguLr rized. He further submitted that pctitioner has flled a suit vide O.S.i\r,. i523 of 2002, on the file of X Junior Civil Judgc, City Civil Court Hlrderatrad, fbr injunction and in the said suit, respondent Nos. I -r rd 2-Corporation trled the written statement stating that petitioner g< t regularized the subject flat by playing lraud, how,ever, the said sui was decreed by judgment dated 26.04.2004

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that respo r lent Nos.l and 2- Corporation issued proceedings vide Lr.No.64l/11 | 1212102108, dated

10.07.2008 to the developer for dernolition of flat [, revoking Permit No.462i20, dated 30.06.1994, under Section 450 ol'( HMC Act, 1955; that petitioner fited W.P.No. 14997 of 2008. challenging the { LNA,.] W.P.No. l6166 ctf 2015 3 proceedings dated 10.07.2008, whereas one T.Ramalingeswara Sharma filed Writ Petition vide Writ Petition No.745 ol 2008, challenging the actron ol respondents ln not cancclling the regularization of the petitioner's flat,vide permitNo. 17lll703l, dated 29.05.1998; rhat both the said Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated

04.08.2014, setting aside the proceedings dated 10.07.2008, with libety to respondents' corporation to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, alter duly considering the explanation of the petitioner, in accordance with the procedure laid down under GHMC Act; and that respondent No.2, tn compliance ol the said common Order, issucd show cause notice dated I 5. I 2.20 t4, under Sections 452(l) and a6l(1) ol HMC Act, 1955, to the petitioner; that petitioner submitted her explanation dated 07.04.2015, however, respondent No.2 issued impugned proceedings dated 01.05.20 15, mechanically, by rejecting the reply submitted by the petitioner. He further submitted that subject flat was regularized in the year 1998 as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.24i, MA, dated 22.05.1996 and the impugned proceedings were issued, about l7 years after regularization, without referring to the said G.O. He further submitted that petitioner } LNA,J l P.No 16466 of 201 5 4 has been pa)'ing house propefty tax from the date ol ,onstruction in the y ear 1996 and that the sub.iect flat was regularrzt J on payment ol Rs.22,000/- and also on compliance of necessary i quirements under G.O.Ms.No.243, Mn, dated 22.05.1996. He ltrrtl':r submitted that scheme of regularization was to lacilitate the regularization ol unauthorized constructions on payment of penaltv I nd compound fee and the impugned proceedings issued by the respo: dent No.2 clearly shows that the satne was passed, rvithout examiLr rg the case of the petitioner and without referring to the said G.O, onl , on the grourrd that the subject flat was constructed in stilt portion * I ich is exclusively rreant for parking purpose. He finally subrritted tit t once the subject flat was regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.243,\4r darcd22-05.1996, it is not open lor respondent Nos. I and 2-Cor; rration to initiate proceedings oncc again and adjudicate the matter af c'sh and hence, the impugned proceedings dated 01.05.20 l5 is I ad in law and unsustainable and prayed to allorv the Writ Petitiort

4. Leamed Standing Counsel lor respondcnt Nos.l and 2 by relerring to the counter submitted that original y permission was granted for construction of residential building : ,rlsisting of stilt+3 7 LNI,J W P No. 16,166 ol 2015 5 upper floors vide permit No.462l20, dated 30.06. 1994 with a condition that party should not convert the parking space in the stilt floor into any other purposes, as per the underraking dated 01.12.1993, however the subject flat was constructed in stilt floor parking area contrary to the sanctioned plan and that the petitioner herein by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts, got the subject prope rty regularized vide Perrrit No.17 ll1703l, dated 29.0-5. 1998. IIe lurther submitted that respondents' Corporation has taken steps against the itlegal construction in compliance o1- common Order dated 04.08.2014 in W.P.Nos.745 and 14997 of 2008, inspected the site and noticed that subject flat was constructed in the stilt floor which is meant for parking in violation of the provisions of HMC Act, 1955, building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan, therefore, respondents' corporation has rightly issued notice dated

15.12.2014, undcr Sections 452(l) and 46l(l) of HMC Acr; thar respondents' Corporation has considered the reply dated 07.04.20 15, submitted by the petitioner, as the reply submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory; the permit No..160i20, dated 30.06. 1994 was revoked vide proceedings dated 10.07.2008 by exercising powers under Section 450 of HMC Act, 1955 and by duly following the procedure under law I-NA.,1 ii P.lt'o. 16166 of 2015 6 He funher submitled that respondent No.l has i ,: ued notice under Section 636 ol HMC Act, 1955. dated 04.06.20 I: and directed the petitioner to vacate and remove the authorized sull i:t flat cotlstructed in the stilt floor. Leamed Standing Counsel for respc rdent Nos. I and 2 finally submitted that writ petition is devoid o1- rry merit and the petitioner is not entitled to seek indulgence ol- this ( ,urt. as the subject flat was constructed in clear violation ol the sl ctioned plan and therefore, the Writ Petition is liabte to be dismissed

5. Perusal of the record discloses that origina L, permission was obtained for construction of residential building c t I sisting o1' stilt + 3 upper floors vide pemit No.460/20, dated 30.06. lt)C I and it is relevant to notc that the said permission was subject to ,:,ndition that pafty should not convert the parking space in the stilt oor lor any other purposes, as per the undertaking dated 0l . 12.199.1 lL is not in dispute that the subject flat has been constructed in stilt flct r. which is in clear violation of the sanctioned plan and the UndertakirLl dated 0t.12.1993. Though it is contended that the subject flat ur-. regularized under G.O.Ms.24l MA. dated 22.05.1998, it is the specil : contention olthe LNA,J W.P.No 16466of2015 1 respondents' corporation that regularization was obtained by suppressing the said facts.

