Sri. Reddy Sangaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{the constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue writ or direction^{preferablywrit of mandamusdeclaring the} inaction of the respondents^{2 and 3 in taking stepsto rerioveillegalstructures} raised by Smt. Mamatha^{in respect of H. No. 1-7-49511811,(old 1-7-495118)} encroaching on the road^{portion at Dayara Market, Zamistanpur,Mushirabad,} Hyderabad desp-ite specific^{ordersof this Hon'blecourt as illegal, arbitraryand} violative of^{principlesof natural justice and consequently direct the respondents2} and 3 to take immediate^{steps to remove illegalencroachmentmade by} respondent No.4.

¶20

a

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(WPMP. NO: 19750 OF 2015 )

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrr nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may t -'^{pleased to direct} the respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate steps to remove illr gal encroachment of the road in respect of H.No. 1-7-49511811, (old 1-7-4951 ;) Dayara Market, Zamistanpur, Mushirabad, Hyderabad made by Smt. Mamatr r in pursuance of representation dt. 16-3-2015 and legal notice dt. 25-4-20'15 sutr ritted by petitioner pending disposal of the main W.P. in the interest of justice.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ISMAIL ASHFAQ FOR SRI R.l\ ACHUTHANAND Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URl3 {N DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: SRI G.MADHUSUDT{ \N REDDY,

¶24

SC FOR GHMC

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI S.SRIDHAR

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAI{A AT HYDERABAI)

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.15155 of 2O15

¶29

DATE OF ORDER: OA.L2.2O2S

BETWEEIT:

Sri Reddy Sangaiah

... Petitioner

AND

The State ofTelangana, rep. by Its Secretary and 4 others.

¶35

... Respondents

¶36

: ORDER:

¶37

This writ petition is filed to deciare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not taking steps to remove the illegal structures raised by respondent No.5 in respect of H.No.1-7-495118/1 (old 1- 7-498118), encroaching on the road portion at Dayara Market, Zamistanpur, Mushirabad, Hyderabad, despite specific orders of this Court, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential relief.

¶38

Heard Sri Ismail Ashfaq, Iearned counsel representing Sri R.A.Achutharand, learned counsel for the petitioner on record ald Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶39

2

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner wou I I submit that respondent No.5 who is having house oppositr the house of petitioner has raised structures by encroaching tL, ron the road in the year 2OO7. The petitioner submitted complaint on 24.1O.2OO7 to respondent Nos.2 and 3, pursuant to which t re respondents initiated steps to remove the illegal constructions. ,\ 3grieved by this action, respondent No.5 filed Wp.No.2706Z/20C7, which was disposed of by this Court on 1S.07.2008 with an olr;ervation that if respondent No.5 is constructing the building in acc rdance rvith the sanctioned plan, the official respondents shal not interfere, however, if any deviations are found, the official rer; )ondents are at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance wrtl law.

¶41

l.earned counsel for the petitioner furthe - submits that respondent No.5 had obtained permission only f r - an extent of 41.55 square yards, whereas construction has beerr made in a plot area of 70.28 square yards which shows that r:;pondent No.5 encroached upon of 30 sq.yards of road margirr It is further submitted that the application submitted by responrl :nt No.5 under BPS-2008 for regularization of the illegar constructi: e was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 15.07.2009 on , re ground that the building permission obtained by respondent No.5 for the proposed construction of ground & first floor unde' G.o.Ms.No.g6

¶42

3

¶43

MA dt.O3.O3.2OO6, is not applicable^{under the BPSscheme.} Aggrieved by the rejection order,^{respondent No.5ltled} WP.No. 14529 l2OO9 and the sarne^{was disposed of by this Court on} 15.09.2014, directing respondent^No.5 to^{hle an appeal beforethe} appellate committee which was reconstituted^{by the Government} under G.O.Ms.121, dated 13.05.2014,^{within a periodof one month} from the date of receipt of copy of the^order.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner^{furthersubmits that} according to the information^provided by^{the respondentNo.2} under RTI vide letter dated27.02.2015,^{no appeal has been Iiled by} respondent No.S; and that despite the^{same, the respondent} authorities have not taken any action^against the^illegal construction made by respondent No.5.^{Aggrievedby the same,} present writ petition is filed.

