High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAIVUS, declaring the inaction of the respondent no-1 and 2 under the provisions of the GHMC act in not demolishing the illegally constructed cellar in Plot no.7, Vrnayakanagar, Mansoorabad, Ranga Reddy district in Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act 1955, and u nconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents no.'1 and 2 to demolish the illegal constructions made by the Respondent no.3 in violation of the building sanction plan permit no. no.42536/D ClEZlCir 312015, and to order such other and further relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems just and prc:er in the facts and circumstances of the case. l.& NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 36634 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci lumstances stated in lhe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr ly be pleased to stay the u na uthorizedi illega I construction of the building in plo \o.7 Vinayakanagar, Mansoorabad, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, the said tr ilding which is being constructed illegally, by violating the building sanction rlan granted by the respondent No. 1 and 2 vide permit No. 42536 DC/E.1 Cir 312015, pending disposal of the above wnt petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRINIVAS PODICHETI Counsel for the Respondent No.1&2:SRl SRINIVAS RAO PACH|/'A,SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : The Court made the following: ORDER n.',i THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE LA>(MI NARAYANA ALISIIETTY WRIT PETITION No.28253 of 2015 ORDER: This u,rit petition is filed declaring the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not demolishing the illegally constructed cellar in Plot No.7, Vinayakanagar, Mansoorabad, Ranga Reddy District in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

2. Heard Sri Srinivas Poclicheti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipat Corporation appearing for respondent Nos l and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and his wife are absolute owners of house No.3-7-53O (ptot No.6), Vinayakanagar Colony, Mansoorabad, LB Nagar and they are in enjoyment and occupation of the same' While so, respondent No.3, who is neighbouring owner of Plot No.7 abutting plot of the petitioner has made construction contrary to the sanctioned plan and constructed a cellar, which is not permitted under permission obtained by respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Ttade a representation dated 13.08.20 15 to respondent No 2 ,/ i 2 requesting to stop illegal construction made by res tondcnt No.3. As there is no response, the petitioner made a epresentation on

27.O8.2O15 to rcspondent No. 1 to take action a6;. inst construction being made b_r' respondent No.3 in violation of ;anctioned plant Since, the respondents failed to take action on tl e representations submitted by the petitioner, the present writ petitio r is liled

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner rvor ld submit that respondent No.3 in clear violation of sanc - :ned p1an, has constructed cellar by exc:rvating the land adjacer r to thc petitioner plot which in fact has effect on the house co rstructecl by the petitioner and in vielv of the deep excavation mrr le by respondent No.3, the structure raised by the petitioner ma-v ollapse. Despite the written complaints given by the petitioner, the -espondents have not taken any action against the illegal const - lctions made by respondent No.3

5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 'espondent Nos. I ar.d 2, wherein it is stated that basing on the co nplaints received from the petitioner, the official respondents insJ ected the house structure raised by respondent No.3 and issued ncl ce to respondent No.3 to appear in person before the Deputy ( ommissioner on

06.O9.2025 at 11.O0 am and responderr No.3 attended ( hearing and submitted documents on 18.09.2025. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 has frled an application for 3 regularization of construction vide application No. 2000093 5 44, dated

28.01.2016 and the said application 1S pending. It is further submitted that once the BRS application of respondent No.3 is disposed of, the respondents Corporation will take further course of action basing on the outcome of the BRS application of respondent No.3.

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 formrllated Rules for reguladzation of unauthorized /lllega) constructions, which are constructed in deviation of salctioned plan or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015. As per the said G.O., the application for regularization of ulauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 6O days from the date of notification of the said Rules along with 5O% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs. 10,000/- whichever is less. The competent authority, i.e., Municipal Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporations, Metropolitan Commissioner in case o1 H{DA, shall, on scrutiny of applications ald inspection of sites, 4 r-' either approve or reject the applications and comnt rnicate the same to the applicant(s) concerned as eariy as possible, b rt not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications. B. The Regularization Rules were notified on 02.11.2015, as per which, applications for regularization were to be file i within 60 days from the said notihed date and the same wer€ supposed to be processed within a period of six months from the 1e st date of receipt of applications

9. The regularization scheme r.rnder GO.NI r.No.152, dated O2.1L.2O15 was challenged in WP (PIL).No.63 ) 2O16, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Benc.-r of this Court on

