Naveen Choudarv. S/ o v. enjoyment of the of the

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. DHANA LAKSHMI, REpRE ;ENTING SRI N. SAIDA RAO COUNSEI fOr thE RCSPONdENTS: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REE DY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WP.No .24437 of20l4 .l Dated:04 2.2025 Between: Naveen Choudary And: The Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad and another ..Petitioner ORDER: . Respondents This Writ petition is filed to issue a writ of Mctndamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing notice dated 06.08.2014 under Sections a52(l) and 461(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act, i 955 (hereinafter referred to as .the HMC Act, 1955'), without enumerating the deviations of the building and without considering the reply da1ed l l.Og.2O14 submitted by the petitioner, as illegal , arbitrary and violative of lundamental rights and for consequential relief. 2. Heard Smt Dhana Lakshmi, learned counsel representing S_r-iN.Saida Rao, leamed counsel_on_record for the petitioner and 2 LNA, J TP.Nq-24437 of 2014 \ Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed Standin I Counsel for respondents-

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted thrr the petitioner is owner of Plot No.9, H.No.1_60/30/9/134, rnjaiah Nagar, Gachibowli. Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Leddy District, having purchased the same under register :d sale deed No.61712013, dated 17.01.2013; that petitioner ar application for glant of pcrmission lor construction and the sam,: r.vas considered and the respondents granted permission for constnLr tion of G + two upper floors vide Permit No.33847/DOCUMENT/,) ZlC.ir-l ll20l4, dated 2l .05.2.0 l4; rhat the petitioner constructecl rne extra floor i.e., third floor in deviation of the sanctioned plan; 1 rat respondents issued notice under Sections 452(l) and 461(1) of the HMC Act, 1955, to which the petitio.ner submitted reply dr ed I1.08.2014 stating that except constn-rction of third .floor, he I Ls not deviated from sanctioned plan and requested to regularizr the third floor under Section 455-4 of the HMC Act, however. he respondent without considering the same, threatened the petit r ner to remove the construction; and that aggrieved by the same, rl e present Writ Petition is filed. ) rrfrMffif',*i J LNA, J WP.No.24137 of2014

4. Leamed Standing Counsel for respondents represented that the petitionelhas obtained permission for construction of G + two upper floors for residential purpose, however, contrary to the sanctioned plan, the petitioner raised two extra floors and also converted the said building into commercial purpose, therefore, the respondents have rightly issued the notices under Section 452(l) and 461(1) of the HMC Act, 1955. Learned Standing Counsel lurther submitted that subsequent to fiting of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner submitted an application vide No.2000033 08 , dated 25.12.201 5 for regularization of unauthorised constnrction in terms of GO.Ms.No.l52, }dA, dated 02.11.2015 and the same is pending consideration and therefore, learned Standing Counsel prayed that appropriate directions be given to respondents to consider the said application of the petitioner as per GO.Ms.No.152

4.1 . Learned Standing Counsel for respondents-GHMC further submitted that the State Govemment has issued GO.Ms.No. 152, dated 02.11.2015 for regularization of unauthorized constructions made in deviation of sanctioned plan and the said GO was, challenged in WP(PL).No.63 of 2016, wherein a Division Bench 4 LNA, J I P.No.24437 of2014 of this Court vide interim order dated 18.iC 2016 directed GHMC/respective Municipal Corporations tc decide the applications for regularization and if the rr,plications for regularization arc rejected, to take fuither action 1t r demolition of illegal structures in accordancc with law. He fuith: submitted that insofar as applications where the GHMC or the r ther Municipal Corporations, tentatively decide to regularize the legal structures, such a decision sha[[ merely be recorded in th: file, and shall neither be given effect to nor shall it be comrr micated to the applicants, pending furlher orders from this Court

5. It is relevant to note that the Government o Telangana has formulated Rules tbr regularization of una tthorized/illegal constructions, which are constructed in deviatir,l of sanctioned plan or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No. 1 52, c[ ted 02. 1 1 .201 5 As per the said G.O., the application for I t {ularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted with T a period of 60 days from the date of notification of the said Ruler; rlong with 50% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimur L of Rs. 10,000/- whichever is less. The competent authority, i.e., Municipal Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporatior;, Metropolitan I I \ 5 LNA, J t{P.No.21437 of 2014 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) concemed as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications.

