The High Court · 2025

disposal of the Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.6 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition , 2

4. The casc of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit, in bricf, is that she is aggrieved by the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.97()9 <tf 2024, dt.18.O4.2O24, whereby this Court had directed the r.espondents-authorities to take action against the construction nrade by the petitioner and her son in the premises bearing Nos.6 3 ll77 /Al 120 and 6-3-tlTZ lA/104, admeasuring 400 sq. yards in B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad, as the said order has been passed without making them parties to the said writ petition. Henc,r, thc present Writ Petition.

5. Pctitioner contends that she had purchased a portion of the property bearing House Nos.6-3-II77 /A/12O and 6-3-t177 /A/ lO4 admeasuring 20O sq. yards along with a construction in 1OO sq. feet having RCC roof, under a registered sale deed bearing No.L525l2O2'2. d1.O7.O5.2O22; and that her son namely Cheguri Eswar Sai Kishore has purchased the remaining portion of the aforesaid house property admeasuring 2OO sq. yards on the same date uide registercd sale deed bearing No.lS26l2O22, and are in possession of tl're said property.

6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that herself and her son have approached the respondents-authorities and made application individually, seeking building permission in respect of the propertFpurci'rased by them under the aforementioned two sale I 3 deeds; that the respondents-authorities by considering the applications made by her granted building permission on 23.06.2022 for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors; and that her son was also granted building permission in respect of the portion of the property purchased by him uide building permission, dt.O4.O7 .2022, for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors. It is the further case of the petitioner that since, both the 7. petitioner's property and her son's property are adjacent to each other, the petitioner along with her son decided to develop the entire extent oi 40O Sq. Yards into a single building consisting of Ground + 4 Upper Floors, and have accordingly made an application to the authorities on 23.02.2023 seeking revision of plan, and since, the said application was not returned on any ground nor rejected, the petitioner and her son started the construction and completed the building.

8. Petitioner further contends that due to certain reasons, like stability and vastu, the petitioner and her son constructed Sth floor also and an application was submitted to the 2nd respondenL on O1.06.2024 seeking regularization of [he cntire building including 5tr' floor constructed by them under Section 455A of the GHMC Act, 1955 (for short'the Act, 1955). I 4

9. Petitioncr- iurther contends that while she and her son have made an application seeking revision of the permission and also submitted an application for regularization of construction made by them including Srh floor, thc 4m respondent herein had issued a Speaking Order, dr.O3. 1O.2023, directing rhe petitioner and her son to remove the construction which is made in deviation of the sanctioned plan within I 5 days, even though the application submitted by the petitioner alorlg with her son seckrng regularization of the construction is pending consideration with the 2nd respondent.

10. It is the lurther case of the petitioner that the 4d respondent addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of police, West Zone, Hyderabad referring to rhe order of this Court in W.p.No.9799 of 2024, stating that the Hon'ble Court had directecl the GHMC authorities to takc action against the unauthorized and illegal construction made by Eswar Sai Kishore, who is the son of the petitioner, and as the GHMC authorities are going to remove the said construction, and thus, sought for being given police aid to prevent any breach of law and order. I 1. Petitioner further contends that on coming to know of the same, she got verified the order passed by this Court in W.p.No.9799 of 2024 and obrained online copy of the same; that on going through the said order, she had learnt that one p.Narender describing himself ) as resident ol House No.6-3- 1 177, B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad, has Illed the said Writ Petition alleging that the 6e respondent therein namely Shanta Srivasta @ Shanta Devi @ Shantabai is making unauthorized and illegal construction in the premises bearing No.6-3- 1 177 I l2O & lO4 and despite he approaching the respondents-authorities, no action has been taken thcreon

12. tt is the further case of the petitioner that the said P.Narender while approaching this Court by liling a writ petition uide W.P.No.9799 of 2024 claiming himself to be resident of house No.6- 3-1177, B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, did not liie any documents in support of his claim of he residing in the said premises or as regards the 6th respondent therein making any construction in the neighbourhood, and that he atso did not implead the petitioner or her son as party respondents to thc said writ petition. I 3. Petitioner further contends that this Court merely basing on the affidavit filcd in the said writ petition and the alleged complaint dt.29.O8.2O23, stated to have been liled with the respondents- authorities, had passed the impugned order; and that this Court while passing the order in the aforesaid writ petition had taken note of the submission made on behalf o[ the 6th respondent i-e., Shanta Srivasta @ Shanta Devi @2 Shantabai, that shc is no more and during \ 6 her lile time shr: having sold thc said propertl, to one Nagarjuna, and thus, the 611, rcspondent therein ts ln no \!,a-y conce:ned \^,ith the constructlon.

