Dismissed

Smt. Cheguri Anitha @ Andalu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jun 2025WP/14425/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash a prior single judge order directing action against her unauthorized construction, contending she was not impleaded. The court held a coordinate bench cannot set aside another single judge's order absent new or wrong facts, noted the speaking order against her had attained finality, dismissed the writ petition, and directed disposal of her pending Section 455A regulariza

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without costs; respondents 2-5 to dispose of petitioner's Section 455A regularization application taking note of A.Praveen Kumar.

Smt. Cheguri Anitha @ Andalu Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD^KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1442s OF²⁰²⁴

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Cheguri Anitha @ Andalu, Wo.^Chqgyri -N.agarjuna,^{Aged.60. years'} Occ.Hous6wife, R/o.H.No.6-3-1^{177 I A1103,B.S.lVakta,Begumpet,Hyderabad} - soo 016'

¶9

...PETtrtoNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its^{Principal Secretary,Municipa!} ' Administration and-Urban Development^{Department' Secretariat Buildings,} Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner, GHMC,^{havingoffice at Tankbund, Hyderabad, T.S.}

¶13

The Zonal Commissioner, GHMC,-having^{office at Khairtabad, Hyderabad,} T.S.

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-17 ,Khairthabad,^{Hyderabad.,-TS} . S. tne Asiistlnt City Planner, Town^{PlanningSection' Circle-17, Khairthabad,} Hyderabad, T.S.

¶15

P. Narender, S/o.P.Raghupathi^{Age.49 years,Occ.Business, Rl/o.H.No.6-3-} 1 177, B.S. Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad,^T.S.

¶16

...RES'ONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 oI the constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate^{writ, order or orders} to set aside the order^passed in^{WP No.9799/2O24, dt.18-04.2024 and to issuea} consequential direction to the respondents 2^{to 5 not to proceed against the} property bearing No.6-3-1 177lAt12O and 6-3-11771A1104,^{B.S.Maktha,Begumpet,} Hyderabad till the disposal of the application^{filed by the petitioner undersection} 455-4 of the GHMC Act, 1955.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High courtmay be pleased to direct}

¶20

the respondents 2 to 5 not to proceed in any manner against the property bearing No.6-3-1177/At120 and 6_3-1127tN104, B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner: SMT. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA Counset for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR frACpL iOfvf fV & URBAN DEV Counset for the Respondent Nos.2 ro s: Sii x.Sr6OHen}Lnao,'stlOn

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: __

¶23

GHMC

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T.VINOD KUMAR}

¶27

WRIT PETI TION No.^{14425 of2024}

¶28

ORDER;

¶29

This Writ Petition^{is filed with the followingprayer:}

¶30

"...to issue an appropiate^{wit, orderor ordersto set aside} the ord,er passed in^{W.P.No.9979of 2024' dt.1B'O4'2024'} and to issue a consequentiol^{direction to the respondents2 to} 5 not to proceed against^{the properTA beaingNo'6 3} 1t77/A/ I2O artcl 6-3 ll77/A/^{IO4, B.S.Maktha,[JcqumPet.} Itgclerabacl, till the disposal^{of the opplication} fled^{by the} petitioner uncier Section 455A of the^{GHMC Act, 1955 and} pcrss such order or orders as this Hon'bte^CourtmaAdeem fi and. proper in the ciratmstances^{of the cose.."}

¶31

Lleard learned counsel^{appearingfor the petitioner,learned} Government Pleader for^{. MunicipalAdministration&Urban} Dcvelopment (MA&UD) appearing for^{respondentNo. I} ,^Sri K.siddharth llao, learned Standing^{Counsel appearing for} respondcnt Nos.2 to 5, and^witl'r thcir^{conscnt thc Writ Pctition is} takcn up for hearing and^{disposal at admissionstage.}

¶32

Having regard to the naturc of^{lis involvedand thc manner o[} disposal of the Writ Petition, this^{Court is of the view that notice to} unofficial respondent No.6 is not necessary for^{adjudication of the} present Writ Petition ,

¶33

¶34

The casc of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit, in bricf, is that she is aggrieved by the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.97()9 <tf 2024, dt.18.O4.2O24, whereby this Court had directed the r.espondents-authorities to take action against the construction nrade by the petitioner and her son in the premises bearing Nos.6 3 ll77 /Al 120 and 6-3-tlTZ lA/104, admeasuring 400 sq. yards in B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad, as the said order has been passed without making them parties to the said writ petition. Henc,r, thc present Writ Petition.

