R.Narender Vs the State of Tg., Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 7 Others

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that ln the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents.No.2-6 herein in taking necessary action on petitioner representations, dated 1g-09-201 4, 25-og-2o14

¶23

and 2v-o9-2}14,^{of the petitioner to stop the illegal constructions being madeby} the unofficial^{respondents No.7and8 herein in premises No' 15-4-132'in TS'} No.18, ward-^{20, Block-3 and K, Gowliguda, Hydergbad,belongs to endowed} lands of^{Sri jurrgleVitobha temple, Gowliguda, Hyderabadas illegal' arbitraryand} the construction^activitiesin unjust,^{consequentlyto direct the respondentsto stoP} the temple^{lands, and pass such otherorder/orders as may deem fit and proper in}

¶24

petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{inrthe circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the writ petition,,h",,Hrghcourtmay be pleased to} direct the^{respondents.No.2-6herein to :take necessary action on my} representatiorrs^{dated 1g-0g-201 4,2s-og-2014and zr-ogit:2o14,to stop the illegal} constructions^{being made by the unofficial respondents No.7&8 hereinin} premises No 15-4-132,^{in TS. No.18, Ward- 20, BlOck-J & K, Gowliguda,} Hyderabad, and^{pass such other orderorlorders as may deem fit and properin} the circumstances^{of the case.}

¶25

COUNSEI fOr^{thE PEtitiONET : SRISUDARSHAN REDDY DUDDUGUNTA} counsel for the^{RespondentNo.l : GP FOR MCPL ADMN'URBANDEV} counsel for^{Respondents No.2TO4 : SRIM.ARUN KUMAR, SC FORGHMC} counset for^{the RespondentsNo.5&6: GP FORENDOWMENTS}

¶26

counsel for^{the RespondentsNo.7&8: NONEAPPEARED}

¶27

The Court m;rde^{the following: OR'DER}

¶28

3

¶29

.(\

¶30

THT HOil'BLD SRI JIISTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISH TTY WRIT PETITION NO.3O246 Of 2014

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition is filed declaring the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 5 in taking action on the representations of the petitioner dated 18.09.2014, 25.o9.2ol4 arld 27.o9.2oL4, to stop the illegal constructions being made by unoflicial respondent Nos.7 and 8 in premises No.15-4-132, TS.No.18, ward-2O, Block J & K, Gowliguda, Hyderabad., as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

Heard sri D.sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration Department (Rtr), sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing counsel for respondents 2 to 4 (GHMC), and learned Government pleader for Endowments (R5 & R6). No representation on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 and 8.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Sri Jungle vitobha Temple, Gowliguda, osman sahi, Hyderabad, is having lands to an extent of 15,146 square yards and the details of the said propert5r is recorded in the register maintained under Section 43 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowrnents Act, 1987 (for short Act 30 of 1987). However, the said. lands are in occupation of t.l.e encroachers. The Regional Joint ) )

¶35

4

¶36

Commissioner, Endowrnents, directed t]le Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department (6th respondent) to take necessary steps for collection of rents/nuzul from the occupants arrd also to initiate eviction proceedings against the encroachers. As no action has been taken, the petitioner filed WP.No.35936 of 2Al2and tl:e same is still pending and in fact contempt case is also filed against the respondenr:s therein.

¶37

Learrred Counsel would further submit that while the matter stood thus, respondents 7 and 8 herein, who are occupalts of the temple land ad.measuring 1o8 square yards in premises No. ls-4t32, in TSi.No.18, ward 2e Block-J & K, Gowliguda, Hyd.erabad, commenced constmction by demolishing the old stmchrres and the petitioner made representation to the endowment oflicials on 27.og.2ot4 and also to respondents 2 to 4'on LL8,.og.2oL4 and 25.09.2014 . However, neither the Munieipal authorities nor endowment officials have taken any action to protect the temple lands. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

¶38

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that tl:is Court by interim order dated 15.10.2014 directed. respondent Nos.2 to 4 r:o restrain respondent Nos.z and g from proceeding with further construction in the subject property; and that despite the said directions by this court, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not take any

li

tll

5

action to stop unofficial respondentNos.^{7 qd8 from proceeding} with further construction and^{prayed to allow tlle writ petition.}

¶43

Counter aflidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent^Nos.2 to 4 wherein it is stated that the respondent oflicials inspected^tJle subject property and found a building consisting of^{ground + 4 upper} floors; that during inspection, respond.ent No.7 has shown a^{copy of} application submitted by him under Building Regularisation^Scheme (BRS) for regul arizatton of the building constructed in deviation to the sanctioned plan vide No.2OOOO16O93, dated 18. L2.2O15, as^per G.O.Ms.N o.152 MA date d, 02.11.2O15; and that tlle said application is pending. He further submits tl:at once the BRS apptication of respondent No.7 is disposed of, the respondents Corporation will take further course of action basing on the outcome of the^BRS application of the 7th respond.ent.

¶44

This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both tJle parties and perused the entire material on record.