14. On behalf of the petitioner it is further contended that though the iearned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents-GHMC in the aforesaid writ petition had brought to the notice ol this Court that one Eswar Sai Kishore(petitioner's son), who had obtained building permission, had made construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan, and this Court despite noting the aloresaid submission mzrde, choose to proceed u,ith the samc without making them as partics to the said case, and passed the impugned order directing the respondents-authorities to take action as per the Act.

15. It is the lurther contention of the petitioner that based on the order of this Court directing the respondents-authorities to take action against the construction made by the petitioner's son, the respondents-GHMC authorities have addressed a letter seeking police aid for causing demolition [o the building.

16. It 1s the lurthcr case of the petitioner that since, this Court had passed an order in Writ Petition. No.9799 ol 2024, at admission stage, withour impleading thc affected parties and that the 6fi respondent against whom reliel had been sought thr:rein being no I 7 way connected with the subject property, the petitioner and her son having sought for regr-tlarization of the construction made by them by making an application under Section 455A of the Act, 1955 with the 2nd respondent-authority and the said application being pending and also that the application madc by the pctitioner seeking permission lor construction of Stilt + 4 Upper floors was neither returned nor rejected on any ground by the authorities, the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9799 of 2025 is unsustainable, and is liable to be set aside.

17. Petitioner lurther contended that since, the order of this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024 is passed by a Single Judge of this Court and since, the said order as passed affects the rights ol the petitioner, she has filed a r.r'rit appeal uid-eW.A.No.468 of 2024 onder Clause 15 of Lctters Patent before a Division Bench of this Court, and the said appeal was disposed of on 05.06.2024-

18. Petitioner contends that the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ appeal had observed that the order of this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024 will not be binding on the petitioner, as she was not made as party to it; and that the Division Bench while disposing of the said appcal had granted liberty to the a fresh writ petition petitioner to flle a review petition or file order in W.P.No.9799 ol 2024, and thus, the challenging the .S petitioner herern had liled the present Writ Petition challenging the ordcr in W.P.No.c.)799 of 2024 on her behalf as u,ell as on behalf of her son nam.elg llswar Sai Kishorr:, who is living in LJSA at present and as such being unable to approach this Court

19. By contending as above, thc petitioner sccks for setting aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, dt.18.o4.2024

20. Per contra, learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respective respondents woul<1 contend that the present Writ Petition as filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed in l.imtni as the petitioner is not e ntitlcd for being granted any reliel having made construction in deviation of the building permissions obtained by her and her son.

21. Learned Standing Counsel further. submits that the petitioner and her son namely Eswar Sai Kishore, on purchasing the property bearing house Nos.6-3-1177 lA/120 & 104, admeasuring 4O0 sq. yards in two parts, each admeasuring 2OO sq. .yards, have approached the respondents-authorities and submittecl applications seeking two separate building pcrmissions for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors, which were duly granted by the authorities urde permissions, dt.23.06.2022 and dt.04.O7.2022, respectively, 9 specifying the permitted construction area of the building with a height of 6 meters with setbacks of 1.5 meter on the front, and 1 meter on rear, side 1 and side2 to be maintained by each of the applicants, respectiveiy.

22. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that though the petitioner and her son have obtained separate building permissions, the petitioner while undertaking construction had clubbed the two portions of the subject house, in respect ol which two separate permissions have been obtained, and made construction of a single building consisting of Stilt + 4 upper floors, thereby violating the building permit orders.

23. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that if only the petitioner and her son intended to make construction of one building by clubbing the entire extent of land admeasuring 400 sq' yards, the petitioner could have made an application, which could have been considered and granted by the respondents by appiying the setbacks as would be applicable in respect of plot of land admeasuring 40O sq. yards rather than obtaining separate permissions for 2OO sq. yards for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors for which setback norms are different from that of the plot of iand admeasuring 400 sq. Yards. I 10

24. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner and her son though have obtained separate building permissions for construction ol Stilt + 2 Upper floors, made construction of single building by clubbing the aforesaid permissions into one unit and thereby violated Section 7 (2) ot TG-bPASS Act, 2O2O (for short .the Act, 2O2O\, under which the petitioner and her son had obtained separate / individual building permit orders.

