The High Court · 2025

Petition under Arricre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction speciaIy in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondeflts .l to 4 in not taking action to demolish the unauthorized construction made by the sth respondent in premises bearing No.14-4-89, Multanipura, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad pursuant to the represenlations made by the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to demolish tl e illegal construction made by the Sth respondent in premises bearing No.14-4-8rl Multanipura, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1OF 2O1 P. NO: 12532 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High CcL 1 may be pleased to direct the sth respondent not to make any further constructio in premises bearing No.14-4-89, Multanipura, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad by direr ng respondents 1 to 4 to ensure that the 5th respondent does not proceed with ar I further construction in the said premises during the pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C. VISWANATH, REPRESE NTING SRI E. RAMESH CHANDRI\ GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.l: GP FOR MUNICIPAL Al) /IINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVE:I OPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI M. ARUN KUi,l \R, S.C. FOR GHMC Gounsel for the Respondent No.s: SRI M. SANTOSH KUM a I The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHBTTY WRIT PETITION I{o.9521 of 2O15 ORDER: This writ petition is hled to declare the action of respondent Nos.l to 4 in not taking any action to demolish the unauthorized construction made by the 5th respondent in premises bearing No.14-4-89, Multanipura, Begum Bazx, Hyderabad, pursuant to the representations made by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct respondent Nos.l to 4 to demolish the iJlegal construction made by the 5tt' respondent.

2. Heard Sri C.Viswanath, learned counsel representing Sri E.Ramesh Chandra Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners on record and Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and Sri M.Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.S

3. The case of the petitioners is that l"t petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.l4-4-92, situated at Multanipura, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad, having purchased the said house property from its lawful owner for a valid consideration on 06.05.2002 and has been in possession \ 2 and enjo5ment since the date of purchase. Wh le the matter stood thus, the Sti, respondent who is the neight,r r of petitioner ald owner of premises bearing No. 14-4-89 at Multanipura, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad (for short 'subject rroperty') has commenced construction in the month of July, 2014 without any permission and "vithout leaving any setbacl s and making provision for windows and ventilators towards pe: Lioner's house' The petitioner made a complaint to respondents 2 to 4, however, no action has been taken. The petitioner su: rritted written representations on 2 1. 10 .2014 to 3'd respond: rt against the illegal construction of the Sth respondent, but no i ction has been taken by the respondents. 4. That the 2nd petitioner (son of 1st petitione r made another representation ot 29.1O.2014 to t.Ile Public Infc r mation Officer, Ofhce of the Assistant City Planner, requestirr;1 to furnish the information as to whether the 5tt'respondent ht s obtained any permission for construction and to provide a c )pv of the said permission and sanction plan. As there was nc response from respondents 2 to 4, the 2'd petitioner constr rined to make another representation on 30.1O.2014 to the 1'r resPondent bringing the same to his notice and to take nect:r sary action. On

03.11.20 14, the 4th respondent furnished t 1e information 3 through letter No.18O/ACP/C1/SZ| GHMC/2O14 stating that no permission was granted to respondent No.S for constiuction in respect of the subject property. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed WP.No.34327 of 2014 against the itlegal construction undertaken by the 5h respondent and this Court vide order dated 14.11.2014 directed the Sft respondent not to make any further construction in the subject property. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners on 18.02.2015 with an understanding that tl.e 5ft respondent would not make aly illegal construction. However, contrary to the said understanding, the 5*, respondent had proceeded with illegal construction. Aggrieved by the sarne, present writ petition is fiIed.

5. Counter is frled by respondents 2 to 4 contending that in response to tl-re complaint given by the petitioners, the respondents issued show-cause notice dated 27.1O.2O14 uoder Section a52(1) and 461(1) of the HMC Act to 5th respondent. As there is no response from the 5th respondent, the respondent oflicials issued another notice dated 03.ll.2O14 under Section 452(21 of the HMC Act and final notice dated.24.07.2O15. It is further contended that the petitioners hled another writ petition i i I 4 No.1O695 of 2O15 ; and that in view of tJle interirr orders passed in WP.MP.No.l4I37 /2015 in WP.No.10695l2Ol5 he respondent offrrcia-ls have issued letter dated 29.O4.2O1 ; to the sth respondent directing him to stop further con; ruction work. Thereafter, the respondent oflicials have issuetl another letter dated 29.O7.2O15 to the Police offrcials with a re; rest to provide necessary police protection during the lemolition of unauthorized construction of the 5m responder: I However, the respondent ofhcia-ls could not proceed with the ,l :molition since the police protection could not be provided b5' the concerned police. Meanwhile, the unolfrcial respondent tJt'ough his wife has obtained status quo orders dated : ,1.07.2015 in IA.No.546/2O15 in OS.No. 168ll2OLS granted tl the VI Junior Civil Judge, Ciry Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Ultir ately, the said suit was dismissed on 08.08.2021. Subseqr ently, the 5th respondent had informed the oflicial responder ts that he has filed apptication for regularization of the constru( tion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152 MA dated 02.11.2015 v., e application No.20O002 1439, dated 21.12.2015 and the sam: is pending.

6. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to z. submits that as and u,hen the BRS application of respondent No. i is disposed of,

4.1 5 the respondent-Corporation will take further course of action basing on the outcwe of the BRS application of respondent No.5.