18.1O.2016 as under:- l'We consider it appropiate, in such circurr modifu the earlier order, and direct that tle ap4 regulariz,ation be processed in accordance regulariz,ation scheme notified in G.O.Ms.N: 02.11.2015. In case ttrc GHMC or the oth= Corporations in the State of Telangana, afier the applications for regularization, dectde r< request fo, regulariz.ation, it is open i ( ammunicate tle orders of rejection to thz concerned, and ttereafier take action for derr,< illegal structures in accordance uith lau.t. In :t cases u.there the GHMC, or the othe. Corporations, tentatiuelg decide to regulariz: stances, to lications for u.tith tle 152 dated ' Municipal considering reject the them to applicants lition of the ch of tltose Muntcipal the illegal 5 sttuctures, sucll a decision shall merelg be recorded in the file, and shall neither be giuen effect to nor shall it be communicoted to the applicants, pending further orders from thb 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 18.1O.2016 passed 1n W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016 shall continue to operate till a decision is taken by the Supreme Court on W.P.(CiviU No.1236 of 2O2O.

11. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatga and. another Vs. U.P. Aaqs Eaam Vikas Parishad. qnd othersr, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, ulz., K.Rainqdrrs Shenog Vs. Chief Officers, Town Municipal CounciP, Dr. G.N.KhaJuria and others Vs. Dethi Deoelopment Authoritg and otherse, M.I. Builders (Petitiofler) Ltd Vs, Radheg Shgam Sahua, Eshrr Ekta Apartments Co-Op Housing Societg Limited Vs. Municipal Corltordtton of Mumbals, Supertech Llmlted Vs. Emerq.ld Court Owner Resid.ent We$are Association and I 2o\x scc online sc a767 'Gglilzsccsoa 3 (1995) 5 scc 762 n (1999) 6 scc 464 ' (2013) 3 scc (civil) 89 other*, Kerala State Costq.l Zone Managemet t Authoritg Vs. i) 6 Maradu Municipalitgl, State o;f Haryana Vs. Srr pcF, has issued further directions in addition to the directio: ; given in Re.' Directlons in the matter of demolition of strttc fures, vide order dated 13.11.2024 in WP(Civil).Nos.295 and 32a of 2023, WP(Criminal).No.162 of 2022. The Hon'ble Sup eme Court has specif-rcally directed that e v :nt of application/ appeal/ revision being hled by the I ner or builder against non-issuance of completion certihcate or fcr regularization of unauthorized construction or rectification of deviat.r n, etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authorit5r concenl,r l, including the pending appeals/ revisions, as expeditiously as poss ble, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.

12. In the instant case, since the grievance , f the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of the Il tS application of respondent No.3, in the light of the aforesaid order t .ated 28.04.2O2I passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(FI .) No.63 of 2013 and its batch, as well as tl.e directions issuerl by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatga's case cited supra), the respgndent Nos.1 and 2 (GHMC) are directed to process the 6 lzozr; ro scc r '/ (2021) 16 scc 822 8 (2023) 6 scc 643 i i I I I I I ! I I l l I I i I I .JffiT.;:-.:y { 7 application submitted by respondent No.3 for regulari zation of unauthorized/illega-l construction, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the interim order dated 1g.06.2016 passed in WP(PL) No.63 of 2016, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to resurt of the BRS application frled by respondent No.3, respondent Nos.l and 2 are directed to take appropriate action to redress the petitioner,s grievance strictly in accordance with 1aw. 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 aly, shall stand closed SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG SSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER cipal Corporation, LB To, //TRUE COPY//

1. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad ttl nagar Divi$ion, Circle-3, Greater H yderabad Mun icipal Corporation, Hvd erabad - 2.TheAssistantCityPlanner,GreaterHyderabadMunicipalCorporation.Circle N;:3, tB;;gai o'ivision, Circte-s, Grelter Hvderabad Municipal Corporation' Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS PODICHETI, Advocate lOPUCl 4. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS PACHWA, SC FOR GHMC' [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies BSK TKS Alr HIGH COURT DATED:1 910912025 { n \ Ir.E S rA 1 s ), z. C',\ i9 JAN 2026 J f- t . '. 1::;-.1 -' -, r'.:C' t. ORDER WP.No.28253 ot 2015 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -\{ -\\.