The High Court · 2025

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad represented by its Commissioner The Greater Hyderabad IVlunicipal Corporation, Hyderabad represented by its Zonal Commissioner (East Zone The Greater Hyderabad tvlunicipal Corporation, At L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad represented by its Deputy Commissioner (Circle-3) Smt. C.Padm;vatni, W/6 late C.Chenna Rayudu, Aged 60 years, Occ Rtd. Govt Employee, R7o H.No.'13-8 'l 10, Gowtham Nagar, Gaddiannaram Village' Saroornagar fii'landal, Ranga Reddy District. "Naren, S/o late C Chenna Rayudu, Aged about 35 years, Occ Chintala Business, fuo H.No.'13-8-'1 10, GoMham Nagar, Gaddiannaram Village' Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the H(]h court may be pleased to lssue a Writ. order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in not considering the Petrtioners previous representation dated 27 .10.2014 and final ,- -- ---- Jepresentation dated 30-11.2O15 as illegal, arbitrary; consequently direct the respondent no. 1 to 3 to consider the frnal representation dated 30.1 1.2015 and to take action as per law agarnst the illegal construction made by respondent nos. 4 and 5 -(: l.A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 5544/. OF 201s) Petition under Section 151 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 respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consrder the final representation dt. 30.1T.2015 and to take action as per law against the itlegal construction made by respondent nos.4 & 5 pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of lustice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SAKINALA RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI SRINIVAS RAO PACHWA (sc FoR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5:-- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LN(MI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRrT PETITION No.42995 of 2015 ORDER: This writ petition is frled declaring the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in not considering the petitioner's representations dated 27.1O.201.4 and 30.11.2015, AS illegal and arbitrar5r and consequently to direct respondent Nos. I to 3 to take action against the illegal structure made by respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. No representation on behalf of petitioner.

3. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. I to 3-

4. The case of the petitioner is that they are the owners of house bearing Municipal No.13-8-89/4, Goutham Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and have been residing in the said premises since more than four decades. While so, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are the owners of land on western side of the petitioner's premises, raised illegal construction without obtaining any permission from the l"t respondent. Though, petitioner has complained about the same, respondent Nos.l to 3 did not take any action to stop the said illegal constmction. Therefore, the petitioner raised his grievance in 'Prajavani' on 28.1O.2013; and 2 that the lst respondent closed petitioner's grievance stating that civil case is pending Though, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 30.11.2015, respondent Nos. I to 3 did not take any action on the said representation. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

5. l,earned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. i to 3 placed on record written instructions as per which the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have obtained permission for construction ol ground + I upper floor vide Permit No.572/1993, dated 20.O7.1993. However, they hzrrre constructed a building consisting of ground + 5 upper floors and have submitted application for regularization of unauthorized constmction under G.O.Ms.No. 152, dated

02.11.2015 vide file No.2000042988, dated 28.t2.2Ot5 6 . H e further submits that once the BRS application of respondent Nos.4 and 5 is disposed of, the respondent Corporation will take further course of action basing on the outcome of the BRS application of respondent Nos.4 and S.

7. 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 3

8. It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized/illegal constructions, which zr-re constructed in deviation of sanctioned plan or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No. 152, dated O2.ll.2Ol5. As per the said G'O., the application for regular2ation of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 6O days from the date of notification of the said Rules along w'ith 50% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs.1O,OOO/- 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 to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications. g . The Regularization Rules were notihed on 02. 1 1 .2015 , as per which, applications for regularization were to be frled within 6O days from the said notified date and the same were supposed to be processed within a period of six months from the last date of receipt of applications 4

10. The regr-rlarizal ion scheme under GO.Ms.No. l52, dated 02.11.2OI5 was challenged in Wp (pIL).No.63 of 2Ot6, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18. 10.2016 as under:- "We consider it appropriate, in suclt ctranmstances, to modifg the earlier order, and direct that the applications for regularization be processed in accordance u_.tith the requlaization sclteme notified in G.O.Ms.No.l52 d.ated_ O2.11.2015. In case the GHMC or the other Municipal Corporation s in the State of Telangana, afier consid.ering the ctpplic:ations for regularization, decide to reject the retluest for requlaization, it is open to them to cornmunicate th.e orders of rejection to the applicants c<trtcenred, and thereafier take action for demolition of tfu: illegal struct.ures in accordance uith law. In such of fho.se cases uhere the GHMC, or the other Municipal Corporations, tentatiuelg decide to regulaize the illegal structures, such. a decision shall merelg be recorded in the fi.Ie, and shall neither be giuen effect to nor shall it be communicated to the applicants, pending further orrlers from this Court."

11. Subsequently, the said Wp(pIL) along with a batch of Writ Petitions rvas disposed of vide order, dated 29.04.2021. with a direction that the interim order dated lg.l}.2oL6 passed in w.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016 shalr continue to operate til a decision is taken bv the Supreme Court on W.p.(Civil) No.1236 of 2020. 5

12. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of tl-e Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raiendra Kumar Bariatga and another Vs. U.P. Aoas Eaam Vikas Parisho,d and otherst, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, uiz., K.Ramado;s Shenog Vs- Chief O.fficers, Toun Municipal CounciP, Dr. G.N.Khaiuria and others Vs' Delhi Deoelopment Authoritg and otherss, M.I. Build'ers (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Radheg Shgann So,hua, Eshrz Ekta Apartrnents Co-Op Housing Societg Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbais, Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald Court Outner Resident Welfare Association and others6, Kerala State Costal hne Management Authoritg ys' Maradu MunicipatitgT, State of Haryand Vs. Satpala, has issued further directions in addition to the directions given in Re" Directions in the rrreoltter of denolition of strzctures, vide order dated 13.11.2024 in WP(Civil).Nos.295 and 328 of 2023, WP(Criminal).No.162 of 2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has the event of any specihcally directed that '? t 2024 SCC Online sc 3767 (1974) 2 scc 506 I (1995) s scc 752 ' (1999) 6 scc 454 s (2013) 3 scc (civil) 89 6 (2021) 10 scc 1 ' (2021) 16 scc 822 8 (zoz3) 6 scc 643 6 application/ appeal/ revision being filed by the owner or builder against non-issuance of completion certificate or for reg,larization of unauthorizecl construction or rectification of deviation, etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending appcals/ revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.

13. In the instant case, since the grievance of the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS application of respondent Nos.4 zrnd 5, in the light of the aforesaid order dated 28.04.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Wp(ptl.) No.63 of 20 13 and ils batch, as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supremr: Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya,s case (cited supra), tht, respondent Nos. 1to 3 (GHMC) are directed to process the application submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 5 for regularization ol' unzLuth orized, / illegaT construction, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the interim order dated 18.06.2016 passed in Wp(pll.) 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 frled by respondent Nos.4 and 5, rhe i., respondent is directed to take appropriate action to redress the petitioner's grievance strictly in accordance with law. 7

14. 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. SD/. B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, L-B. Nagar, Hyderabad Corporation, Hyderabad

1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad 2. The Zonal Comnmissioner, (Eist Zone)Greater Hyderabad Municipal 3 The Deputy'Cdmmissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' At 4 one cd to snt. SAKINALA RAVI KUMAR ,Advocate [OPUcl s one CC to SRl. SRINIVAS RAO PACHWA (SC FOR GHMC) [OPUC] 6 Two CD Copies BM$ GJp ) HIGH COURT DATED:1610912025 t ORDER WP.No.42995 of 2015 irE s ?tl , rl, c /tilii ti' \(,, * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ )A