L. Prudhvidhar Reddy v. Greater Hyderabad [/unicipal Corporation

violation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Cc-r c)ration Act, 1955(as amended) and G.O.Ms. No. 152 dated 02-11-2015 and rt I :s made there under and consequently direct the respondents not to interfer: with the petitioners rights and possession in the said property. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 42315 OF 20'16) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ;ircumstances stated in the attidavit tiled in support of the petition, the High Cor direct the respondents not to interfere with the posse; petitioner's including not to demolish the building in prop€ Sq. yrds bearing H.No.2-2-12717711, Plot N, 76&77, S5 Bollaram, Secunderabad pending the disposal of the Writ F r 1 may be pleased to ion & rights of the 1y ad measuring 360 169 & 188, I\,4acha tition l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVUP. NO: 4801 OF 2016) Between: '1 . Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represente r by its Commissioner Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

2. Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lt4unicipal ( crporation, Circle No -l 6. Alwal, Secunderabad

3. Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal ( crporation, Circle No 1 6, Alwal, Secunderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND L- Prudhvidhar Reddy, Sio L. Narender Reddy, Aged 4 ] Years, Occ Service, C/o H.No. 2-2-12717711 , Plot N. 76and77, Sy.169 anc 88, [.r]acha Bollaram, Secunderabad. Rep by his GPA Holder, P.lriladhupal Reddy, S/o l) Venkatarama Reddy. Aged 66 years, Occ Agriculture, R:/o H.No.'1-7- 039, Hunter Road, Hanama konda Petrtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co I 1 may be pleased to vacate the orders granted on 0'1-'10-2016 in WPIril ) No.42315/2016 in WP.No.34305/2016 on the file of the this Hon'ble court at l r ierabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.M.M.CHARY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYAN/. ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.34305 of 2Ol( ORDER: This w rit petition is filed challenging ie action of respondents in rssuing anti dated notice (notice dated 1O.09.2016) under Section 636 of the Hyder: :ad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, on 29.O9.2016 without , onsidering the replv dated 12.09.2016 submitted by the petitior :r ald thereby interfering u.ith the petitioner's right & possesr i rn in property admeasuring 360 Square yards bearing H.No.2-2 No.76 & 77, Sy.No.169 & 188, Macha Bollaram Sec t27 /7711, Plot rnderabad ald threatening to demolish the building of the peti .; )ner as i1legal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona_l and against the prinr i rles of natural justice apart lrom being in violation of the provis;r ns of thc HMC Act, 1955 and G,O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015 ,r rd Rules made there under.

2. Heard Sri V.M.M.Chary, learned counsel Icr the petitioner ald Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standin,3 Counsel for respondents

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner subnr tred that the petitioner is or,r'ner and possessor of the propert - admeasuring 2 36O square yards bearing H.No.2-2-127/77 11, Plot No.76 &'77, Sy.No.169 & 188, Macha Bollaram, Secunderabad, having purchased the same by way of registered sale deed dated 1O.12.1999 vide document No.3426 of 1999. Proposing to construct a residential apartment, the petitioner herein approached the respondents and obtained permission for construction of a building consisting of stilt for parkrng and 4 upper floors on 06.11.2OI4 vide permit No.37724 and therea-fter constructed stilt + 5 upper floors, while making one extra floor in dcviation to the sanction plan.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted application vide reference No.2O00OO9 1 138 dated 27 .Ol.2016 for regularizatron in accordance with GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.201,5 and the said application is still pending consideration with the respondents. Meanwhile, without considering the application submitted by the petitioner the respondents have issued notice 29.08.2016 under Section 452(1) & 46 1(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and in response to the same, the petitioner submitted reply dated

12.09.2016 along with sanction plan and copy of application for regularisation. Without considering the reply, the respondent Nos.2 ald 3 visited the petitioner's building and highhandedly a 3 issued impugned notice under Section 636 of tt,r HMC Act which is ante dated as 10.09.2016 a,d the same is illt gal and contrarv to settled principles of law. Thus, learned couns: prayed to direct the respondents to consider the application r; rbmitted by the petitioner for regularisation as per GO.Ms.No. i2 before taking any further action.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent_( that the State Government has issued GO.l4

02. 1 1.2O 15 for regularization of unauthorized cor in deviation of sancLioned plan and the said GO .r WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein a Division Ben< vide interim order dated 1g.10.2016 directed rl Municipal Corporations to decide the it regrrlarization and if the applications for rr 1 rejected, to take lurther action for demolition ol- i in accordarce u,ith law. He further submitted applications vvhere the GHMC or the c t Corporations, tentatively decide to regularize the it such a decision shal1 merely be recorded in the neither be given effect to nor shall it be comrr r applicants, pending further orders from this Courr. I{MC submitted ; No.152, dated structions made as challenged in h of this Court HMC/respective rplications for ularization are legal structures -hat insofar as 1er Municipal :ga-1 structures, [rle, and sha_ll Liricated to the 4 It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has 6. formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized/illegaf constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plan or without permission, vide GO Ms'No' 152, dated 02.11.2015. As per the said G'O', the application for regula;ization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted rvithinaperiodof60daysfromthedateofnotificationofthesaid Rules along with 5O% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs.1O,O0O/- 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 ald inspection of sites, either approve or reject the applications and communicate the same to the applicalt(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications'