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. It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has

8. formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorizcd / iLlegal 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 regularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 6O days from the date of notihcation of the said Rules along with SOVI 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 and inspection of sites, either approve or reject the applications ald 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 1 .'.1 I I j I l t. i : ?t E T t 6

9. The Regularization Rr.rles were notified on )2.11.2015, as per which, applications for regularization were tr be flled within 60 days from the said notified date and the samr: were supposed to be processed within a period of six months fr,t n the last date of receipt of applications

10. The regularization scheme under GO.M;; No.152, dated

02.11.2015 was challenged in WP (PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Ber r h of this Court on 18.10.2O 16 as under:- "We consider it appropiate, in such ciranms modtfg *rc earlier order, and direct applications fo, regularization be proc accordance with the regularization schame G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015. In case 1 or the other Municipal Corporations in thr Telongana, afier consideing the applic ( regulartzation, decide to reject tle ra regularizotion, it is open to them to commrt orders of rejection to the applicarlts @ncr) thereafier take action for demotitinn of t structures in accordancc u.tith lau,t. In sucl cases uthere the GHMC, or the otPer Corporations, tentatiuelg decide to req.,.i illegal structures, such a decision shall t :ances, to tfwt th.e rssed in ntified in ''Le GHMC State of tions for uest for icate tLe ned, and "e illegal of those MunicipaL zrize th.e rcrely be 7 recorded in the file, and. shall neittar be giuen effed to nor sLnll it be communicated to tte applicants, pending further orders fromthis hurt." 1 1. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with a batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 2A.O4.2O21, with a direction that the interim order dated 18. 10.20 16 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.1236 of 2O2O

12. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaJendra Kumar BarJatga and a,nother Vs. U.P. Auas Euam Vikas Parishad and othersr, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, uiz., K.Ramada.s Shenog Vs. Chiet Otficers, Toun Municipal CounclP, Dr. G.N.Khajurla and others Vs. Delhi Deaelopment Authoritg and others3, M.I. Builders (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Radheg Shgam Sahua, Esha Ekta Apdrtments Co-Op Houslrtg Sociely Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbais, Supettech Limited Vs. Emerald. 'z ' 2024 SCC Online SC 3767 (1974) 2 scc 506 r (rsgs) s scc zsz o (1999) 6 scc 464 ' (2013) 3 scc (civil) 89 ;l J l I 8 Court Ouner Resident Weltare Assoclatiott Kerala Sftate Costal Zone Management and otler*, luthorlty Vs. Maradu MunlcipalitgiT, State of Haryana Vs SortpcF, has issued further directions in addition to ttre dirt :tions given in Re: Directions in the matter of demolltTon oJ t ttttctures, vide order dated 13.11.2024 in WP(Civil).Nos.295 a-n 132a of 2023, WP(Crirninaf).No.162 of 2022. The Hon'ble Supr :me Court has specifically directed that e\'( nt of any application/ appeal/ revision being filed by the tr rrrer or builder against non-issuance of completion certi icate or for regularization of unauthorized construction ol rectification of deviation, etc., the same shall be disposed of r r tJ,e authority concerned, including the pending appeals /revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later t ean 90 days as statutorily provided.

13. In the instant case, since the grievance cf the petitioners remains unredre ssed due to the pendenc y of the BRS application of respondent No.5, in the light of th,: aforesaid order dattrd 28.0a.202 1 passed b-"- a Division Bench < f this Court in t WP(PIL) No.63 of 2013 and its batch, as well rr, the directions 6 lzozry ro scc r 7 lzozr; ro scc ezz 1zoz31 o scc o+: 8 .5i'>- ( I i 9 issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajerudra Kumar Barjatga's case (cited supra), the respondent Nos. 2 to a (GHMC) are directed to process the application submitted by respondent No.5 for regularization of unauthorized/illegal construction, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the interim order dated 18.06.2O16 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. Subject to result of the BRS application ftled by respondent No.S, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to take appropriate action to redress the petitioner's grievance strictly in accordarce with law.

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 //TRUE COPY// To The Prinooal Secretary, Municipal Admini Tetangana. secretariat Building, Hyderabad SD/. L. VIJAYA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER o Department, State of 2 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municpal Corporation' Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

3. The zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation, South Zone, Sardar Mahal, South Zone, Hyderabad '

4.TheAssistantCityPlanner,Circte-V,.GreaterHyderabadMunrcipal -lvlahal, Coiporation, Sardar Sought Zone, Hyderabad'

5. One CC to SRI E. RAMESH CHANDRA GOUD, Advocate [OPUC] 6,TwoCCstoGPforMunicipalAdministrationand.UrbanDevelopment,High " c"r.t-r.itri" Stat. ot T"tanlrna at Hyderabad [oUT] Fro 1

7. One CC to SRI M. ARUN KUI\4AR, S.C. for GHMC [O: JC] 8. One CC to SRI M. SANTOSH KUMAR, Advocate [OpL C] 9. Two CD Copies MP MMT ov* HIGH COURT DA. 'ED:1910912025 ;.6-.-*ttr: o 2 I JAl'l 20?[ 6) + \ 'i;....'-. ',-- /+ ORDER WP.t o.9521 of 2015 DISPOSING OF THE IVRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,*(" @ +\"