The High Court · 2025

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 , grant stay of all further proceedings including the threatened demolition under impugned notice dated i6-01-2016 issued under Section 636 of H.M.c. Act bearing notice No. 1Ozs/Acp/Tps tcgBtczcHMC/1 6 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counse! for the Petitioner: SRI ERANK! PHANI KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER --"q!q7 . iY. lr# ,. Jig = :{ t'' "/. I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYAITA ALISHBTTY WRIT PETITION No.IA2l of 2o16 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the action of issuing the impugned notice respondent No.3 in No.1075 I ACP ITPS/C9B/CZIGHMC/ 16, dated 16.0 L.2OLG under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act, 1955, as illegal, arbitrar5r and. contrary to G.O.Ms.No. L52, dated

02.11.2015.

2. Heard Sri E.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is owner and possessor of property bearing Municipal No.2-2-lO75l L4 / A, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, admeasuring 46L square yards. Proposing to construct new building, the petitioner applied for permission by demolishing the old structure and the 2nd respondent accorded permission for construction of Stilt for parking plus 3 Upper floors vide Permit No.36749 /DC/CZICIR-9 l2OL4, dated 23.09.2OL4. He would \ further submit that the petitioner has commenced construction t 2 and completed the construction by the end of February, 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner raised 4u" and Sth floors, cohtrar5r to the approved plan and the 3a respondent issued notice under Section 452(ll and 461(1) of the HMC Act, 1955, alleging that the petitioner raised construction without leaving setbacks and also made unauthorised construction of 4ttr and 5th floors contra-ry to the approved plan. The said notice was followed by notice under Section 452(21 of the HMC Act, 1955 basing on the complaint made by a neiglrbour.

4. [earned Counsel for t]re petitioner further submits that the Government has come up with a scheme for regularisation of unauthorised constructions under G.O.Ms.No. lS2, O2.l l. 2O I 5; and that the petitioner has submitted application vide reference No.2000034914 dated 26.L2.2015 for regularisation of unauthorised construction and while the said application is pending for consideration, the respondents issued impugned notice dated 16.01.2016 under Section 636 of the HMC Act,

1955. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that appropriate directions be given to respohdents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for regularisation as per GO.Ms.No.152. 3

5. Learned standing counsel for respondent-GHMC submitted that the State Government has issued GO-Ms.No.L52, regalarization of unauthonzed dated O2.L1 .20 15 for constmctions 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 1s.10.2016 directed GHMC/respective Municipal Corporations to decide the applications for regalarization and if the applications for regularization are rejected, to take further action for demolition of illegal stmctures in accordance with law. He further submitted that insofar as applications where the GHMC or the other Municipal corporations, tentativety decide to regularizn 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. It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has 6. formulated Rules for regl\atization of unauthonzed/illegal constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plarr or without permission, vide Go.Ms.No.l52, dated 02.11.2015. As per the said G.O., the application for .'. ,.,., 4 regularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 60 days from the date of notification of the said Rules along with 5O% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs. 10,0O0/- 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 ttre applications and communicate the same to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond sk months from the date of receipt of applications.

7. The Regularization Rules were notified on 02.11.2O15, as per which, applications for regularization were to be filed within 60 days from the said notifred 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 tJlan 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.

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

02.11.20 15 was challenged in WP (PIL).No.63 of 2O16, wherein Eq.cll'r?!'ir . ia' 5 interim directions were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.10.2016 as under:- oWe mrtsider it appropriate, in such ctrcumstanceq to modifg the earlier order, and direct tlnt th.e applications for regularization be processed in accordane with tle regularization sch.eme notifted in G.O.Ms.No.152 datd. 02.11.2015. In cose the GHMC or the oth.er Municipal Corporations in the State of Telangana, afier considering the applications for regularization, decide to reject the request fo, regularization, it is open to them to communicate the orders of rejedion to the applicants concerrted, and thereafier talce action for demolition of the illegal structr,res in accordance uith lana. In such of ttose ccrses ulere the GHMC, or the other Muntcipal Corporations, tentatiuely decide to regularize th.e itlegal structures, such a dectsion sha.tl merely be recorded in tlw file, and shall neither be giuen effect to nor shnll it be @mmunicated to th.e applicants, pending further orders from this Court."

9. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with a batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 28.04.2021, with a direction that tl,.e interim order dated 18.10.2016 passed in W.e.BU,1.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. 6

10. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Bantatya and. another Vs. U.P. Aaas Etnm Vika.s Par{s,ho;d and othersL, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, uiz,., K.Ro:mo,dd.s Shenog Vs. Chief Officers, Touttt Municipal CounciP, Dr. G..lV.Krtqurfa a;nd others Vs. Delht Detnlopment Authoritg and otherss, M.I. Builders (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Radheg Shgam Sahtla., Esha Ekta Apartments Co-Op Housittg Soctdg Llmited Vs. Munlcipal Corporation of Mumbais, Supeftech Limited Vs. Emerald Court Outner Resident Welfare Associatlon and others5, Kerrr,lrz State Costal Zone Management Authoritg Vs. Maradu Municipalitgit, State of Haryana Vs. SatpaP, has issued further directions in addition to the directions given in Re: Directions in the matter of demolltlon of strttctzres, 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 specifically directed that the event of any ' 202+ SCC Online SC 1767 '1rez+y 2 scc 506 I lues;5 scc 762 '1teos;6 scc 464 51zor:y o (zozr ) lo scc I '(z0zr) 16 scc 822 t (zozr) 6 scc 641 3 scc (Civil) tt9 7 application/appeal/revision being filed by the owner or builder against non-issuance of completion certificate or for regularization of unauthor2ed 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.

11. In the instant case, it is ttre specific case of the petitioner that the application for regularization was submitted on

26.12.2Ot5, however, the same is pending arrd has not been processed by the respondents till date.

12. In the light of aforesaid order, dated 28.04.2021 of a Division Bench of this Court in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2O 13 and batch as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Batlortga's case (cited supra), this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (GHMC) to process the application dated 26.L2.2O15 the petitioner for regularization of submitted by unauthorized/illegal construction and pass appropriate orders, in terms of interim order dated 18.06.2016 passed in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2OL6, within a period of three months from the 8 date of receipt of a copy of this ord.er. Subjeit to result of the BRS application filed by the petitioner, the'respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to take further action against the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. Til disposar of BRS apprication submitted by the petitioner, it is made clear that the respondents shall not interfere with the possession and enjo5rment of the petitioner over the subject property. As a sequel thereto, miscena,eous petitions, if a.ny, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. M.NAGAMANI REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To 1 2

3. 4 5

6. 7. PSK. TKS P,''nf." HIGH COURT DATED:0G/1 0t20,2s { J ORDER WP.No.1821 of 2016 HES Ta T C) 1 I JAN 2026 2: * 'ri: DISPOSING OF THE WITHOUT COSTS WRIT PETITION G,*, rg{r}'l)-f