Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1491 (TS)

G. Praveen Kumar S/o. G. Kalyan v. Commissioner

2025-11-13

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. This writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in taking any action on the representations of the petitioners dated 02.01.2013, 16.02.2013, 22.02.2013 and 12.03.2014, with regard to the illegal constructions and activities made by respondent No.4 in a residential zone at H.No.3-5-1093/22 & 22/A, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and also in violation of the land use guidelines issued by the municipal authorities vide G.O.Ms.No.363 MA & UD (1) Department dated 21.08.2010, and for a consequential relief. 2. Heard Sri K.Sunil, learned counsel representing Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner and resident of House No. 3-5-1094/14, Plot No. 15, Sri Venkateswara Colony, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad; that respondent No. 4 obtained permission for construction of a residential building and has taken up construction of a building consisting of ground + four upper floors on the plot situated at House No. 3-5-1093/22 and 22/A, Sri Venkateswara Colony, Narayanaguda, which is located opposite to the petitioner’s property; that however, contrary to the said permission, respondent No. 4 commenced construction of a commercial complex and has fixed black glazed glass on the front side of the said building. Due to this, the sunlight falling on the black glazed glass is being reflecting onto opposite and neighbouring houses, thereby adversely affecting the health of the members of the neighbouring families. 4. He further submits that respondent No. 4 is using the said building as a godown and is engaging goods vehicles for transportation of pharmaceutical products in bulk quantities and due to the frequent movement of such goods vehicles for loading and unloading, great inconvenience is being caused to the local residents of the colony. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted representations dated 02.01.2013, 16.02.2013, 22.02.2013 and 12.03.2014 to respondent Nos.1 to 3, against the unauthorized construction and activities of respondent No.4, however, respondent Corporation has not taken any action on the said representations and aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 6. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted representations dated 02.01.2013, 16.02.2013, 22.02.2013 and 12.03.2014 to respondent Nos.1 to 3, against the unauthorized construction and activities of respondent No.4, however, respondent Corporation has not taken any action on the said representations and aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 by referring to the counter would submit that respondent No.4 has obtained permission for construction of a building consisting of stilt for parking + 4 upper floors vide permit No.200/ZC/CZ/Cir- 10/2010, dated 08.12.2010 and has completed his construction. Subsequently, respondent No.4 has submitted application vide No.2000021607, dated 22.12.2015 for regularization of deviations, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152 MA dated 02.11.2015, and the same is pending. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 further submits that as and when the BRS application of respondent No.4 is disposed of, the respondent-Corporation will take further course of action basing on the outcome of the BRS application of respondent No.4. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 11. 10. 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 11. 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.” 12. 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. 13. 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. 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. 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. 14. In the instant case, since the grievance of the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS application of respondent No.4, in the light of the aforesaid order dated 28.04.2021 passed by a Division 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 Rajendra Kumar Barjatya’s case (cited supra), the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (GHMC) are directed to process the application submitted by respondent No.4 for regularization of unauthorized/illegal construction, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the 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 application filed by respondent No.4, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to take appropriate action to redress the petitioner’s grievance strictly in accordance with law. 15. 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.