¶35

Pctitioner contends that she had purchased a portion of the property bearing House Nos.6-3-II77 /A/12O and 6-3-t177 /A/ lO4 admeasuring 20O sq. yards along with a construction in 1OO sq. feet having RCC roof, under a registered sale deed bearing No.L525l2O2'2. d1.O7.O5.2O22; and that her son namely Cheguri Eswar Sai Kishore has purchased the remaining portion of the aforesaid house property admeasuring 2OO sq. yards on the same date uide registercd sale deed bearing No.lS26l2O22, and are in possession of tl're said property.

¶36

It is the further contention of the petitioner that herself and her son have approached the respondents-authorities and made application individually, seeking building permission in respect of the propertFpurci'rased by them under the aforementioned two sale

¶37

¶38

deeds; that the^{respondents-authoritiesbyconsideringthe} applications made by^{her granted buildingpermissionon 23.06.2022} for construction of Stilt⁺ 2^{Upper floors; and that her son was also} granted building permission in respect^{of the portion of the property} purchased by him uide building^{permission, dt.O4.O7.2022, for} construction of Stilt⁺ 2 Upper^floors.

¶39

It is the further case of the^{petitionerthat since, both the} petitioner's property and her son's^{property are adjacent to each} other, the petitioner^{along with her son decided to developthe entire} extent oi 40O Sq.^{Yards into a single building consisting of Ground+} 4 Upper Floors, and^{have accordingly made an applicationto the} authorities on 23.02.2023^{seekingrevisionof plan, and since,the} said application was not^{returned on any ground nor rejected, the} petitioner and her son started the^{construction and completed the} building.

¶40

Petitioner further contends that due^{to certain reasons, like} stability and vastu, the^{petitionerand her son constructedSth floor} also and an application^{was submittedto the 2nd respondenL on} O1.06.2024 seeking regularization^{of [he cntire building including5tr'} floor constructed by them under^{Section 455A of the GHMC Act,} 1955 (for short'the Act, 1955).

¶41

¶42

Petitioncr- iurther contends that while she and her son have made an application seeking revision of the permission and also submitted an application for regularization of construction made by them including Srh floor, thc 4m respondent herein had issued a Speaking Order, dr.O3. 1O.2023, directing rhe petitioner and her son to remove the construction which is made in deviation of the sanctioned plan within I 5 days, even though the application submitted by the petitioner alorlg with her son seckrng regularization of the construction is pending consideration with the 2nd respondent.

¶43

It is the lurther case of the petitioner that the 4d respondent addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of police, West Zone, Hyderabad referring to rhe order of this Court in W.p.No.9799 of 2024, stating that the Hon'ble Court had directecl the GHMC authorities to takc action against the unauthorized and illegal construction made by Eswar Sai Kishore, who is the son of the petitioner, and as the GHMC authorities are going to remove the said construction, and thus, sought for being given police aid to prevent any breach of law and order.

¶44

I 1. Petitioner further contends that on coming to know of the same, she got verified the order passed by this Court in W.p.No.9799 of 2024 and obrained online copy of the same; that on going through the said order, she had learnt that one p.Narender describing himself

¶45

)

¶46

as resident ol House^{No.6-3- 1 177, B.S.Maktha,Begumpet,} Hyderabad, has Illed the said Writ^{Petition alleging that the 6e} respondent therein namely Shanta^Srivasta @^{Shanta Devi} @ Shantabai is making unauthorized^{and illegal constructionin the} premises bearing No.6-3-^{1 177} I l2O &^{lO4 anddespite he} approaching the respondents-authorities,^{no action has been taken} thcreon

¶47

tt is the further case^{of the petitioner that the said P.Narender} while approaching this Court by^{liling a writpetitionuide} W.P.No.9799 of 2024^{claiming himself to be resident of houseNo.6-} 3-1177, B.S.Maktha,^{Begumpet, did not liie any documents in} support of his claim of^{he residingin the said premises or as regards} the 6th respondent therein^{making any constructioninthe} neighbourhood, and that^{he atso did not impleadthe petitioner or} her son as party respondents^{to thc said writ petition.}

