The 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 writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 in taking steps to reriove illegal structures raised by Smt. Mamatha in respect of H. No. 1-7-49511811, (old 1-7-495118) encroaching on the road portion at Dayara Market, Zamistanpur, Mushirabad, Hyderabad desp-ite specific orders of this Hon'ble court as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate steps to remove illegal encroachment made by respondent No.4. a l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(WPMP. NO: 19750 OF 2015 ) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrr nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may t the respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate steps to remove illr of the road in respect of H.No. 1-7-49511811, (old 1-7-4951 Zamistanpur, Mushirabad, Hyderabad made by Smt. Mamatr representation dt. 16-3-2015 and legal notice dt. 25-4-20'15 sutr -' pleased to direct gal encroachment ;) Dayara Market, r in pursuance of ritted by petitioner pending disposal of the main W.P. in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ISMAIL ASHFAQ FOR SRI R.l\ ACHUTHANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URl3 {N DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI G.MADHUSUDT{ \N REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI S.SRIDHAR SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAI{A AT HYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.15155 of 2O15 DATE OF ORDER: OA.L2.2O2S BETWEEIT: Sri Reddy Sangaiah AND The State ofTelangana, rep. by Its Secretary and 4 others. ... Petitioner ... Respondents : ORDER: This writ petition is filed to deciare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not taking steps to remove the illegal structures raised by respondent No.5 in respect of H.No.1-7-495118/1 (old 1- 7-498118), encroaching on the road portion at Dayara Market, Zamistanpur, Mushirabad, Hyderabad, despite specific orders of this Court, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri Ismail Ashfaq, Iearned counsel representing Sri R.A.Achutharand, learned counsel for the petitioner on record ald Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner wou I I submit that respondent No.5 who is having house oppositr the house of petitioner has raised structures by encroaching tL, ron the road in the year 2OO7. The petitioner submitted complaint on 24.1O.2OO7 to respondent Nos.2 and 3, pursuant to which t re respondents initiated steps to remove the illegal constructions. ,\ 3grieved by this action, respondent No.5 filed Wp.No.2706Z/20C7, which was disposed of by this Court on 1S.07.2008 with an olr;ervation that if respondent No.5 is constructing the building in acc rdance rvith the sanctioned plan, the official respondents shal not interfere, however, if any deviations are found, the official rer; )ondents are at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance wrtl law.

4. l.earned counsel for the petitioner furthe - submits that respondent No.5 had obtained permission only f r - an extent of 41.55 square yards, whereas construction has beerr made in a plot area of 70.28 square yards which shows that r:;pondent No.5 encroached upon of 30 sq.yards of road margirr It is further submitted that the application submitted by responrl :nt No.5 under BPS-2008 for regularization of the illegar constructi: e was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 15.07.2009 on , re ground that the building permission obtained by respondent No.5 for the proposed construction of ground & first floor unde' G.o.Ms.No.g6 3 MA dt.O3.O3.2OO6, is not applicable under the BPS scheme. Aggrieved by the rejection order, respondent No.5 ltled WP.No. 14529 l2OO9 and the sarne was disposed of by this Court on

15.09.2014, directing respondent No.5 to hle an appeal before the appellate committee which was reconstituted by the Government under G.O.Ms.121, dated 13.05.2014, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that according to the information provided by the respondent No.2 under RTI vide letter dated27.02.2015, no appeal has been Iiled by respondent No.S; and that despite the same, the respondent authorities have not taken any action against the illegal construction made by respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 represent that Pursuant to order dated 15.09.2014 in WP,No.14529 l2OO9, respondent No.5 preferred appeal on 28.10.2014 and the said appeal has not been disposed of till date. Learned counsel further submits that the Government of Telangana has come up with new Regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2OI5 and respondent No.5 submitted application for regularization in terms of 4 G.O.Ms.No. 152, dated 02.1I.2015 vide application \o.2OOOOlglTl dated 19.12.2015 and the same is pending. The.- fore, prayed to pass appropriate orders directing respondents to r r nsider the said application and take action thereafter. Learned cor- nsel acr.oss the bench represented that the petitioner would not pu .sue the appea_l filed before the Appellate committee a,d be treated i s not pressed.

7. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.l to 3 s ubmits that as and when the BRS application of respondent No.Ii is disposed of, the respondent-Corporation will take further step; basing on the outcome of the BRS application of respondent No.5. B. This Court has given its earnest considr ration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both r.r re parties and perused the entire material on record.

