The High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to direct the'respondents 1 and 2 to act in accordance with law and to direct the 1tt and 2nd respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the BRS application filed by the s petitioher in No.2000003163 dated 03J2.2015 without insisting for the approved layout granted by the 3d respondent in respect of Sy.Nos.108(P) and '109(P) of Tolichowki, Hyderabad. lANO:'t OF 18 Petition under section 1s1 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'tstand 2nd respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the BRS apprication fired by the petitioner in No.2000003163 dated 03.12.2015 without insisting for the approved rayout granted by the 3d respondent in respect of Sy.Nos.108(p) and 109(p) of Totichowki, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. KIRANMAyEE, REPRESENTING SRl VEDULA SRTNIVAS Counsel for the Respondents No..t & 2: SRI M. ARUN KUMAR, S.C. FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.3: S.C. FOR HMDA The Court made the folloring: ORDER i HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT IIYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LA)(MI NARAYAITA ALISITEITT DATE OF ORDER: 1O. L2.2O2S BETWEEN: M.A.Mqieed AND Gqeater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner ind 2 oihers. ... petitioner ... Respondents : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking direction to respondent Nos.l and 2 to act in accordance with law and to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the application frled by the petitioner under BRS vide reference No.2o00oo3163, dated o3.L2.2o15, without insisting for the approved layout granted by respondent No.3 in respect of survey Nos. rOg(p) and 1o9(p) of Tolichowki, Hyderabad. 2- Heard Ms.Kiranmayee, learned counsel representing Sri vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and Sri M.Arun Kumar, le'arned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and,2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of house propertSr bearing H.No.g-r-ggg/D/13, admeasunng 21o square yards at IAS colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad \ \ I I :, ) 2 (for short 'subject propertJr) vide document No.12r5 of 2oro, dated o7-o4.2o10 having purchased the same from K.Krishna prasad, who purchased the same from A.p.state Finance corporation, vide document No.649 of r99o, dated oz.o2.L99o; that the propertSr was originally developed by salivahana Developers private Limited, Hyderabad, vide layout in File No.1653/pt/H/gg, Lr.No.16s3, dated 30.03.1989, approved by the HMDA. The petitioner after purchasing the subject property has constructed first and second floors on the existing ground floor of the subject propert5r and has appried for LRS vide application No.3o00ooo22so, dated 06.12.2ors by remitting Rs.10,000 /- and arso paid a further sum of Rs.3o,93r/_. F.urther the petitioner has also applied for regul arization of the construction in terms of G.o.Ms.No.rs2, dated 02.rL 201s, vide application No2oo00o3163, dated os.r2.2ors, and the same is pending for consideration. 4' counter has been liled by respondent No.3 stating that the petitioner himself admitted that there is a lay out approved by the HUDA in the na.me of sarivahana Deveropers private Limited vide reference File No.r6s3/pr/H/gg, Lr.No.1653, dated 3o.o3.r9g9 and since the subject property forms part of the said approved lay out, the sarne does not require LRS. It is further stated that the lay out approved by the erstwhile HUDA (now HMDA) holds good and authentic and that LRs is not required for the prots covered under the said ray out. It is \ \ rir-r_- ----------- t 1 3 further stated that the application submitted by the petitioner under RTI Act to furnish certified copy of lay out was examined, however, despite the best efforts by the officials of records section and planning section, the file could not be traced and the same was also informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 02.12.2016.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject property forms part of an approved layout of HUDA in File No.1653/ Pt lHl89, Lr.No.1653, dated 30.03.1989; that despite approaching various authorities under Right to Information Act, the petitioner could not obtain certified copy of the layout dated

30.03.1989; and that the appellate authority under RTI Act directed the HMDA to retrieve the concerned file and furnish information to the petitioner within 15 days. However, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 1L.O4.2OL7 informed the petitioner that the lay out plan approved by HMDA is not available in their office. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to process the BRS application dated 03.12.2015, submitted by the petitioner without insisting upon the approved lay out copy dated

30.03.1989.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent-GHMC submitted that tlre State Government has issued GO.Ms.No.l52, dated O2.1L.2015 for regularization of unauth oized. constructions made in deviation of sanctioned plan and the said GO was challenged in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein a Division Bench of this Court vide interim order dated a\ .ar 4 (

18.1o.2016 directed GHMC/respective Municipal corporations to decide the applications for regul ariz,atson and if the applications for regulaization are rejected, to take further action for demolition of illegal structures in accordance with law. He further submitted that insofar as applications where the GHMC or the other Municipal Corporations, tentatively decide to regulariz-e the illegal structures, such a decision shall merely be recorded in the file, and shall neither be given effect to nor shall it be communicated to the applicants, pending further orders from this Court.