¶48

I 3. Petitioner further contends that this^{Court merely basing on} the affidavit filcd in the said writ^{petition and the alleged complaint} dt.29.O8.2O23, stated to have been^{liled with the respondents-} authorities, had^passed the^{impugnedorder; and that this Court} while passing the order in^{the aforesaidwrit petitionhad taken note} of the submission^{made on behalfo[ the 6th respondenti-e., Shanta} Srivasta @ Shanta Devi @2^{Shantabai,that shc is no more and during}

¶49

¶50

¶51

her lile time shr: having sold thc said propertl, to one Nagarjuna, and thus, the 611, rcspondent therein ts ln no !,a-y conce:ned ^,ith the constructlon.

¶52

On behalf of the petitioner it is further contended that though the iearned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents-GHMC in the aforesaid writ petition had brought to the notice ol this Court that one Eswar Sai Kishore(petitioner's son), who had obtained building permission, had made construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan, and this Court despite noting the aloresaid submission mzrde, choose to proceed u,ith the samc without making them as partics to the said case, and passed the impugned order directing the respondents-authorities to take action as per the Act.

¶53

It is the lurther contention of the petitioner that based on the order of this Court directing the respondents-authorities to take action against the construction made by the petitioner's son, the respondents-GHMC authorities have addressed a letter seeking police aid for causing demolition [o the building.

¶54

It 1s the lurthcr case of the petitioner that since, this Court had passed an order in Writ Petition. No.9799 ol 2024, at admission stage, withour impleading thc affected parties and that the 6fi respondent against whom reliel had been sought thr:rein being no

¶55

¶56

way connected with the subject^{property, the petitionerand her son} having sought for regr-tlarization^{of the constructionmade by them by} making an application^{underSection455A of the Act, 1955 with the} 2nd respondent-authority^{and the said applicationbeing pending and} also that the application^{madc by the pctitioner seeking permission} lor construction of Stilt^{+ 4 Upper floors was neither returned nor} rejected on any^ground by^{the authorities, the order passed by this} Court in Writ Petition^{No.9799 of 2025 is unsustainable,and is liable} to be set aside.

¶57

Petitioner lurther^{contended that since, the order of this Court} in W.P.No.9799 of^{2024 is passed by a Single Judge of this Court} and since, the said order^{as passedaffects the rights ol the} petitioner, she has filed a^{r.r'rit appeal uid-eW.A.No.468of 2024 onder} Clause 15 of Lctters^{Patent before a Division Bench of this Court,} and the said appeal^{was disposed of on 05.06.2024-}

¶58

Petitioner contends^{that the Division Bench of this Court while} disposing of the^{aforesaid writ appeal had observedthat the order of} this Court in W.P.No.9799^{of 2024 will not be binding on the} petitioner, as she was^{not madeas partyto it; and that the Division} Bench while^{disposing of the said appcal had granted liberty to the} petitioner to flle a^{review petition or file} a fresh writ petition order in W.P.No.9799 ol 2024, and thus,^the challenging^the

¶59

¶60

petitioner herern had liled the present Writ Petition challenging the ordcr in W.P.No.c.)799 of 2024 on her behalf as u,ell as on behalf of her son nam.elg llswar Sai Kishorr:, who is living in LJSA at present and as such being unable to approach this Court

¶61

By contending as above, thc petitioner sccks for setting aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, dt.18.o4.2024

¶62

Per contra, learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respective respondents woul<1 contend that the present Writ Petition as filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed in l.imtni as the petitioner is not e ntitlcd for being granted any reliel having made construction in deviation of the building permissions obtained by her and her son.

¶63

Learned Standing Counsel further. submits that the petitioner and her son namely Eswar Sai Kishore, on purchasing the property bearing house Nos.6-3-1177 lA/120 & 104, admeasuring 4O0 sq. yards in two parts, each admeasuring 2OO sq. .yards, have approached the respondents-authorities and submittecl applications seeking two separate building pcrmissions for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors, which were duly granted by the authorities urde permissions, dt.23.06.2022 and dt.04.O7.2022, respectively,

¶64

¶65

specifying the^permitted construction^{area of the building with a} height of 6 meters with^{setbacks of 1.5 meter on the front, and 1} meter on rear, side 1 and^{side2 to be maintained by each of the} applicants, respectiveiy.