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent^{No.5 representthat} Pursuant to order dated 15.09.2014 in^WP,No.14529 l2OO9,^{respondent No.5} preferred appeal on 28.10.2014 and the said^{appealhas not been} disposed of till date. Learned counsel further^{submits that the} Government of Telangana has come up^{with new Regularization} scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2OI5^{and respondent} No.5 submitted application for regularization in^{terms of}

¶46

4

¶47

G.O.Ms.No. 152, dated 02.1I.2015 vide application \o.2OOOOlglTl dated 19.12.2015 and the same is pending. The.- fore, prayed to pass appropriate orders directing respondents to r r nsider the said application and take action thereafter. Learned cor- nsel acr.oss the bench represented that the petitioner would not pu^.sue the appea_l filed before the Appellate committee a,d be treated i s not pressed.

¶48

Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.l to 3 s ubmits that as and when the BRS application of respondent No.Ii is disposed of, the respondent-Corporation will take further step; basing on the outcome of the BRS application of respondent No.5.

¶49

B. This Court has given its earnest considr ration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both r.r re parties and perused the entire material on record.

¶50

It is relevant to note that the Government of lelangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unarr horized /1llega) constructions, which are constructed in deviatior of sanctioned plalr or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.l52, darr d 02.t 1.2015. As per the said G.O., the application for reg rlarization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted witl in a period of 60 days from the date of notification of the said Ru es along with 5O% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 o - minimum of

¶51

5

¶52

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 sarne to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications.

¶53

The Regularization Rules were notified on O2.1 1.2015, 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

¶54

The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated O2.Il.2Ol5 was cha-llenged in WP (PIL).No.63 of 20 16, wherein interim directiens were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.10.2016 as under:-

¶55

"We consider it appropiate, in such circumstances, to modifg th.e earlier order, and direct that the applications for^{regularizationbe processed in accordanceuith the} regularization scheme notified in G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015. In case the GHMC or tte otter Municipal Corporations in the State of Telangana, after considering the applications for regulari-z,ation, decide to reject tte

¶56

6

¶57

request for regula.rization, it ls open t ) ttLem to communicate th.e orders of rejection to the applicants concemed, and thereafier take action for d.enut ttion of the illegal structures in accord.ance with lau. In stt :h of tl.nse cases where the GHMC, or the other Municipal Corporations, tentatiuelg d.ecid.e to regularize the illegal structures, such a decision shall merely be . tcorded in lhe file, and shall neither be giuen effect to noshall it be communicated to the applica.nts, pending furt ter orders from^this Court."

¶58

Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with e batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 2g.{t,_.2921, with a direction that the interim order dated lg.1O.2(16 passed in w'P'(PIL)'No'63 of 2016 shalr continue to operate .r r a decision is taken by the Supreme Court on W.p.(Civil) No.t236 cl2O2O.

¶59

It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgmer 1 of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in RaJend.ra Kumar Baqjatga a.ru I crnother Vs. U.P. Avas Eaam Vikas parishad and. others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of lecisions, urz., K.Ramad.as Shenog Vs. Chief Offi.cers, Tottn Munlclpal CounciP, Dr. G.N.Khajuria and. others Vs. DethL Deoelopment Authoritg and other*, M.I. Buttd.ers (petitloner) Itd. Vs. Radheg

¶60

'^{202q scc online} sc 3767

¶61

'(1974)² scc so6

¶62

'(1995)⁵ scc 762

¶63

'7

¶64

\

¶65

Shgann Sahua, Esha. Ekta Apartrnents Co-Op Housing Societg Limlted Vs. Municlpal Corporation oJ Mumbais, Supertech Limlted I/s. Emerald Court Ouner Resld.ent Welfare Associatlon and others6, Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authoritg Vs. Maradu MunicipalltgiT, State of Ilaryana Vs. So:tpale, 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 specifrcally 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.

¶66

In the instant case, since the grievalce of the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS application of respondent No.5, in the light of the aforesaid order dated

¶67

'^{(1999) 6 scc 464}

¶68

s (2013) 3 scc (civit) 89

¶69

o (2021) 10 scc 1

¶70

7 izozr; to scc azz

¶71

8 lzoz:; o scc or:

¶72

8

¶73

28.04.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this O rurt in WP(PIL) No.63 of 2013 and its batch, as well as the directicr s issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjat 7a's case (cited supra), the respondent Nos.2 to 4 (GHMC) are dirr cted to process the application dated 19.12.2015 vide reference ll r. 2OOOO1977 I, submitted by respondent No.S for relJ rlarization of

¶74

unauthorized/illegal construction, and to pass apl ropriate orders in accordance with the interim order dated 18.06. )016 passed in WP(PIL) No.63 of 20 16, within a period of three rrcnths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to r:;ult of the BRS application hled by respondent No.5, the responden Nos.2 to 4 are directed to take appropriate action to redress he petitioner's grievance strictly in accordance with law.

¶75