Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1767 (TS)

Gandhe Mohan Rao v. State of Telangana

2025-12-10

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
ORDER : 1. Writ Petition No.25910 of 2015 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 15.06.2015 submitted by petitioner and his brother against the illegal construction raised by respondent No.4 by encroaching upon an extent of 20’ feet wide Master plan road, contrary to the building permission sanctioned by Municipality, vide Building Permit No.112/2013, dated 12.11.2013, and for consequential relief. 2. Writ Petition No.19807 of 2016 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s building bearing H.No.6-10-86/1, situated at Bhuktapur, Adilabad Town, without considering the explanations, dated 15.10.2015, 07.12.2015, 08.12.2015 and 21.01.2016, submitted by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief. 3. Since the parties, the subject property and the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are same, both the Writ Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Writ Petition No.19807 of 2016 is taken as lead case insofar as the facts of the case are concerned. 5. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in Writ Petition No.19807 of 2016. 6. Heard Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Municipality and Sri V.Rohith, learned counsel representing Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel-on-record for respondent No.3. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner and possessor of house bearing H.No.6-10-86/1, admeasuring 140.66 square yards, situated at Adilabad Town, having purchased the same under registered sale deed No.1358/2012, dated 24.02.2012; that the name of the petitioner was mutated in municipality records; that petitioner made an application for grant of permission for construction; that the same was considered and permission was granted for construction of Ground + one upper floor vide File No.G1/BA/854/2013, dated 12.11.2013; and that the petitioner constructed building as per the sanctioned plan. 7.1. 7.1. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.3 made a representation dated 15.06.2015 to respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner has raised structures contrary to the sanctioned plan and encroached road portion of 20 feet and sought to take action; that respondent No.3 has also filed Writ Petition No.25910 of 2015 seeking direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 15.06.2015 submitted by him praying to take action against the illegal construction raised by petitioner, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as respondent No.4. 7.2. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that in Writ Petition No.25910 of 2015, considering the report submitted by respondent No.3 therein-Adilabad Municipality, the said respondent was directed to take action as warranted by the Municipalities Act, by duly issuing notice to respondent No.4 therein, i.e., the petitioner herein and accordingly, respondent No.2-Adilabad Municipality issued notice dated 24.09.2015 and petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 15.10.2015, but without considering the same, respondent No.2 issued another notice dated 14.12.2015 and petitioner submitted explanation dated 18.12.2015 denying the allegations made in the notice; that the petitioner lodged a complaint before respondent No.2 on 11.09.2015 seeking to take action and the same is pending. 7.3. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.3 filed CC.No.1956 of 2015 alleging disobedience of interim order dated 25.08.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.25910 of 2015 and respondent No.2, with a view to avert the Contempt proceedings, has issued notice under Section 340 of the Municipalities Act to the petitioner on 07.01.2016, to which, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 12.01.2016, however, respondent No.2 kept the same pending. 7.4. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.2 is regularly visiting the petitioner’s property and threatening to demolish the structures raised by him and aggrieved by the same, Writ Petition No.19807 of 2016 is filed. 7.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of interim order dated 25.08.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.25910 of 2015, respondent No.2-Municipality is proceeding with further demolition of the petitioner’s building and in fact, demolished a part of the petitioner’s building and seeks to pass appropriate orders. 8. 7.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of interim order dated 25.08.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.25910 of 2015, respondent No.2-Municipality is proceeding with further demolition of the petitioner’s building and in fact, demolished a part of the petitioner’s building and seeks to pass appropriate orders. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Municipality submitted that in compliance of the interim order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.25910 of 2015, a joint inspection was conducted and the Commissioner, Adilabad Municipality, has submitted a detailed inspection report, dated 18.10.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the building raised by the petitioners is in deviation of the sanctioned plan in respect of front setback, sajja projections and unauthorized shops (546 square yards.ft) resulting in encroachment of about 2’-6” into Master Plan road alignment. 8.1. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner submitted an application vide No.015056825, dated 28.11.2015 for regularization of unauthorised construction in terms of GO.Ms.No.152, MA, dated 02.11.2015 and the same is pending consideration and therefore, learned Standing Counsel prayed that appropriate directions be given to respondent No.2 to consider the said application of the petitioner as per GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015. 8.2. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Adilabad Municipality further 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. 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. 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. However, in the instant case, even after lapse of more than ten years, the application made by the petitioner for regularization of the deviated/unauthorized structures is still pending and no action has been taken by respondent No.2 on the said application till date. 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. 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 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 W.P. (Civil) Nos. 295 and 328 of 2023 and W.P. (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. 14. In the present case, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the application for regularization of unauthorized construction was submitted on 28.11.2015, however, the same is pending and has not been processed by respondent No.2 till date. 15. 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), both the Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Municipality to process the application dated 28.11.2015 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. 16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.