7. The Regularization Rules were notified on 02'11'2015' as per which, applications for regularization were to be filed within 60 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. 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 a 5 submitted for regriarrzation of unauthorized/illt gal construction till date

8. The reguiarrzatron scheme under GO.14;.No.152, dated O2.ll.2ol5 was cha-llenged in WP (PIL).No.63 cf 2O16, wherein interim directions u,ere passed by a Division Ber ch of this Court on 18.10.2016 as under:- "We consider it appropiate, in such circurr modifu the earlier order, and direct that the r for regulariz.ation be processed tn accordcut regulari.zation scheme notifi.ed in G.O.Ms.Nc 02.11.2015. In case the GHMC or th.e oth= Corporations in the State of Telangana, after the applications for regulari-z,ation, decide t request for regularization, it is operu t communicate the orders of rejection to the- concerned, and thereafier take action for d the illegal structures in accordance uith lat'; those cases u.there the GHMC, or the othe Corporations, tentatiuelg decide to regulari^z:r structures, such a decision shall merelg be the fiLe, and shall neither be gtuen effect tc be communicated to the applicants, pen,) orders from this Court." stances, to pplications :e utith the 152 dated ' Municipal :onsidering t reject the t them to applicants tmolition of In such of ' Munictpal the illegal 'ecorded in nor shall it ng further

9. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along witlL a batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 28.)4.2021, with a 6 direction that the interim order dated i8.10.2016 passed 1n W.P.(PIL).No.63 ol 2016 shall continue to operate till a decision is taken by the Supreme Court on W.P.(Civil) No.1236 of 2020. 10 . It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajend.ra Kumar BarJatga and dnother Vs. U.P, Aoas Euam Vlkos Parishad and. othersl, ',vherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, ut-z K.Rrrmrrdas Shenog Vs. Chief Officers, Town Municipal CounclP, Dr. G.N,Khajuria and others Vs. Delhi Deaelopment Authoritg q.nd. othersc, M.I. Builders tPetitioner) Ltd Vs. Radheg Shgam So,hua, Esha Ekta Apartments Co-Op Housing Societg Limlted Vs. Municipal Corporatlon of Murnbais, Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald Court Ouner Resident Welfare Association and others5, Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authoritg Vs. Maradu Municipalitgit, State of Haryana Vs. Satpala, has issued further directions in addition to the directions given in .Re.' Directions in the fitdtter of demolition of structures, vide order dated 13.i7.2O24 in n ' 2024 SCC Online SC 3767 'z1tez+; z scc soe 'ireos; s scc uoz ( r999) 6 scc 464 '1zot:; I scc 1c,"tt; sl o (2ozl) lo scc I ' (202I) 16 scc 822 ' lzozl; e scc o+: 7 WP(Civil).Nos.295 and 328 of 2023, WP(Criminal) No.162 of 2022 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically dire :ted that in the event of any application / appeal I revision being f I :d by the owner or builder against non-issuance of completion , rertifrcate or for regularization of unauthorized construction rt - rectification of deviation, etc., the same shall be disposed of I 1, the authority concerned, including the pending appea.r /revisions, expeditiously as possible, in aly event not later han 9O days as AS statutorily provided. 1 1. In the present case, it is the specific case rf the petitioner that the application for regularization was submitted on

27.01.2016, however, the same is pending anr has not been \ \ procassed by the respondents till date

12. In the light of a-foresaid order, dated 28.O4.2( 2l of a Division Bench of this Court in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2013 anc ratch as weil as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme C<,r Lrt in Rajendra Kumar Barjatga's case (cited supra), this i /rit petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents-(i IMC to process the application dated 27.01.2016 submitted by.JLe petitioner for reguiarization of unauthorized/illegat constru,; ion and pass appropriate orders, in terms of interim order de ted 1g.06.2016 8 I e passed in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016, within a period of three rnonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to result of the BRS application hled by the petitioner, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to take further action against the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. Till disposal of BRS application submitted by the petitioner, it is made clear that the respondents shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property. . As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.JAYAS S ISTANT RE R TION OFFICER The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municip Road, Hyderabad. poration, Tank Bund 2 The D-eputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad M No. 16, Alwal, Secunderabad. unrcrpa I Corporation, Circle 3 The Assistant city Planner, Greater Hyderabad tVlunicipal corporation, circle No. 16. Alwal, Se6underabad.

4. One CC to SRI V.N,l.|V.CHARY, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to SRI K.RAVI N/AHENDER, SC FOR GHTVC tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies BSR TKS HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ( o lHE Sh B i: ORDER WP.No.34305 of 2016 )o \ * 5 itB 2026 0 z. ll .? jl I ilu'r' '- i :---"'- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS q .t \}o