Disposed

Bajjuri Venugopal, S/o. Chandramouli, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Nov 2019WP/3084/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a commission’s notice regarding unauthorized construction citing deeming provision. Court found deeming provision inapplicable. Petition disposed by directing respondent to process pending regularisation scheme applications and merits of submitted explanation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to pass orders on pending BRS applications considering petitioner’s explanation, in accordance with law.

Bajjuri Venugopal, S/o. Chandramouli, Vs The State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3084 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner challenges the Notice dated 02.02.2015 issued by respondent No.2-Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted an application on 09.07.2012 seeking building permission to construct Ground plus First floor in Open Plot No.63 and 64 in Survey Nos.26, 27, 29 and 30, situated at Lalji Doddi Girmajipet, Warangal Town, Warangal District. He made another application on 30.08.2012 seeking permission to construct Ground, First and Second Floors in the Open Plot Nos.65, 66 and 67 in the same survey numbers. He paid the prescribed fee along with the applications. As no orders were passed either approving or rejecting his applications even after a lapse of 30 days from the date of making applications, in view of deeming provision under Section 437 of GHMC Act, the petitioner proceeded with construction activity. The petitioner asserts that in response to the notice issued under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of GHMC, he submitted detailed explanation on 27.01.2015, but the 2^nd respondent, without considering his explanation, passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2015 under Section 452(2) of the Act.

¶6

Sri Polisetty Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made applications under Building Regularisation Scheme (BRS) notified by the Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015, and the same are pending.

¶7

wp_3084_2015 CKR, J

¶8

¶9

Per contra, Smt. Pingali Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner cannot have benefit of Section 437 of the Act, as the requirement of prior intimation before proceeding with the construction has not been complied with, and therefore, on merits, the petitioner’s case does not deserve consideration. However, learned Standing Counsel submits that as the petitioner asserts that his applications under Building Regularization Scheme as per G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015, is pending, necessary orders would be passed in terms of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL) No.63 of 2016, dated 18.10.2016.

¶10

Having regard to the respective submissions, in the facts of the present case, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel with respect to the benefit not being available to the petitioner in terms of Section 437 of the Act relating to deeming provision, commands acceptance. There is no material before this Court, nor is it asserted by the petitioner that the terms of Section 437 of the Act, in letter and spirit, have been complied with i.e., putting the Commissioner on notice with respect to the intention to make construction after passage of 30 days time.

¶11

The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL) No.63 of 2016, dated 18.10.2016, in the cases where BRS applications are stated to be pending, observed as under:

¶12

“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

¶13

wp_3084_2015 CKR, J

¶14

¶15

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.”

¶16

Accordingly, in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.(PIL) No.63 of 2016, dated 18.10.2016, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to pass orders on the BRS applications dated 09.07.2012 and 30.08.2012, in accordance with law, by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 27.01.2015 for the Show Cause notice dated 17.01.2015. No costs.

¶17

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
01 st November, 2019
KSM

¶18

wp_3084_2015 CKR, J

¶19

¶20

THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.3084 of 2015

¶22

01^st November, 2019

¶23