9. It is relevant to note that the Government of formulated Rules for regularization of unarr constructions, which are constructed in deviatior lelangana has horized /1llega) of sanctioned plalr or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.l52, darr As per the said G.O., the application for reg unauthorized construction has to be submitted witl d 02.t 1.2015. rlarization of in a period of 60 days from the date of notification of the said Ru 5O% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 o - es along with minimum of 5 Rs. 10,000/- 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 sarne to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications.

10. The Regularization Rules were notified on O2.1 1.2015, 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

11. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated O2.Il.2Ol5 was cha-llenged in WP (PIL).No.63 of 20 16, wherein interim directiens were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on

18.10.2016 as under:- "We consider it appropiate, in such circumstances, to modifg th.e earlier order, and direct that the applications for regularization be processed in accordance uith the regularization scheme notified in G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015. In case the GHMC or tte otter Municipal Corporations in the State of Telangana, after considering the applications for regulari-z,ation, decide to reject tte 6 request for regula.rization, it ls open t ) communicate th.e orders of rejection to the concemed, and thereafier take action for d.enut illegal structures in accord.ance with lau. In stt cases where the GHMC, or the other Corporations, tentatiuelg d.ecid.e to regularize structures, such a decision shall merely be . lhe file, and shall neither be giuen effect to no- communicated to the applica.nts, pending furt from this Court." ttLem to applicants ttion of the :h of tl.nse Municipal the illegal tcorded in shall it be ter orders

12. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with e batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 2g.{t,_.2921, with a direction that the interim order dated lg.1O.2(16 passed in w'P'(PIL)'No'63 of 2016 shalr continue to operate .r r a decision is taken by the Supreme Court on W.p.(Civil) No.t236 cl2O2O.

13. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgmer 1 of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in RaJend.ra Kumar Baqjatga a.ru I crnother Vs. U.P. Avas Eaam Vikas parishad and. others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of lecisions, urz., K.Ramad.as Shenog Vs. Chief Offi.cers, Tottn Munlclpal CounciP, Dr. G.N.Khajuria and. others Vs. DethL Deoelopment Authoritg and other*, M.I. Buttd.ers (petitloner) Itd. Vs. Radheg ' 202q scc online sc 3767 '(1974) 2 scc so6 '(1995) 5 scc 762 '7 Shgann Sahua, Esha. Ekta Apartrnents Co-Op Housing Societg Limlted Vs. Municlpal Corporation oJ Mumbais, Supertech Limlted I/s. Emerald Court Ouner Resld.ent Welfare Associatlon and others6, Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authoritg Vs. Maradu MunicipalltgiT, State of Ilaryana Vs. So:tpale, has issued further directions in addition to the directions given in Re.' Directions in the 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 specifrcally 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.

14. In the instant case, since the grievalce of the petitioner \ remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS application of respondent No.5, in the light of the aforesaid order dated ' (1999) 6 scc 464 s (2013) 3 scc (civit) 89 o (2021) 10 scc 1 7 izozr; to scc azz 8 lzoz:; o scc or: 8

28.04.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this O rurt in WP(PIL) No.63 of 2013 and its batch, as well as the directicr s issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjat 7a's case (cited supra), the respondent Nos.2 to 4 (GHMC) are dirr cted to process the application dated 19.12.2015 vide reference ll r. 2OOOO1977 I, submitted by respondent No.S for relJ rlarization of unauthorized/illegal construction, and to pass apl ropriate orders in accordance with the interim order dated 18.06. )016 passed in WP(PIL) No.63 of 20 16, within a period of three rrcnths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to r:;ult of the BRS application hled by respondent No.5, the responden Nos.2 to 4 are directed to take appropriate action to redress he petitioner's grievance strictly in accordance with law.

15. Subject to above directions and observations, t he writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, f any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/-AHME ) ABDULLA KHAN ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR 1'\ //TRUE COPYII To

1. The Secretary Municipal Administration Department, Sdcr State of Telangana.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corpo.i Hyderabad.

3. The Assistant City Planner, Circle-lX, G.H.M.C., Abids, Hy 4. The Deputy Director, GHMC, Circle lX Hyderabad 5. One CC to SRI R.A.ACHUTHANAND, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV, High Ct Telahgana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR G,- B. One CC to SRI S.SRIDHAR, Advocate [OPUC] O Trrra flF) I'nniac iEcrtor.t OFFICER rtariat, Hyderabad, tion, Tank Bund, Jerabad. urt for the State of vc [oPUc] HIGH COURT DATED:0811212025 ORDER WP.No.15155 ot 2015 ,. /)r 1, '.', )' . rii- j i., . l- '(' .- \ ;'i" f-',r i \im I;l I I L; lttEc _.,i.2/ . *..).' .'...;, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ ') -- \