M.a.Majeed Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

M.a.Majeed Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 (GHMC) to process the petitioner's applications for regularization of unauthorized/illegal construction (BRS application No.2000003163 dated 03.12.2015) and pass appropriate orders in terms of the interim order in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016, within three months, without insisting upon the approved layout copy; subject to the BRS result, further action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law; till disposal of the BRS application, respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the subject property; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. No costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 (GHMC) ought to be directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's BRS/regularization application No.2000003163 dated 03.12.2015 without insisting upon the approved layout granted by respondent No.3 (HMDA) in respect of Sy.Nos.108(P) and 109(P) of Tolichowki, Hyderabad, particularly when HMDA states the layout file/plan is not available and LRS is not required for plots covered by the HUDA-approved layout.

Court's answer

In light of the Division Bench order dated 28.04.2021 in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016 and batch and the Supreme Court's directions in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya (including the mandate that applications for regularization of unauthorized construction be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, not later than 90 days), the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 (GHMC) to process the petitioner's regularization applications and pass appropriate orders, in terms of the interim order passed in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016, within three months from receipt of a copy of the order, without insisting upon the approved layout copy.

Ratio / Principle

Subject to the result of the BRS applications filed by the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to take further action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Until disposal of the petitioner's BRS application, the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the subject property.ratio¶78
Although the Regularization Rules required applications to be processed within six months, the petitioner's application remained undecided for over nine years with no action taken by the respondents - a delay the court treated as warranting judicial intervention.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226) disposed of by the High Court for the State of Telangana (Lakshmi Narayana Alishetty J., order dated 10.12.2025). The petitioner, owner of house property at IAS Colony, Tolichowki (Sy.Nos.108(P), 109(P)) forming part of a layout approved by HMDA's predecessor in File No.1653/Pt/H/89, Lr.No.1653 dated 30.03.1989, sought a direction to GHMC to decide his BRS/regularization application No.2000003163 dated 03.12.2015 filed under G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015 without insisting on the approved layout copy - HMDA having admitted the layout file could not be traced (letters dated 02.12.2016 and 11.04.2017) and that LRS is not required for plots covered by the approved layout. Noting that the application lay pending for over nine years despite the six-month outer limit in the Regularization Rules, that the Division Bench interim order dated 18.10.2016 in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016 (continued by order dated 28.04.2021 till decision of the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.1236 of 2020) required regularization applications to be processed, and the Supreme Court's directions in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad ((2024) SCC OnLine SC 3767) mandating disposal of such applications within 90 days, the Court directed GHMC to process the application and pass appropriate orders within three months without insisting on the layout copy, to take further action strictly according to law subject to the BRS result, and not to interfere with the petitioner's possession till disposal. Miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

I³³⁸³ I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY; THE TENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LA)ffiI^{NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

WRIT PETITION NO: 23877 OF 2018

Between:

M.A.Maieed, S/o. late M.A. Sattar,^{Aged about 68} years, R/o. H.No.8-1 -398lDl 1 I 13, AS Colbny, Sy.Nos.108(P), 109(P),^{Tolichowki,Ju} bilee Hills, Golconda, Hyderabad - 500008.

PETITIONER

AND

1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal^{Corporation,Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank} Bund Road, Hyderabad.

2 The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC,^{Circle - 18, Central Zone, Khairatabad,} Hyderabad.

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development^Authority, District Commercial C6mplex, HUDA Building,^{Tarnaka,Secunderabad} - 500017. Rep. by its Director (Planning).

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any^{otherappropriateWrit, Order or} Orders, Direction or Directions to^{direct the'respondents 1 and 2 to actin} accordance with law and^{to direct the 1tt and 2nd respondents to considerand} pass appropriate orders in accordance^{with law on the BRS applicationfiled by the} petitioher in No.2000003163 dated^{03J2.2015 without insisting for the approved} layout granted by the 3d^{respondent in respect of Sy.Nos.108(P) and'109(P)of} Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

s

lANO:'t OF 18

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the'tstand 2nd respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the BRS apprication fired by the petitioner in No.2000003163 dated 03.12.2015 without insisting for the approved rayout granted by the 3d respondent in respect of Sy.Nos.108(p) and 109(p) of Totichowki, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. KIRANMAyEE, REPRESENTING SRl VEDULA SRTNIVAS

Counsel for the Respondents No..t & 2: SRI M. ARUN KUMAR, S.C. FOR GHMC

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: S.C. FOR HMDA

The Court made the folloring: ORDER

i

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT IIYDERABAI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LA)(MI NARAYAITA ALISITEITT

DATE OF ORDER: 1O. L2.2O2S

BETWEEN:

M.A.Mqieed

AND

...^petitioner

Gqeater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner ind 2 oihers.