¶66

Learned Standing^{Counselfurther submits that though the} petitioner and her son have obtained^{separate building permissions,} the petitioner while^{undertaking construction had clubbedthe two} portions of the subject house,^{in respectol which two separate} permissions have been obtained,^{and made constructionof a single} building consisting of Stilt^{+ 4 upper floors, thereby violatingthe} building permit orders.

¶67

Learned Standing Counsel^{would further submit that if only} the petitioner and her^{son intended to make constructionof one} building by clubbing the^{entire extent of land admeasuring 400 sq'} yards, the petitioner could^{have made an application, whichcould} have been considered^{and grantedby the respondents by appiying} the setbacks as would be^{applicable in respectof plot of land} admeasuring 40O sq.^{yards rather than obtainingseparate} permissions for 2OO sq. yards for^{construction of Stilt + 2 Upper} floors for which setback norms^{are differentfrom that of the plot of} iand admeasuring 400 sq. Yards.

¶68

¶69

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner and her son though have obtained separate building permissions for construction ol Stilt + 2 Upper floors, made construction of single building by clubbing the aforesaid permissions into one unit and thereby violated Section 7 (2) ot TG-bPASS Act, 2O2O (for short .the Act, 2O2O, under which the petitioner and her son had obtained separate / individual building permit orders.

¶70

On behalf of the respondents it is also r:ontended that the petitioner and her son on obtaining building permrt orders and proceeding with the construction in deviation of the said permissions, the authorities have issued show-cause notice, d,t.O6.O9.2023 calling upon the petitioner and her son to show cause as to why action should not be initiated; that though the aforesaid notices were duly served, as no response was submitted, the authorities have passed a Speaking Order, dt.O3. 1O.2O23, holding the construction made by them is in deviation of the permissions, dt.23.O6.2O22 and dt.04.07.2022, and are liable ro be proceeded being in violatron of the provisions of the Act, 1955 ernd Act, 2O2O and the Telangana Building Rules, 2012.

¶71

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the aforesaid speaking order nas sent by registcred post and u,as duly received by the petitioner's son; and that the petitioner nor her son, who had

¶72

¶73

received the aloresaid speaking^{order, did take any steps to challenge} the same, if were aggrieved by the^{same,and on the other hand,} allowed the said speaking^{order to attain finality.}

¶74

27.. Learned Standing^{Counsel further submits that insofaras} application submitted on^{the TG-bPASSweb portal on 23.02.2023} seeking revised building^{permissionfrom that of Stilt + 2 Upper} floors to Stilt⁺ 4 Upper^{floors uide FileNo.002178/} GHMC/ tO83 I KHB2l2O23-BP(REV)(23 I⁰² l2o2sl^{is concerned,the} same was rejected by the^{authoritiescategorizingthe aforesaid} proposal under high risk category; and^{that the petitionerdid not} challenge the said rejection^{order till date.}

¶75

Learned Standing^{Counsel appearingfor respondents would} further submit that^{while the revision of the building pian submitted} by the petitioner and her son^{on 2l.02.2023for Ground+ 4 Upper} floors despite being rejected,^{proceeded with the construction and in} fact made further construction of^{5& floor, which the petitionernow} claims as is on account of^{viabilify and vastu, which claimof the} petitioner cannot be allowed, as the same^{is alien to law.}

¶76

29 . Learned Standing Counsel further^{submitsthat though} petitioner received both the show-cause^{noticeand the speaking} order r.l'ith regard to the construction^{made by them being heldas}

¶77

¶78

made in deviation of the sanctioned building permit order and thus, unauthorized .nd illegal construction, had kept quite although this period and it is only after the unofficial respondent approaching this Court in April, )O24 alleging inaction on the part ol.thc rcspondcntsauthorities in c'o,sidering his application bringing to the notice or the authorities of rhe unauthorizid and illegal construction being made, chose to file initially Writ Appeal and thereafter the present writ petition. Learned standing counsel wourd also submit that the petitioner had submitted application under Section 455A of.the Act, 1955 on O1.06.2024, seeking regularization of the aforesaid unauthorizccl anrl illegar construction macle by them, just bcrorc thc petitioner filing a Writ Appeal, against the ordcr of this Court in W.P.No.9799 ol 2023, on 03.06.2024.