25. On behalf of the respondents it is also r:ontended that the petitioner and her son on obtaining building permrt orders and proceeding with the construction in deviation of the said permissions, the authorities have issued show-cause notice, d,t.O6.O9.2023 calling upon the petitioner and her son to show cause as to why action should not be initiated; that though the aforesaid notices were duly served, as no response was submitted, the authorities have passed a Speaking Order, dt.O3. 1O.2O23, holding the construction made by them is in deviation of the permissions, dt.23.O6.2O22 and dt.04.07.2022, and are liable ro be proceeded being in violatron of the provisions of the Act, 1955 ernd Act, 2O2O and the Telangana Building Rules, 2012.

26. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the aforesaid speaking order nas sent by registcred post and u,as duly received by the petitioner's son; and that the petitioner nor her son, who had l1 received the aloresaid speaking order, did take any steps to challenge the same, if were aggrieved by the same, and on the other hand, allowed the said speaking order to attain finality.

27.. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that insofar as application submitted on the TG-bPASS web portal on 23.02.2023 seeking revised building permission from that of Stilt + 2 Upper floors to Stilt + 4 Upper floors uide File No.002 178/ GHMC/ tO83 I KHB2l2O23-BP(REV)(23 I 02 l2o2sl is concerned, the same was rejected by the authorities categorizing the aforesaid proposal under high risk category; and that the petitioner did not challenge the said rejection order till date.

28. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents would further submit that while the revision of the building pian submitted by the petitioner and her son on 2l\.02.2023 for Ground + 4 Upper floors despite being rejected, proceeded with the construction and in fact made further construction of 5& floor, which the petitioner now claims as is on account of viabilify and vastu, which claim of the petitioner cannot be allowed, as the same is alien to law. 29 . Learned Standing Counsel further submits that though petitioner received both the show-cause notice and the speaking order r.l'ith regard to the construction made by them being held as T2 made in deviation of the sanctioned building permit order and thus, unauthorized .nd illegal construction, had kept quite although this period and it is only after the unofficial respondent approaching this Court in April, )O24 alleging inaction on the part ol.thc rcspondcnts- authorities in c'o,sidering his application bringing to the notice or the authorities of rhe unauthorizid and illegal construction being made, chose to file initially Writ Appeal and thereafter the present writ petition. Learned standing counsel wourd also submit that the petitioner had submitted application under Section 455A of.the Act, 1955 on O1.06.2024, seeking regularization of the aforesaid unauthorizccl anrl illegar construction macle by them, just bcrorc thc petitioner filing a Writ Appeal, against the ordcr of this Court in W.P.No.9799 ol 2023, on 03.06.2024.

30. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot seek regularization of the .unauthorized and illegal construction n'rade by her by submitting an application and the respondents-aLlthorities cannot regularize the said unauthorized and illegal construc[ion, on mere asking of the applicant.

31. Learned standing counser further submits that an application under Section 4554, of the Act can be filed seeking regularization of the construction made without obtaining permission. However, as per the Scheme of the Act, such construction can be regularized subject to such construction meeting all the parameters laid down in the relevant Statutes, Master Plan, Zonal Development Plan, Building Bye-Laws, Building Rules and other relevant government orders including A.P. Firc Service Act ancl the National Building Code, and paying penalty cquivalent to 33% ol Lhc various ca[egorics of fees and charges payable, and not otherwisc.

32. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the building constructed by the petitioner is in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The application submitted does not confirm to the mandate provided under Section 455A of the Act, for the petitioner cannot claim of she being entitled to seek regularization of the said unauthorized and illegal construction made in violation of the Rules in force.

33. Learned Standing Counsel by referring to the alleged application submitted by the petitioner under Section 455A of the Act would submit that even by the said application, the petitioner is only seeking regularization of the construction made by her and her son of Stilt + 4 Upper Floors and is silent with regard to the Stl' floor constructed by them without any permission or sanction lrom the authorities, and as such, the said application cannot be considered. t l4

34. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the petitioner whilc making application though had invoked Section 455A as well as 455AA of the Act, in order to consider the said application unrlcr Section 455A of the Act, the construction so made should complv u irh the requirements/ norms as provided under the Rules. lnsofar as Section 455AA of the Act is concerned, the said provision would be applicable only in respect of applications which have been macle seeking regularization of the constructions made in deviation o[ the sanctioned plan as on 28. 10.20 15, for which the Government had issued Building penalization Scheme(BpS). lrarned Star-rdir-rg Counsel submits that since, the petitioner made construction su bsequently in deviation of the permissions obtained, the said provisrort has no application.

35. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner had submitted application under Section 455A of the Act only on

01.06.2024, and immediarely thereafter had liled a writ appeal on

03.06.2024, and the present Writ petition on 07.O6.2024, the said application is under consideration and necessary orders would be passed thcre in; and that based on the orders passed, the respondents-autl-rorities would take further action in accordance with law. 15

36. Learned Standing Counsel thus, submits that in either way, the application submitted by the petitioner both under Sections 455A and 455AA of the Act, does not merit consideration, and thus, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

37. I have taken note of the aforesaid contentions urgcd.

38. Firstly, it is to be noted that the correctness or otherwise of an order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in a Writ Petition cannot be assailed before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in anoLhcr Writ l)ctition. Such coursc of action resortcd to wiruld be lcgal impropriety, would lead to judiciat indiscipline.

39. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that in the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court having granted liberty to the petitioner to seek review or liling a lresh writ petition against the order in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, dt.18.O4 2024, and thus the petitioner being entitled to file the present Writ Petition, it is to be noted that tiberty granted by the Division Bench to file a lresh Writ Petition does not entitle the petitioner to call in question the order of the learned single of this Court in another writ petition before a Coordinate Bench of the same Court, and is conltned only to the rclevant factors not being brought to the notice of the Court by the pctitioner6,v.lo had filed the earlier petition or facts stated therein l6 being wrong, rcsulting in this Court passing the said order, alfecting the rights of the petitioner herein.

40. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that having regard to the dc'cisions of the Supreme Court Shludeu Slngh a. State oJ Punjabl as well as the Division Bench of this Court in Pala us.lasa Pad.manabham u. State o:f A.p.2, the Division Bench having granted libcrry to file fresh r.r,rit petition, it is to be noted that the Division Bcn< h h:rd grzrnted liberty to the petitioner to either seek review of the .r'dt:r or file a fresh Writ petition, which by itself cannot be construed as if the petitioner being entitied to maintain the present Writ l)etition without there being any new facts or the facts considered by ihis Court in W.p.No.9799 of 2024, being incorrect or at varlance

41. The de<:ision of the apcx Court in Shiod.eu Singh,s case(l supra), which has bccn relcrred r-o by the Division Bench while granting libertr. to the petitioner to seek review or filt: a fresh Writ Petition was considered by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Aribam Tuleshuar Sha,rma a. Aribann pishak Shanna and. t AIR 1963 sc 1909 ' 2oo3(4) ALD 449(DB) l7 Otherd, and the Apex Court in the said decision held that the petitione r would only be entitled to seek review of the judgment.

42. The petitioner admittedly, did not take any steps to seek review of.the order of this Court in W.P'No.9799 of 2024, by brining to the notice ol the Court that the facts considered therein are contrary to the record, and thus, the Court having arrived at an erroneous decision therein.

43. On rhe other hand, a reading of the order of this Court in W.P.No.9799 ol 2024 would show that though the peti tioner ' therein had claimed the 6h respondent therein making unauthorized and illegal construction and that the respondents-authorities not taking any action against such unauthorized and illegal construction, this Court taking note of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel of the said construction being made is by one Bswar Sai Kishore, i.e., the son of the petitioner herein, and the respondents- authorities having issued show-cause notice, dt.O6.09.2023 and thereafter passing a Speaking Order on O3.IO-2O23, and the said Speaking Order, having attained finality, and being forwarded to the Nodal Officer on 16.04.2024 for enforcement in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1955 and Act, 2O2O, had directed the respondents-authorities to take further action thereagainst, which I 1t,t;u1 + Suprenic Court Cascs 389 t8 has already been held by the respondents-authorities themselves to be unauthorizcd and illegal construction made by said Eswar Sai Kishore in deviatiorr o[ the sanctionc'd plan.

44. Thus, the said order ol this Court cannot be said as either erroneous or having failed to consider the relevant materials, for the petitioner to seek for setting aside the said order without showing that the facts considered therein to be not correct.

45. Though on behalf of the peritioner it has been contended that the petitioner having sought for regularization of the construction made by her in cicviation ol thc building permit order, as righrly pointed out I>y the learned Standing Counsel that the said application under Section 455A or 455AA of the Act had been submitted only on O1.06.2024 and not before, and as such cannot be said as pending consideration on the date when this Court had passed the sairl order on I8.O4.2024 and this Court having failed to take note ol the same while considering the said writ petition and passing orders the rein.

46. The subsequcnt filing of thc application by the petitioner under Section 4554. of the Act cannot be considered as a fact, which was existing as on the date when the unofhcial respondent herein had approached this Court by alleging inaction on the part of the L9 respondents aurhorities in dealing with the unauthorized and illegal construction, lor the petitioner herein to claim of the unofficial respondent hercin having approached this Court by not making her as party or this Court having passed an order without impleading her in the said u'rit Petilion.