... Respondents

: ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to respondent Nos.l and 2 to act in accordance with law and to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the application frled by the petitioner under BRS vide reference No.2o00oo3163, dated o3.L2.2o15, without insisting for the approved layout granted by respondent No.3 in respect of survey Nos. rOg(p) and 1o9(p) of Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

2- Heard Ms.Kiranmayee, learned counsel representing Sri vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and Sri M.Arun Kumar, le'arned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and,2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of house propertSr bearing H.No.g-r-ggg/D/13, admeasunng 21o square yards at IAS colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad \ \

2

li I I :, )

(for short 'subject propertJr) vide document No.12r5 of 2oro, dated o7-o4.2o10 having purchased the same from K.Krishna prasad, who purchased the same from A.p.state Finance corporation, vide document No.649 of r99o, dated oz.o2.L99o; that the propertSr was originally developed by salivahana Developers private Limited, Hyderabad, vide layout in File No.1653/pt/H/gg, Lr.No.16s3, dated 30.03.1989, approved by the HMDA. The petitioner after purchasing the subject property has constructed first and second floors on the existing ground floor of the subject propert5r and has appried for LRS vide application No.3o00ooo22so, dated 06.12.2ors by remitting Rs.10,000 /- and arso paid a further sum of Rs.3o,93r/_. F.urther the petitioner has also applied for regul arization of the construction in terms of G.o.Ms.No.rs2, dated 02.rL 201s, vide application No2oo00o3163, dated os.r2.2ors, and the same is pending for consideration.

4' counter has been liled by respondent No.3 stating that the petitioner himself admitted that there is a lay out approved by the HUDA in the na.me of sarivahana Deveropers private Limited vide reference File No.r6s3/pr/H/gg, Lr.No.1653, dated 3o.o3.r9g9 and since the subject property forms part of the said approved lay out, the sarne does not require LRS. It is further stated that the lay out approved by the erstwhile HUDA (now HMDA) holds good and authentic and that LRs is not required for the prots covered under the said ray out. It is

\ \

rir-r_-

t

3

1

further stated that the application submitted by the petitioner under RTI Act to furnish certified copy of lay out was examined, however, despite the best efforts by the officials of records section and planning section, the file could not be traced and the same was also informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 02.12.2016.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject property forms part of an approved layout of HUDA in File No.1653/ Pt lHl89, Lr.No.1653, dated 30.03.1989; that despite approaching various authorities under Right to Information Act, the petitioner could not obtain certified copy of the layout dated 30.03.1989; and that the appellate authority under RTI Act directed the HMDA to retrieve the concerned file and furnish information to the petitioner within 15 days. However, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 1L.O4.2OL7 informed the petitioner that the lay out plan approved by HMDA is not available in their office. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to process the BRS application dated 03.12.2015, submitted by the petitioner without insisting upon the approved lay out copy dated 30.03.1989.

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent-GHMC submitted that tlre State Government has issued GO.Ms.No.l52, dated O2.1L.2015 for regularization of unauth oized. 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 a\ .ar

4

(

18.1o.2016 directed GHMC/respective Municipal corporations to decide the applications for regul ariz,atson and if the applications for regulaization 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 regulariz-e 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.

It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized.lillegal constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plan or without permission, vide Go.Ms.No.!s2, dated o2.LL 2o1s. As per tJre said G.o., the application for regularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 6O days from the date of notification of the said Rules along with 50% of regulanzatton amount as per'Rule 5 or minimum of Rs.10,00o/- whichever is less. The competent authoritSr, i.e., Municipal commissioner in case of Municipal corporations, Metropolitan commissioner in case of HMDA, shall, on scmtiny 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.

I; I

t

5

The Regulariz.atton 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 nine years, the application is still pending and no action has been taken by the respondents on the application submitted for regularization of unauthorized / illegal construction till date.

The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.l12, 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. LO.2O16 as under:-

"We consid.er it appropriate, in such cirqtmstanecs, to modify tle earlier order, and. direct that the applications for regularization be processed in accordane with tle regularization scleme notifted in G.O.Ms.No.1S2 dated 02.11.2075. In case tle GHMC or the otlrcr Municipal Corporations in the State of Telangana, after considering the applications for regularization, decide to reject tlw request for regularizatiory it is open to them to communicate the ord.ers of rejection to the applicants concerrted, and thereafter talce agtion for demotition of the illegal struchtres in accordance u$h \ law. In such of tlase cases where the GHMC, or tlrc otlter Municipal corporations, tentatiuetg decide to regularize the illegal structures, such a decision shall merelg be recorded in the file, and shall neither be giuen effect to nor

6

(

stwtl it be communimted to tle applicants,^pending further orders from this Court."

Subsequently, the said WP(PIL)^{along with abatch of Writ} Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated^{28.04.2O21, with a direction} that the interim order dated 18.10.2016^{passed in W.P.(PIL).No.63of} 2016 shall continue to operate till a decision is^{taken by the Supreme} Court on W.P.(Civil) No. L236 of^2O2O.

