Bodduna Seetharamulu v. 1. The State of Telangana

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to stop the illegal and unauthorised construciion being made by the Respondent No. 3 bearing H.No. 2-3-132, situated at beside vegetable Market area, Jagitial, Karimnagar District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.BHAKTHAVATSAL Counsel for the Respondent No.l : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN OEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY ( sc FoR MUNTCTPALTTTES) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI V.RAVINDER RAO The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITTON No.38583 of 2Ol4 ORDER: This writ petition is filed declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not taking further action pursuant to notice dated Ol.O7.2OL4, issued under Sections 217(3), 228(31 and 3O6 of the A.P.Municipalit5r Act, 1965, against respondent No.3 to demolish the illegal and unauttrorDed construction bearing H.No.2-3-132, sitrrated beside Vegetable Market Area, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, as illegal, arbitrary and contra-ry to the provisions of A.P.Municipality Act, 1965.

2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 as well as Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.2-1-235, situated at Vegetable Market, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, consisting of ground and first floor; that 3d respondent without obtaining any sancti,on or permission from the 2'a respondent ald without leaving the required setbacks, is constructing an unauthorized 1 2 building without leaving the required setbacks, and has opened one window and one ventilator on each floor facing the petitioner's house, thereby causing hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner. The petitioner made oral representation to the 2"d respondent on 11.06.2014 and in response to the same, the 2"d respondent visited the site and issued notice to tlre 3d respondent on 18.O6.2O14 to stop the unauthorized construction immediately, otherwise, they wotrld remove the construction as per law. Thereafter, the 2.d respondent has issued proceedings dated 01.O7.2O14 under Section 2L7(3l, 228(31 and 36O of A.P.Municipality Act, 1965, to the 3d respondent to remove all unauthorized constructions within 3 days, but the said proceedings were returned as refused; that the 2"d respondent failed to proceed further against ttre 3.d respondent by removing the unauthroised construction as stated in the notice and proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is frled.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 on written instructions would submit that respondent No.3 has submitted an applica.tion No.OS1-2O160301-11 for regularization of unauthorised building consisting of Ground plus two upper floors under BRS scheme in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152, MA&UD.(M1), 3 dated O2.11.2O15; ald tl-at the said application TS pending consideration. He further submit that as BRS application of the

3.4 respondent is pending, the 2d respondent did not take further action, however, as and when the BRS application is processed and disposed, the 2'd respondent will initiate further action depending upon the result of BRS application.

6. It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has formrrlated Rules for regularization of unauthonzed./nlegal constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plafl or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No. 152, dated

02.11.2015. As per the said G.O., the application for regula-rization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 6O days from the date of notification of tl"e said Rules along \rith 50% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs. 1O,OOO/- whichever is less. The competent authority, i.e., Municipal Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporationsand Municipalities, Metropolitan 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) concerned as early as \ possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of 4 a, applications.

7. The Regularization Rules were notified on O2.LL.2O 15, as per which, applications for regularization were to be frled within 6O days from the said notilied date and the same were supposed to be processed within a period of six months from the last date of receipt of applications.

8. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated

02.i1.2015 w'as challenged in WP (PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18. 10.2O l6r as under:- "We consider it oppropiate, in such ciranm,stanes, to modifg tLw earli.er order, and direct that tte applicatiotts for regulariz,ation be proessed in acordance with the regularization scheme notified in G.O.Ms.No. 152 dated O2. 1 1 .2O 15. tn case the GHMC or the otler Municipol Corporations irt tle State of Telangana, afier onsidering *e applications for regularization, decide to reject the reEtest for regularization, it i,s open to them to ommtnicate the orders of rejection to the applicants anrem.ed, and thereafi.er take action for demolition of the illegal stnlcfiLres in accordanrce with lau.t. In such of tlnse , cases tuhere the GHMC, or the other Municipal ,y' 5 &rporations, tentatiuelg deride to regalarize the illegal stntctttres, such a decision shall merelg be rearded in tle fite, and slwll neitler be giuen effect to nor shall it be ammunicated. to tte appticants, pending furtler orders from thi^s Court."

9. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with a batch of Writ Petitions were disposed of vide order, dated 28.O4.2O2L, 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.(Civiu No. 1236 of 2O2O.

10. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaJendra Kuntar Barjatya and dnother Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and otherst, wherein ttre Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, uiz., K.Rannadas Shenog Vs. Chief Officers, Toun Municltal CounciP, Dr. G.N.Khajuria and. others Vs. Dethi Detelopment Authoritg and otherss, M.I. Builders (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Radheg Shgam Sahu+, Esha Elda Aparhnents CoQp Houslrng Societg Llmlted. I/s. Munlcipal Corpora.tion of 'z -r-=_-- 1 2024 SCC Online SC a76Z (1974) 2 scc 506 I (1995) s scc 762 ' (1999) 6 scc 464 6 (-- Mumbc:ls, Sqtertech Lhnlted Vs. Etnertld Court Ooner Resldene Welfare dssocicrtlon and other$, Kewla State Costal Zone Mdndgement Alay'i|rtotirty Vs. Maradu Munictpatltglt, Sitate of Haryana Vs. Satpap, has issued further directions in addition to the directions given in 8e: IBrectlons tn tlrc mdttar of demolltton of strttctttres, vide order dated 13.1L.2O24 in WP(Civil).Nos.295 and 328 of 2023, WP(Criminal).No.162 of 2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifrcally directed that the event of any application/appeal/revision being filed by the owner or builder against non-issuance of completion certifrcate or regularization of unauthorized constriuction or rectification of deviation, etc., the sarne shall be disposed of by the auttrority concerned, including the pending appeals/revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 9O days as statutorily provided. I 1. Since the grievance of the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS application of the 3d respondent, in light of the aforesajd order dated 28.O4.2O2 1 passed by a '1zoJp scc (civir) 8e 6 (2021) 10 scc I '1zo2ry ro scc ezz 8 lzozry o scc o+: 7 Dirrision Bench of this Court in WP(PIL) No.63 of 2013 and its batch, as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RajenLra Kumar Barjatga's case (cited supra), the 2"d respondent is directed to process the application submitted by the 3.d respondent for regularization of unauthorized / illegal construction, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance wittt the interim order dated La.O6.2O16 passed in WP{PIL) No.63 of 2016, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to result of the BRS application filed by the 3d respondent, ttre 2"d respondent is directed to take appropriate action to redress the petitioner's grievance, strictly in accordance with law. L2. Accordingly, tie writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- Smt. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

1. The Principal Secretary, I\runicipal Administration, T of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Jagitial Municipality, Jagitial, 3. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI 4. OneCC to SRI P.BHAKTHAVATSAL, Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY (SC FOR 6. One CC to SRI V.RAVINDER RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies MC,TELANGANA) Advocate [OPUCI CTION OFFICER g€na Secretariat, State nagar District. LOPMENT, High To SA BM CY HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 I4cHET 2 4 JAN 2026 a .F t ORDER WP.No.38583 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @ 9p @ \'t o \-"1$

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to stop the illegal and unauthorised construciion being made by the Respondent No. 3 bearing H.No. 2-3-132, situated at beside vegetable Market area, Jagitial, Karimnagar District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.BHAKTHAVATSAL Counsel for the Respondent No.l : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN OEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY ( sc FoR MUNTCTPALTTTES) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI V.RAVINDER RAO The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITTON No.38583 of 2Ol4 ORDER: This writ petition is filed declaring the action of respondent No.2 in not taking further action pursuant to notice dated Ol.O7.2OL4, issued under Sections 217(3), 228(31 and 3O6 of the A.P.Municipalit5r Act, 1965, against respondent No.3 to demolish the illegal and unauttrorDed construction bearing H.No.2-3-132, sitrrated beside Vegetable Market Area, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, as illegal, arbitrary and contra-ry to the provisions of A.P.Municipality Act, 1965.

2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 as well as Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.2-1-235, situated at Vegetable Market, Jagtial, Karimnagar District, consisting of ground and first floor; that 3d respondent without obtaining any sancti,on or permission from the 2'a respondent ald without leaving the required setbacks, is constructing an unauthorized 1 2 building without leaving the required setbacks, and has opened one window and one ventilator on each floor facing the petitioner's house, thereby causing hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner. The petitioner made oral representation to the 2"d respondent on 11.06.2014 and in response to the same, the 2"d respondent visited the site and issued notice to tlre 3d respondent on 18.O6.2O14 to stop the unauthorized construction immediately, otherwise, they wotrld remove the construction as per law. Thereafter, the 2.d respondent has issued proceedings dated 01.O7.2O14 under Section 2L7(3l, 228(31 and 36O of A.P.Municipality Act, 1965, to the 3d respondent to remove all unauthorized constructions within 3 days, but the said proceedings were returned as refused; that the 2"d respondent failed to proceed further against ttre 3.d respondent by removing the unauthroised construction as stated in the notice and proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is frled.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 on written instructions would submit that respondent No.3 has submitted an applica.tion No.OS1-2O160301-11 for regularization of unauthorised building consisting of Ground plus two upper floors under BRS scheme in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152, MA&UD.(M1), 3 dated O2.11.2O15; ald tl-at the said application TS pending consideration. He further submit that as BRS application of the

3.4 respondent is pending, the 2d respondent did not take further action, however, as and when the BRS application is processed and disposed, the 2'd respondent will initiate further action depending upon the result of BRS application.

