Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1367 (TS)

V. Venkateswar Rao v. State of Telangana

2025-11-03

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not passing any orders on the representation dated 17.11.2014 submitted by the petitioner for approval of revised plan, as being illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential relief. 2. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the Plot bearing No.48, admeasuring 300 Sq.Yards forming part and parcel of land in Sy.No.447/A, Vignanpuri Colony, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same by virtue of registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.3402 of 1999, dated 25.03.1989. The petitioner obtained permission for construction of Stilt plus 3 upper floors vide permit No.26146/DC/WZ/Cir-14/2014 in File No.48001/2003/06/ 2013/C-14, dated 17.07.2014. Later, petitioner applied for revised permission for construction of 4 th floor and the same was pending. Meanwhile, the petitioner completed construction of 4 th floor and the respondents issued notice dated 19.09.2014 under Section 452(1) and 461(1) of the HMC Act, 1955, asking the petitioner to submit reply within seven days from the date of receipt of notice. However, the said notice was served on the petitioner on 16.10.2014 and the petitioner submitted explanation on 24.10.2014. Meanwhile, respondent No.3 affixed notice dated 06.10.2014 under Section 452(2) of the HMC Act on 21.10.2014 alleging that the petitioner has not submitted explanation to the earlier notice dated 19.09.2014. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted representation dated 17.11.2014 with a request to grant permission for 4th floor and to issue revised plan along with requisite amount and that the said representation is pending consideration. While the matter stood thus, the respondent authorities came to the subject property on 25.11.2014 and tried to demolish the subject property. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Government has come up with a scheme for regularisation of unauthorised constructions under G.O.Ms.No.152, 02.11.2015; and that subsequent to filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner herein has submitted three applications for regularization of unauthorized construction vide application Nos.2000033787, 2000033781 and 2000033795 under G.O.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015 and the said applications are pending. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that appropriate directions be given to respondents to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner for regularisation as per GO.Ms.No.152. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent-GHMC submitted that the State Government has issued GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015 for regularization of unauthorized 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 18.10.2016 directed GHMC/respective Municipal Corporations to decide the applications for regularization and if the applications for regularization 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 regularize 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/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 60 days from the date of notification of the said Rules along with 50% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of 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 same to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications. 8. The Regularization 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. 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.152, 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 18.10.2016 as under:- “We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to modify the earlier order, and direct that the applications for regularization be processed in accordance with the regularization scheme notified in G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015. In case the GHMC or the other Municipal Corporations in the State of Telangana, after considering the applications for regularization, decide to reject the request for regularization, it is open to them to communicate the orders of rejection to the applicants concerned, and thereafter take action for demolition of the illegal structures in accordance with law. In such of those cases where the GHMC, or the other Municipal Corporations, tentatively decide to regularize 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.” 10. 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 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.1236 of 2020. 11. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others , 2024 SCC Online SC 3767 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, viz., K.Ramadas Shenoy Vs. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council , [ (1974) 2 SCC 506 ] , Dr. G.N.Khajuria and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority and others , (1995) 5 SCC 762 , M.I. Builders (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu , [ (1999) 6 SCC 464 ] , Esha Ekta Apartments Co-Op Housing Society Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai , [(2013) 3 SCC (Civil) 89] , Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and others , [ (2021) 10 SCC 1 ] , Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu , [ (1999) 6 SCC 464 ] , Esha Ekta Apartments Co-Op Housing Society Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai , [(2013) 3 SCC (Civil) 89] , Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and others , [ (2021) 10 SCC 1 ] , Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authority Vs. Maradu Municipality , [ (2021) 16 SCC 822 ] , State of Haryana Vs. Satpal , [ (2023) 6 SCC 643 ] , 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 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 applications for regularization were submitted, however, the same is pending and has not been processed by the respondents till date. 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 Rajendra Kumar Barjatya ’s case (cited supra), this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (GHMC) to process the 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 2016, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to result of the BRS applications filed by the petitioner, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 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.