7. It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized.lillegal constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plan or without permission, vide Go.Ms.No.!s2, dated o2.LL 2o1s. As per tJre said G.o., the application for regularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 6O days from the date of notification of the said Rules along with 50% of regulanzatton amount as per'Rule 5 or minimum of Rs.10,00o/- whichever is less. The competent authoritSr, i.e., Municipal commissioner in case of Municipal corporations, Metropolitan commissioner in case of HMDA, shall, on scmtiny 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. ; I I t 5

8. The Regulariz.atton 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 submitted for regularization of unauthorized / illegal construction till date.

9. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.l12, dated

02.11.2015 was challenged in wP (PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18. LO.2O16 as under:- "We consid.er it appropriate, in such cirqtmstanecs, to modify tle earlier order, and. direct that the applications for regularization be processed in accordane with tle regularization scleme notifted in G.O.Ms.No.1S2 dated 02.11.2075. In case tle GHMC or the otlrcr Municipal Corporations in the State of Telangana, after considering the applications for regularization, decide to reject tlw request for regularizatiory it is open to them to communicate the ord.ers of rejection to the applicants concerrted, and thereafter talce agtion for demotition of the illegal struchtres in accordance \ u$h law. In such of tlase cases where the GHMC, or tlrc otlter Municipal corporations, tentatiuetg decide to regularize the illegal structures, such a decision shall merelg be recorded in the file, and shall neither be giuen effect to nor 6 ( stwtl it be communimted to tle applicants, pending further orders from this Court."

10. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with a batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 28.04.2O21, with a direction that the interim order dated 18.10.2016 passed in W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016 shall continue to operate till a decision is taken by the Supreme Court on W.P.(Civil) No. L236 of 2O2O.

11. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaJendra Kuma" BarJatga and another Vs. U.P. Auas Ernm Vtka.s Pa;rlshad and othersL, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, uiz., K.Ramadds Shenog Vs. Chtef Officers, Toun Munlcipal CounclP, Dr. G.N.KhoJurla and others Vs. Delhi Deuelopmcnt Authoritg and oth.erd, M.I. Bullders (Pettttoner) Ltd Vs. Rodhcg Shgam So,htd, Esha Ekta Apartments Co'Op Housing Societg Ltmtted Vs. Munlcipal Corporoltlon of Mumbals, Supertech Llmlted Vs. Em.erald. Court Outner Resident Welfare Assoclatlon and, other:* , Kerala Stalta Costal Zone Management Authorttg Vs. Mqradu Munlclpaliq, State of Haryana Vs. SatpaP, has issued further | 2o2q scc online sc3767 2 ltst+1 2 scc 506 3 lrsss; s scc 762 4 1rsss1 6 scc 4G4 s lzorsl 3 scc (civir) 89 o (2021) 10 SCC 1 7 1zozt1 16 scc 822 I qzozrl 6 scc G43 \ 7 directions in addition to the directions given in Re.' Dlrectlons in thc matter of demolltilon of sttttctrrtres, vide order dated 13.11.2024 in WP(Civil).Nos.295 and 328 of 2023, WP(Criminal).No. L62 of 2022. Ttre 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 concerned, including the pending appeals/revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.

12. In the instant case, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the application submitted by the petitioner under BRS vide reference No.2O000O3163, dated OSi,.n.ZOlS, for regalaization was pending and therefore, the respondents may be directed to process the BRS application dated O3.L2.2OL5, submitted by the petitioner without \ \ insisting upon the approved lay out copy dated 30.03.1989 in the light of the statemeni *"d" in the counter filed by respondent No.3 that LRS is not required for the plots covered by HUDA approved lay out.

13. In the.light of aforesaid order, dated 28.04.2021 of a Division Bench of this Court in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2013 and batch as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaJendrq. Kumar BarJatga?s case (cited supra), this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.l and 2 (GHMC) to process the 8 ( applications submitted by the petitioner for regularization of unauthorized/ilLegal construction and pass appropriate orders, in terms of interim order dated 18.06.2016 passed in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2O16, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without insisting upon the approved lay out copy. Subject to result of the BRS applications filed by the petitioner, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 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/.M. NAGAMANI ASSTSTANT RE9T9TRAR bT sEcflo(lrFFrcER

1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad

2. The Deppty Commissioner, GHMC, Circle - 18, Central Zone, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

3. Jhe Director (Planning), Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, District Commercial Complex, HUDA Building, Tarnaka, Secunderabad - 500017. &

4. One CC to SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI M. ARUN KUMAR, S.C. for GHMC [OPUC] 6. One CC to Standing Counselfor HMDA IOPUC] 7. Two CD Copies /G, BS HIGH COURT DATED:1011212025 ..J: r.J 3 0 ['Lt ?Ht * .SP4i1r:';: .i.' i\ ?: i) ORDER WP.No.238T7 of 2O1B DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o ,2 l,; ?t) t