¶79

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot seek regularization of the .unauthorized and illegal construction n'rade by her by submitting an application and the respondents-aLlthorities cannot regularize the said unauthorized and illegal construc[ion, on mere asking of the applicant.

¶80

Learned standing counser further submits that an application under Section 4554, of the Act can be filed seeking regularization of the construction made without obtaining permission. However, as per the Scheme of the Act, such construction can be regularized

¶81

subject to such construction^{meetingall the parameterslaid down in} the relevant Statutes, Master^{Plan, Zonal Development Plan,Building} Bye-Laws, Building Rules and other^{relevantgovernmentorders} including A.P. Firc Service^{Act ancl the National BuildingCode,and} paying penalty cquivalent to 33% ol Lhc^{variousca[egorics of feesand} charges payable, and not otherwisc.

¶82

Learned Standing^{Counsel furthersubmitsthat since, the} building constructed by the^{petitioner is indeviation ofthe} sanctioned plan.^{The application submitted does not confirm to the} mandate provided under Section^{455A of the Act, for the petitioner} cannot claim of she being^{entitled to seekregularizationof the said} unauthorized and illegal construction^{made in violation of the Rules} in force.

¶83

Learned Standing Counsel^{byreferring to thealleged} application submitted by the^{petitionerunderSection 455A of the} Act would submit that even by the^{said application,the petitioneris} only seeking regularization of the construction^{made by her and her} son of Stilt⁺ 4 Upper Floors and is^{silent with regard to the Stl' floor} constructed by them without any^permission or^{sanction lrom the} authorities, and as such, the said application^{cannotbe considered.}

¶84

¶85

¶86

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the petitioner whilc making application though had invoked Section 455A as well as 455AA of the Act, in order to consider the said application unrlcr Section 455A of the Act, the construction so made should complv u irh the requirements/ norms as provided under the Rules. lnsofar as Section 455AA of the Act is concerned, the said provision would be applicable only in respect of applications which have been macle seeking regularization of the constructions made in deviation o[ the sanctioned plan as on 28. 10.20 15, for which the Government had issued Building penalization Scheme(BpS). lrarned Star-rdir-rg Counsel submits that since, the petitioner made construction su bsequently in deviation of the permissions obtained, the said provisrort has no application.

¶87

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner had submitted application under Section 455A of the Act only on 01.06.2024, and immediarely thereafter had liled a writ appeal on 03.06.2024, and the present Writ petition on 07.O6.2024, the said application is under consideration and necessary orders would be passed thcre in; and that based on the orders passed, the respondents-autl-rorities would take further action in accordance with law.

¶88

¶89

Learned Standing Counsel thus,^{submitsthat in eitherway,} the application submitted by^{the petitioner both under Sections 455A} and 455AA of the Act, does^{not merit consideration,and thus, prayed} to dismiss the present writ^petition.

¶90

I have taken note of the^{aforesaidcontentions urgcd.}

¶91

Firstly, it is to be^{noted that the correctness or otherwiseof an} order passed by a Single^Judge of^{this Court in a Writ Petition} cannot be assailed before a^{CoordinateBench of this Court in} anoLhcr Writ l)ctition. Such^{coursc of action resortcdto wiruld be} lcgal impropriety, would lead to^{judiciat indiscipline.}

¶92

Though on behalf of the^{petitioner it is contendedthat in the} Writ Appeal, the Division Bench of^{this Court having granted liberty} to the petitioner to seek review or^{liling a lresh writ petition against} the order in W.P.No.9799 of 2024,^{dt.18.O4 2024, and thusthe} petitioner being entitled to file the^present Writ^{Petition,it is to be} noted that tiberty granted by the Division^{Benchto file a lresh Writ} Petition does not entitle the petitioner to call in^question the^{order of} the learned single of this Court in another writ^{petitionbefore a} Coordinate Bench of the same Court, and is conltned only to^the rclevant factors not being brought to the notice of the Court by the pctitioner6,v.lo had filed the earlier petition or facts stated therein

¶93

¶94

being wrong, rcsulting in this Court passing the said order, alfecting the rights of the petitioner herein.