¶45

It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized,/lllegal constrtrctions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned^plan or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.152, datedO2.LL.2O15. As^per t \

¶46

6

¶47

f

¶48

ttre said ti.O., the for regularization of r:rnauthorized has to be submitted within a period of 6O days from ttre date of notification of tlle said Rules along with 5oo/o of regularization arnount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs.1O,0OO/- whictrever is less. The competent authority, i.e., Municipal 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 ttre same to ttre applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months frorn the date of receipt of applications.

¶49

The Regularization Rules were notified on O2.LL.2O15, as per which, appl:ications for regularization were to be filed wittlin 6O days from the srrid notified date and the same were supposed to be processed within a period of six months from the last date of receipt of applicatio ns

¶50

The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated V2.LL.2OI5 was challenged in Wp (pIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein interim direc:tions were passed by a Division Elench of this Court on 18.10.20f6 eLs under:-

¶51

"We^cc'nsider it appropriate, in such circumstanres, to modifA the earlier order, and dtect tlnt the appticatbns for regulanzation be proessed in acord.a ne uith tlre

¶52

7

¶53

rf

¶54

regulari.mtion scheme notified in GrO.Ms.It[o.152 dated 02.11.2015. In case tle GHMC or the other Municipal Corporatiorx in the Stnte of Telanganto, afier a nsideVng :,:the applicatiorls for regiariz'atiory decide to reject the request for regularization, it ts open to them to @mmunicate the orders of rcjection to the applicants corlcerrled., and. thereafier talrc actian for demotition of ttte ittegal structures in accord.ane with laut. In such of those cases u.there the GHMC, or the other Municipal Corporations, tentatiuelg decide b regia@ the illegal structures, such a decision sh.all lneretg be recorded in tlte fihe,^{and shall neither be gtuen elfed b:rtor shnll it be} mmmunicated to the applirants, pending furtter orders from^{this Court."}

¶55

I 1. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along $rith a batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 28.04.2021, with a direction tJlat the interim order dated 18.10.2016 passed 1n W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016 shall continue to operate till a decision is taken by tlle Supreme Court on W.P.(Civi'U No.1236 of 2O2O.

¶56

J

¶57

It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of tlle Hon'ble Supreme Court in RaJendra Kumar Banlatga and another Vs. tI.P. Auq.s Euam Viko.s Parlshord and otlterstt wherein t]le Hon'ble I Supremd Court by referring to a catena of decisions, uiz.,

¶58

| 2o2q scc online *,3767

8

i ! i I :

,l

K.Ramqda,s Shenog Vs. Chlef Officers, Toutn Municlpal^Couttcttz, Dr, G.N.BTt$utlq and otlrcrs Vs. Delht Deoelopntent Autlanttg and othetrr , M.I. Bttllders (Pettttoner) Ltd Vs. Rqdtrcg Shyant Sa,luf, Esslrc Elcf;a Apartmelnts Co-O1t Hottslltg S@letg Ltmlted, Vs. Munl<:tpal Corporatlon of Mumborls, Slupettech Llmlted Vs. Emerald Coutt Ouner Resldent Welfare Assoc'iortlott^and, othersF, Kettalla State Costa.l Zone ilIanagement Authoritg^Vs. Manadu ilIunlclpalttgit, Sitrrta of Haryanta. Vs. SoltpaP, has issued IUrttrer directions in addition to the directions given in Re; Dlre&lon:s ln the matter of demolitlon of sttz.tctures, vide drder dated 13.11 .2024 in WP(Civil).Nos.295 and 328 of 2O2g, WP(Criminal).No.162 of 2022. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specificallJr directed that in the event of any

¶63

applicatiorr/appeal/revision being liled by the owner or build.er against non-issuance of completion certifieate or for regularization of unauthott:z*d construction or rectification of deviation, etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority concerned, including tlle pending alrpeals/revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in arry event not later than 9O days as statutorily provided.

¶64

2 ltst+1 2 scc so6 3 1rsssl s *c162

¶65

4 lrsss; 6 scc zt64

¶66

s lzorslSscc (civit) 89

¶67

"^{(20u) 10} scc 1

¶68

? lzozt'116 scc 822

8 lzozs;6 scc 643

I
I
i

t t:

9

n

In the instant c-ase, since tl'e grievance of the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of tlle BRS application of respo:rdent No.7, in the hght of'the aforesaid ord.er dated 2f,.M.2o2L passed by a Division Bench of this court in WP(PIL) No.63 of 2013 and its batch, 8S well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatga's case (cited supra), the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (GHMC) are directed to process the application submitted by respondent No.7 for regularization of unauthorized,/illegal construction, and to pass appropriate ord.ers in accordance with t]le interim order dated 18.06,2016: passed in WP(PIL) No.63 of 2016, within a period of three months from t]:e date of receipt of a copy of this order. subject to regult of the BRS application filed by respondent No.7, the 2.d respond.ent is directed to take appropriate action to redress the petitioner's grievance stricfly in accordance with law.

¶75

L4. Subject to above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶76

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if arry, shall stand closed. ' sD/LAXMI

¶77

//TRUE COPY//

¶78

N OFFICER ONE FAIR COPY TO THE I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE (FOR HtS LORDSHIPS K|ND

¶79

1 State of Telangana, Municipal Administration,

¶80