6. Be that as it may, the respondents' corporation has revoked Permit No.462120, dated 30.06.t994 by exercising powers under Section 450 ol HMC Act vide proceedings, dated 10.07.2008, and the said proceedings was challenged b,v the petitioner by filing W.P.No. 14997 ol 2008 on the ground that the said proceedings were issued in the name of the builder but no notice was issued to the petitioner. Another Writ Petition ulde Writ Petition No.745 of 2008 was filed by one T.Ramalingeswara Sharma challenging the action of respondents-Corporation in not cancelling the regularization of the petitioner's subject flat. Both thc said Writ Petitions were disposed of by this Court, vide Common Order dated 04.08.2014, by setting aside the proceedings dated 10.07.2008 and liberty was granted to respondents' corporation to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law by duly following the procedure laid down under GHMC Act. I -.P.i\to. LNA,J 16466 of 2015 8

7. llere, it is apt to note that the impugnecl proceedings were purporf edly issued by the respondcnts-Corporation ir. contpliance of the contmon order passed by this Courr in Writ petition I jos. I4997 and 745 o1'2008. Thc issue involved in Writ perition No.7,1.. of 200g was with regard to regularization of the petitioner,s subj,:, t flat, u.hich the petitioner therein sought to cancel. A pen-rsal of cor- rnon order passed in Writ Petition Nos.745 and 14997 of 200g goes ro show rhat rhis Couft has not delved into the merits of the case rnd rnercly on the ground that the proceedings dated 10.07.200g : Lallenged in Writ Petitio, No. I 4997 of 2008 were issued to rhe burl ler and not to the petitioner herein, this Courl set aside the said pr I :eedings, whereby Perrnit No.460120, dated 30.6.1994, was revokeI This Court has. horvever, given liberty to the respondents-Corporar i rn to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and, after receiving c <planation, il any, fiorn the petitioner, to follow the due procedur... Iaid dou,n in the GI IMC Act and pass appropriate orders in accordarr -. , ivirh lau,.

8. The contention of the respondents_Corp I ation is that in compliance of the aloresaid comrnon order passetl by rhis Court, the irrpugned proceedings were issued. This Cour has scrrrpulously LNA,.] W.P.No. 16466 of 2015 9 perused the impugned proceedings. In the impugned proceedings, there is no mention or whisper with regard to the regularization of the petitioner's subject flat, which was said to be regularized as per GO.Ms.No.243, MA, dated 22.05.1996. The respondents-Corporation has not adverted to the regularization proceedings of the petitioner's subject flat, the cancellation of which was subject matter in Writ Petition No.745 of 2008. Therefore, it. is implied that the regularization proceedings of the petitioner's subject flat is still subsisting, and in such an event, the respondents-Corporation without going into the root of the issue, the genesis of the matter, i.e., regularization proceedings issued in respect of the subject flat of the petitioner, havc issued the impugned proceedings. The true letter and spirit of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.745 and 14997 of 2008, in compliance of which the present imptrgned proceedings werc issued, is lound missing

9. It is common knowledge that as per the regularization scheme, unauthorized constructions are regularized on payment of prescribed penalty and compounding fee. [n the instanl case, the subject tlat, which was constructed in the stilt floor, was regularized as per GO.Ms.No.243, MA, dated 22.05.1996, vide Permit No. l7ll1073l, .t- !E.. -..:qr,il '-) \, I,NA,J tl P No 16466 of2015 r0 dated 29.05.1998. ln other words. vide Permit Nr,. l71i 1073 l. dated

29.05.1998, the petitioner's subject flat was regularize 1 way back in the year 1998. Therefore, the respondents-Corporation rave to primarily deal and consider the issue of regularization of the ) )titioner's subject flat and lollow due procedurc contemplated ur.< er law and the provisions ol the GHMC Act in case they intend t , take any action against the subject flat. However, such an exercise \\ rs not undertaken by the respondents-Corporation and it had straig r away issued the impugned proceedings lor initiation of action lor removing/pulling down the petitioner's subject flat

10. ln the above analysis of the case, this CoLr r is of considered opinion that thc rcspondents-Corporation have not bllowed the due procedure contemplated under Iaw while initiating ction against the subject flat, which is alleged to have been unauthor i edly constructed Hence, this Couft deems it appropriate to remand he matter to thc respondents-Corporation for fresh consideration in a:;ordance with the provisions olthe GHMC Act E a - LNA,J ll P No. I6466 of 20I 5 It. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of and the matter is remanded to the respondents-Corporat ion with a dircction to consider the entire issue afresh, i.e., the issue with regard to cancellation or otherwise of the regularization of the petitioner's subjcct flat, follow due procedure contemplated under law and the provisions ol the GHMC Act and pass appropriate orders thereon, by duly issuing notice and giving opporrunity ol hearing to the petitioner and ali other pafties concemed, and accordingly, takc nccessary steps in pursuance thereof.

12. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. I i To //TRUE COPY// 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER MuniciPal Corporation' Saifabad ' a 4 Tank Bund, HYderabad. The Deoutv Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Circle rlo. g, Auios, HYderabad. One CC to SRI P. VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI One CC to SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' S C for GHMC [OPUC] One CC to SRI E. SHIVA KUMAR' Advocate [OPUCI 6 Two CD CoPies WMP t I IIGH COURT DATE ):2511112025 I 3'l HE SIAr. ,,J J 3 17 JANir; z t c ,//. ORDER WP.No, 16466 of 2015 DISPOSING OF THE V! RIT PETITION WIT HOUT COSTS a 1 tb \ t,