¶95

Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that having regard to the dc'cisions of the Supreme Court Shludeu Slngh a. State oJ Punjabl as well as the Division Bench of this Court in Pala us.lasa Pad.manabham u. State o:f A.p.2, the Division Bench having granted libcrry to file fresh r.r,rit petition, it is to be noted that the Division Bcn< h h:rd grzrnted liberty to the petitioner to either seek review of the .r'dt:r or file a fresh Writ petition, which by itself cannot be construed as if the petitioner being entitied to maintain the present Writ l)etition without there being any new facts or the facts considered by ihis Court in W.p.No.9799 of 2024, being incorrect or at varlance

¶96

The de<:ision of the apcx Court in Shiod.eu Singh,s case(l supra), which has bccn relcrred r-o by the Division Bench while granting libertr. to the petitioner to seek review or filt: a fresh Writ Petition was considered by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Aribam Tuleshuar Sha,rma a. Aribann pishak Shanna and.

¶97

t AIR 1963 sc 1909 '^{2oo3(4)ALD449(DB)}

¶98

¶99

Otherd, and the Apex Court in^{the said decision held that the} petitione r would only be entitled to^{seek review of the judgment.}

¶100

The petitioner admittedly, did^{not take any stepsto seek review} of.the order of this Court in^{W.P'No.9799 of 2024, by briningto the} notice ol the Court that^{the facts consideredthereinare contrary to} the record, and thus, the Court^{having arrivedat an erroneous} decision therein.

¶101

On rhe other hand, a reading^{of the order of this Court in} W.P.No.9799 ol 2024 would^show that^{thoughthe peti tioner' therein} had claimed the 6h respondent^{therein making unauthorized and} illegal construction and that^{the respondents-authoritiesnot taking} any action against such^{unauthorizedand illegal construction, this} Court taking note of the submission^{made by the learned Standing} Counsel of the said construction^{being made is by one BswarSai} Kishore, i.e., the son of^{the petitioner herein, and the respondents-} authorities having issued^{show-causenotice, dt.O6.09.2023 and} thereafter passing a Speaking Order on^{O3.IO-2O23,and the said} Speaking Order, having attained^{finality,and being forwardedto the} Nodal Officer on^16.04.2024 for^{enforcement interms of the} provisions of the Act, 1955 and Act,^{2O2O, had directedthe} respondents-authorities to take further action^{thereagainst, which}

¶102

I 1t,t;u1 + Suprenic Court Cascs 389

¶103

¶104

has already been held by the respondents-authorities themselves to be unauthorizcd and illegal construction made by said Eswar Sai Kishore in deviatiorr o[ the sanctionc'd plan.

¶105

Thus, the said order ol this Court cannot be said as either erroneous or having failed to consider the relevant materials, for the petitioner to seek for setting aside the said order without showing that the facts considered therein to be not correct.

¶106

Though on behalf of the peritioner it has been contended that the petitioner having sought for regularization of the construction made by her in cicviation ol thc building permit order, as righrly pointed out I>y the learned Standing Counsel that the said application under Section 455A or 455AA of the Act had been submitted only on O1.06.2024 and not before, and as such cannot be said as pending consideration on the date when this Court had passed the sairl order on I8.O4.2024 and this Court having failed to take note ol the same while considering the said writ petition and passing orders the rein.

¶107

The subsequcnt filing of thc application by the petitioner under Section 4554. of the Act cannot be considered as a fact, which was existing as on the date when the unofhcial respondent herein had approached this Court by alleging inaction on the part of the

¶108

¶109

respondents aurhorities^{in dealingwith the unauthorizedand illegal} construction, lor the^{petitioner herein to claim of the unofficial} respondent hercin^{having approachedthis Court by not makingher} as party or this Court^{havingpassed an orderwithoutimpleading} her in the said^u'rit Petilion.