6. It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has formrrlated Rules for regularization of unauthonzed./nlegal constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plafl or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No. 152, dated

02.11.2015. As per the said G.O., the application for regula-rization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 6O days from the date of notification of tl"e said Rules along \rith 50% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs. 1O,OOO/- whichever is less. The competent authority, i.e., Municipal Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporationsand Municipalities, Metropolitan 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) concerned as early as \ possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of 4 a, applications.

7. The Regularization Rules were notified on O2.LL.2O 15, as per which, applications for regularization were to be frled within 6O days from the said notilied date and the same were supposed to be processed within a period of six months from the last date of receipt of applications.

8. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated

02.i1.2015 w'as challenged in WP (PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18. 10.2O l6r as under:- "We consider it oppropiate, in such ciranm,stanes, to modifg tLw earli.er order, and direct that tte applicatiotts for regulariz,ation be proessed in acordance with the regularization scheme notified in G.O.Ms.No. 152 dated O2. 1 1 .2O 15. tn case the GHMC or the otler Municipol Corporations irt tle State of Telangana, afier onsidering *e applications for regularization, decide to reject the reEtest for regularization, it i,s open to them to ommtnicate the orders of rejection to the applicants anrem.ed, and thereafi.er take action for demolition of the illegal stnlcfiLres in accordanrce with lau.t. In such of tlnse , cases tuhere the GHMC, or the other Municipal ,y' 5 &rporations, tentatiuelg deride to regalarize the illegal stntctttres, such a decision shall merelg be rearded in tle fite, and slwll neitler be giuen effect to nor shall it be ammunicated. to tte appticants, pending furtler orders from thi^s Court."

9. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with a batch of Writ Petitions were disposed of vide order, dated 28.O4.2O2L, 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.(Civiu No. 1236 of 2O2O.

10. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaJendra Kuntar Barjatya and dnother Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and otherst, wherein ttre Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, uiz., K.Rannadas Shenog Vs. Chief Officers, Toun Municltal CounciP, Dr. G.N.Khajuria and. others Vs. Dethi Detelopment Authoritg and otherss, M.I. Builders (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Radheg Shgam Sahu+, Esha Elda Aparhnents CoQp Houslrng Societg Llmlted. I/s. Munlcipal Corpora.tion of 'z -r-=_-- 1 2024 SCC Online SC a76Z (1974) 2 scc 506 I (1995) s scc 762 ' (1999) 6 scc 464 6 (-- Mumbc:ls, Sqtertech Lhnlted Vs. Etnertld Court Ooner Resldene Welfare dssocicrtlon and other$, Kewla State Costal Zone Mdndgement Alay'i|rtotirty Vs. Maradu Munictpatltglt, Sitate of Haryana Vs. Satpap, has issued further directions in addition to the directions given in 8e: IBrectlons tn tlrc mdttar of demolltton of strttctttres, vide order dated 13.1L.2O24 in WP(Civil).Nos.295 and 328 of 2023, WP(Criminal).No.162 of 2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifrcally directed that the event of any application/appeal/revision being filed by the owner or builder against non-issuance of completion certifrcate or regularization of unauthorized constriuction or rectification of deviation, etc., the sarne shall be disposed of by the auttrority concerned, including the pending appeals/revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 9O days as statutorily provided. I 1. Since the grievance of the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS application of the 3d respondent, in light of the aforesajd order dated 28.O4.2O2 1 passed by a '1zoJp scc (civir) 8e 6 (2021) 10 scc I '1zo2ry ro scc ezz 8 lzozry o scc o+: 7 Dirrision Bench of this Court in WP(PIL) No.63 of 2013 and its batch, as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RajenLra Kumar Barjatga's case (cited supra), the 2"d respondent is directed to process the application submitted by the 3.d respondent for regularization of unauthorized / illegal construction, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance wittt the interim order dated La.O6.2O16 passed in WP{PIL) No.63 of 2016, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to result of the BRS application filed by the 3d respondent, ttre 2"d respondent is directed to take appropriate action to redress the petitioner's grievance, strictly in accordance with law. L2. Accordingly, tie writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- Smt. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

1. The Principal Secretary, I\runicipal Administration, T of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Jagitial Municipality, Jagitial, 3. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI 4. OneCC to SRI P.BHAKTHAVATSAL, Advocate [OPUCI 5. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY (SC FOR 6. One CC to SRI V.RAVINDER RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies MC,TELANGANA) Advocate [OPUCI CTION OFFICER g€na Secretariat, State nagar District. LOPMENT, High To SA BM CY HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 I4cHET 2 4 JAN 2026 a .F t ORDER WP.No.38583 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @ 9p @ \'t o \-"1$