It is appropriate to refer to the^{recent judgment of the Hon'ble} Supreme Court in RaJendra Kuma"^{BarJatga and anotherVs. U.P.} Auas Ernm Vtka.s Pa;rlshad and othersL,^wherein the^Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of^{decisions,uiz., K.Ramadds} Shenog Vs. Chtef Officers, Toun Munlcipal CounclP,^Dr. G.N.KhoJurla and others Vs. Delhi Deuelopmcnt Authoritg^and oth.erd, M.I. Bullders (Pettttoner) Ltd^Vs. Rodhcg^ShgamSo,htd, Esha Ekta Apartments Co'Op Housing Societg^{Ltmtted Vs.} Munlcipal Corporoltlon of Mumbals, Supertech^{Llmlted Vs. Em.erald.} Court Outner Resident Welfare Assoclatlon^{and, other:*} ,^Kerala Stalta Costal Zone Management Authorttg^Vs.Mqradu Munlclpaliq, State of Haryana Vs. SatpaP,^{has issued further}

| 2o2q scc online sc3767

2 ltst+1 2 scc 506

3 lrsss; s scc 762

4 1rsss1 6 scc 4G4

s lzorsl 3 scc (civir) 89

o (2021) 10 SCC 1

7 1zozt1 16 scc 822 I qzozrl 6 scc G43

\

7

directions in addition^{to the directions given in Re.' Dlrectlonsin thc} matter of demolltilon of^{sttttctrrtres,vide order dated 13.11.2024in} WP(Civil).Nos.295 and 328 of 2023, WP(Criminal).No. L62 of^{2022. Ttre} 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.

\ \

In the instant case, it is the specific case of the^petitioner that the application submitted by the petitioner under BRS vide^reference No.2O000O3163, dated OSi,.n.ZOlS, for regalaization^{was pending and} therefore, the respondents may be directed to^process the^BRS application dated O3.L2.2OL5, submitted by the^{petitioner without} insisting upon the approved lay out copy dated 30.03.1989 in^{the light} of the statemeni *"d" in the counter filed by respondent^{No.3 that LRS} is not required for the plots covered by HUDA approved^{lay out.}

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 RaJendrq.Kumar} BarJatga?s case (cited supra), this^{Writ Petition is disposed of with a} direction to the respondent^Nos.l and 2^{(GHMC) to processthe}

8

(

applications 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 2O16, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without insisting upon the approved lay out copy. Subject to result of the BRS applications filed by the petitioner, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to take further action against the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. Till disposal of BRS application submitted by the petitioner, it is made clear that the respondents shall not interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

SD/.M. NAGAMANI ASSTSTANT RE9T9TRAR //TRUE COPY// bT sEcflo(lrFFrcER

To 1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad

The Deppty Commissioner, GHMC, Circle - 18, Central Zone, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

Jhe Director (Planning), Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, District Commercial Complex, HUDA Building, Tarnaka, Secunderabad - 500017.

&

One CC to SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to SRI M. ARUN KUMAR, S.C. for GHMC [OPUC]

One CC to Standing Counselfor HMDA IOPUC]

Two CD Copies

/G, BS

,2

HIGH COURT

DATED:1011212025

..J:
i<br>r.J ?:
3 0 ['Lt ?Ht
i)
*
.SP4i1r:';: .i.'
ORDER

WP.No.238T7 of 2O1B

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS

o

?t)
t

l,;

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner purchased the subject property (H.No.8-1-398/D/13, admeasuring 210 square yards, IAS Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad) vide document No.1215 of 2010 dated 07.04.2010 from K.Krishna Prasad, who had purchased it from A.P. State Finance Corporation vide document No.649 of 1990 dated 02.02.1990.¶38
Prior proceeding
The property was originally developed by Salivahana Developers Private Limited vide layout in File No.1653/Pt/H/89, Lr.No.1653, dated 30.03.1989, approved by the HMDA.¶38
Prior proceeding
After constructing first and second floors, the petitioner applied for LRS vide application No.3000002250 dated 06.12.2015, remitting Rs.10,000/- and paying a further sum of Rs.30,931/-.¶38
Prior proceeding
The petitioner applied for regularization of construction in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015 vide application No.2000003163 dated 03.12.2015 (printed once as 'os.r2.2ors'); the application remained pending for consideration.¶38
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 in its counter stated that since the property forms part of the HUDA-approved layout, LRS is not required; however, despite best efforts the layout file could not be traced, and the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 02.12.2016.¶45
Prior proceeding
The appellate authority under the RTI Act directed HMDA to retrieve the concerned file and furnish information within 15 days.¶46
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 informed the petitioner vide letter dated 11.04.2017 that the layout plan approved by HMDA is not available in its office.¶46
Prior proceeding
The regularization scheme under G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015 was challenged in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016, in which a Division Bench of the High Court passed interim directions on 18.10.2016: applications for regularization to be processed under the scheme; rejections could be communicated followed by demolition per law; tentative decisions to regularize were to be merely recorded, not given effect to or communicated, pending further orders.¶56
Prior proceeding
WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016 along with a batch of writ petitions was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2021, directing that the interim order dated 18.10.2016 shall continue to operate till a decision is taken by the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.1236 of 2020.¶61