¶110

lf only the construction^{made by the petitioner is in accordance} with the initial building^{permit order obtained by her or further} regularization as^{soughtfor by her havingbeen acceded to by the} authorities, thereby^{the authoritiesbeing prevented to take any} action against the^{aforesaidconstruction and by virtueof the order of} this court, the^{respondents-authoritiesinitiatingaction affectingthe} rights / interest, the^{petitioner can seekthat relevant facts havingnot} been considered^{bY this Court.}

¶111

On the other^{hand by the submissions made by the learned} Standing Counsel it^{would be clear that the petitionerand her son} having been issued^{with show-causenotice with regard to the} construction made/being^{made by them indeviation ofthe} sanctioned building^{pcrmit order, and having kept quite, resulting in} the authority^{passing the speaking order,dt-O3.1O.2023,holding the} aforesaid^{constructionto be unauthorizedand illegal, and the said} order having attained tinality, it^{was incumbenton the part of the} respondents-authorities to take action to^{deal with the said}

¶112

¶113

unauthorized and illegal construction made, in exercise of powers conferred on tlie said authorities under the Act, 1955 and Act, 2020, without thc unofficial respondents having to approzrch this Court at the first instance.

¶114

Since, the unolficial respondcnts herein being aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in dealing with unauthorized and illegal construction, having filed the writ petition uide W.p.No.9799 of 2024, and this court in the said writ petition having taken note of the fact of the respondents-authorities having passed a Speaking Order and the said order having been forwardcd to the Noclal Officer on the same attaining frnality, had onlv directed the authorities to take further action. r.l,hich the respondents-authorities are in a way required to uildertake under t hc Act. ThLts, the claim of the petitioner in the present writ l)etition that the saicl order in the underlying Writ petition having been passed without notice to them and thus being liable to be set aside, is devoid of merit.

¶115

It is also to be noted that the petitioner having made construction in deviation of the buitding permission obtained by her and also the application made for revision of the building plan for Stilt + 4 Upper l.'loors having bcen re.lected, still continued/proceeded with the construction not only in terms of the revised plan but also made further construction of 5th floor. for which

¶116

¶117

¶118

there is neither an application for revised^{permissionnor seeking} regularization, and as such the^{petitioner cannot} claim^{this Court} having passed an order u'ithout issuing notice^{to them.}

¶119

Further, it is also to be noted that the^{petitioner having made} unauthorized and illegal construction, cannot^{plead of violationof} principles of natural^justice or equity, when the unofficial^respondent had approached this Court questioning the^{inaction ofthe} respondents-authorities in considering^{his representation/complaint} and taking action against the unauthorized^{constructionbeing} complained of, by discharging their^{duties underthe Act, 1955. It is} settled position of law that even a stranger^{or passer-by on the Road} can lodge a complaint with regard to^{unauthorizedand illegal} construction and need not be an aflected^party.

¶120

Thus, considered from any angle,^{the endeavourof the} petitioner in the prescnt Writ Petition appears only^{to protect the} unauthorized and iltegal construction^{madeby her and her son,} without obtaining valid permission and^{in deviation of the sanctioned} building permit order and in^violation ol^{the tsuildingRulesand} Regulations, with impunity.

¶121

¶122

In view ol the above, this Court is of the vrer.r, that the Writ Petition as lilecl is apart from being misconceivcd, is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶123

However, insofar as the claim of the petitioner ol'having made an application under Section 455A of the Act, 1955, seeking regularization of the construction made by her is c:oncerned, as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel. the said application does not speak of the petitioner seeking rcgularizat ion of the alleged 5m floor constnrcted by her. Further, insolar as [hc power of the Commissioner to consider the application made under Section 455A of the Act, 19.5.5 is concerned, this Court by its judgment in the case of A.Pra ueen Kutnor o. The State oJ Telangana & othersa had dealt with thc said power of the Commissioner and had also held that the Comrnissioner can only regularize a buildrng, which is constructed w,i[hout obtaining building pcrmission bl excrcise the power conferred on him under the Statutc, only if the said construction confirms to the Building Rules.

¶124

Since, it is stated that the construction made by the petitioner does not confirm to the Building rules for her to seek regularization in terms of Section 455A of the Act, this Court is of thc further vieu, that withott egpressing any opinion, the 2nd responde n t-authority is

¶125

Order, dt.12.10.2023 rn W P.No.2a640 of2O2J

¶126

¶127

to be directed to dispose of^{the saitlapplicationmade under455A of} the Act, 1955, by taking^note ol^{the decision of this Court in} A.Praueen Kuman's case(4^{supra), if} not already

¶128

considered/disposed of.

¶129