6. The Regularization Rules were notified on 02.11.2015, as per which, applications for regularization were to be filed within 60 days fiom the said notified date and the same were supposed to be processed w'ithin a period of six months from the last date of receipt ol applications. However, in the instant case, even after lapse of more than nine years, the application is still pending and no action has been taken by the respondents on the application submitted lor regularization plaintiff unauthorized./iilegal construction till date. 7 . The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No. I52, dated

02.1 1.2015 was challenged in WP (P[).No.63 of 2016, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.10.2016 as under:- "We consider it oppropriate, in such circumstances, to modi,fy the earlier order, and direct that the applications Jbr regularization be processed in accordance with the ,l 6 LNA, J ') No.24437 of 2014 regularization scheme notifred in G-O'Ms No' ' ' 02. t t.20 t 5. In case the GHMC or the other \' Corporalions in the State of Telangana, after a't the applications for regtlarization, decide to ' requesl for regularization, it is open to communicale the orders of rejection to the t concernerl, and thereafter take action for demolit' illegal structures in accordance with law' In sutl cases where the GHMC' or the other l Corporations, tenlotively decide to regularize l' structures, sttch a decision shall nterel' be recort fLle, and shaLl neither be given effect to nor ';' communicated to lhe applicants' pending fut t't 2 dated unicipal sidering 'ject lhe hem to rytlicants n o-f the of those rttnicipal e illegal ed in the oll it be r orders from this Court."

8. Subsequently, the said WP(P[) along with I batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 28 ) t.2021,, with a direction that the interim order dated l8'10:l 16 passed in W.P.(P[).No.63 ol20l6 shall continue to operate ill a decision is taken by the Supreme Court on W.P.(Civit) No' l2l I of 2020.

9. It is appropriate to refer to the recent jr- lgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjt'u n and another Vs- U.P. Avtts Evam Vikas Parishad and olher rl, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Couft by referring to a catena (). decisions, vrz., ' 2074 gCC Online sc 3757 7 LNA, J IIP-No-24437 oJ 2011 K.Rumadas Shenoy Vs. Chief OfJicers, Town Municipal CounciP, Dr. G.N.Khajuria and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority and otherss, M.I. Builders (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Ratthey Shyam Sahua, Esha Ekta Apartmenls Co-Op Housing Socielt Limiled Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mambai5, Supertech Limiled Vs. Emerakl Courl Owner Resident l{elfare Association antl olhers6, Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authorily Vs. Maradu Municipalityl , State of Haryana Vs. Satpaf , has issued furlher directions in addition to the directions given in Re; Directions in lhe matter of demolition of structures, 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 specifically directed that in the event of any application/appeal/revision being filed by- the owner or builder against non-issuance of completion certificate or for regularization of unauthorized construction or rectification of deviation, etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concemed, including the ' (1974) 2 scc so6 i (1995) 5 scc 762 o (1999) 6 scc 464 5 (2013) 3 scc (civir) 89 lzoz r; ro scc r u 7 (2021) 16 scc 822 8 (2023) 6 scc 643 f I t r.t\o.z4qJ .t 0I zul4 pending appeals/rev is ions, as expeditiously 1 ossible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily providet

10. In the present case, it is the specihc case rf the petitioner that the application for regularization warr submitted on

25.12.2015, however, the same is pending an, has not been processed by the respondents till date.

11. In the light of aforesaid order, dated )E.04.2021 of a Division Bench of this Court in WP(P[).No.63 o 2013 and batch as well as the directions issued by the [{on'ble li rpreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya's case (cited supra), tl i' Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents-(i JMC to process the application dated 25.12.2015 submitted b1, t re petitioner for regularization of unauthorized/lllegal constrrt lion and pass appropriate orders, in terms of interim older d ited 1 8.06.201 6 passed in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016, within a perioc of three months from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order.

12. Miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, sl- rll stand closed No costs. //TRUE COPY// St), ,P.C. SULEKHA D-EVI - / ASSi JTANT REGISTRAR / \. _ ._---- -u_ " SECTION OFFICER To dr[ ]ration, HYderabad The Commissioner' Greater HYderabad MuniciPal The Dy. Commissioner, GHIiilC' Circle-1 1' Seril rngam r rlly, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI N. SAIDA RAO' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI G. TUADHUSUDHAN REDDY' S C. fo. iHNIC [OPUC] Two CD CoPies

3. 4 5 .- -.r!.31t-tt-'*--r ;-.: :'_ ! a HIGH COURT DAT iD:0411212025 , -tl-;: 'L- '.t)' 1t.) -, 't.': \'. ?40E[ l )b^ ORDER WP.No.24437 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE VI/ RIT PETITION WII..IOUT COSTS J