47. lf only the construction made by the petitioner is in accordance with the initial building permit order obtained by her or further regularization as sought for by her having been acceded to by the authorities, thereby the authorities being prevented to take any action against the aforesaid construction and by virtue of the order of this court, the respondents-authorities initiating action affecting the rights / interest, the petitioner can seek that relevant facts having not been considered bY this Court.

48. On the other hand by the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel it would be clear that the petitioner and her son having been issued with show-cause notice with regard to the construction made/being made by them in deviation of the sanctioned building pcrmit order, and having kept quite, resulting in the authority passing the speaking order, dt-O3.1O.2023, holding the aforesaid construction to be unauthorized and illegal, and the said order having attained tinality, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents-authorities to take action to deal with the said 20 unauthorized and illegal construction made, in exercise of powers conferred on tlie said authorities under the Act, 1955 and Act, 2020, without thc unofficial respondents having to approzrch this Court at the first instance.

49. Since, the unolficial respondcnts herein being aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in dealing with unauthorized and illegal construction, having filed the writ petition uide W.p.No.9799 of 2024, and this court in the said writ petition having taken note of the fact of the respondents-authorities having passed a Speaking Order and the said order having been forwardcd to the Noclal Officer on the frnality, had onlv directed the authorities to take r.l,hich the respondents-authorities are in a way required to uildertake under t hc Act. ThLts, the claim of the petitioner in the present writ l)etition that the saicl order in the underlying Writ petition having been passed without notice to them and thus being liable to be set aside, is devoid of merit. further action. same attaining

50. It is also to be noted that the petitioner having made construction in deviation of the buitding permission obtained by her and also the application made for revision of the building plan for Stilt + 4 Upper l.'loors having bcen re.lected, still continued/proceeded with the construction not only in terms of the revised plan but also made further construction of 5th floor. for which \ 2I there is neither an application for revised permission nor seeking regularization, and as such the petitioner cannot claim this Court having passed an order u'ithout issuing notice to them.

51. Further, it is also to be noted that the petitioner having made unauthorized and illegal construction, cannot plead of violation of principles of natural justice or equity, when the unofficial respondent had approached this Court questioning the inaction of the respondents-authorities in considering his representation/complaint and taking action against the unauthorized construction being complained of, by discharging their duties under the Act, 1955. It is settled position of law that even a stranger or passer-by on the Road can lodge a complaint with regard to unauthorized and illegal construction and need not be an aflected party.

52. Thus, considered from any angle, the endeavour of the petitioner in the prescnt Writ Petition appears only to protect the unauthorized and iltegal construction made by her and her son, without obtaining valid permission and in deviation of the sanctioned building permit order and in violation ol the tsuilding Rules and Regulations, with impunity. 22

53. In view ol the above, this Court is of the vrer.r, that the Writ Petition as lilecl is apart from being misconceivcd, is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

54. However, insofar as the claim of the petitioner ol'having made an application under Section 455A of the Act, 1955, seeking regularization of the construction made by her is c:oncerned, as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel. the said application does not speak of the petitioner seeking rcgularizat ion of the alleged 5m floor constnrcted by her. Further, insolar as [hc power of the Commissioner to consider the application made under Section 455A of the Act, 19.5.5 is concerned, this Court by its judgment in the case of A.Pra ueen Kutnor o. The State oJ Telangana & othersa had dealt with thc said power of the Commissioner and had also held that the Comrnissioner can only regularize a buildrng, which is constructed w,i[hout obtaining building pcrmission bl excrcise the power conferred on him under the Statutc, only if the said construction confirms to the Building Rules.

55. Since, it is stated that the construction made by the petitioner does not confirm to the Building rules for her to seek regularization in terms of Section 455A of the Act, this Court is of thc further vieu, that withott egpressing any opinion, the 2nd responde n t-authority is Order, dt.12.10.2023 rn W P.No.2a640 of2O2J 23 to be directed to dispose of the saitl application made under 455A of the Act, 1955, by taking note ol the decision of this Court in A.Praueen Kuman's case(4 supra), if not already considered/disposed of.

56. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR d SECTION"OFFICER

1. The Commissioner, GHMC, having office at Tankbund, Hyderabadl T.S. 2. One CC to SMT. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State ofTelangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI K.SIDDHARTH RAO, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies To SK.N* BS HIGH COURT DATED:0410612025 ORDER WP.No.14425 of 2024 ,r<il"'-&--N Ij \\\$' ') Ii)i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 q b