THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.241 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Polisetty Radha Krishna, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department representing respondent
No.1. We have also heard Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.43165 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition taking exception to the action of the respondents in not considering grant of building permission for construction of building at House No.10-4-252/1 in an extent of 200 2 square yards at Vavilalapalli, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as, 'the subject land'), being beyond the cut off date as per the Layout Regularisation Scheme, 2020, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.131, dated 31.08.2020, and further sought for a direction to respondent No.2 to grant building permission for construction of building in the subject land.
4. While assailing the inaction of respondent No.2, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the vendor of the sale deed/title deed whereby the subject land was conveyed to the appellant had title over the subject land prior to the cut off date of 26.08.2020 introduced by the Layout Regularisation Scheme, 2020. Therefore, respondents are not justified in withholding building permission as held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in an identical matter, being W.P.No.27390 of 2018 vide order dated 10.10.2018, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment dated 10.08.2022 in W.A.No.1705 of 2018.
3
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as against the cut off date of 26.08.2020, the application for building permission (regularisation) is dated 17.11.2022. Admittedly, the construction sought to be carried out is wholly unauthorised and can be saved only when it comes within the mischief of the Layout Regularisation Scheme. But, as per the Layout Regularisation Scheme, cut off date fixed is 26.08.2020, whereas the application submitted by the appellant is dated 17.11.2022.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned Single Judge after elaborately discussing the rival contentions as well as scope of judicial review held that Court would not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision of the Government. In the present case, Government as a policy decision had extended the cut off date fixed by the earlier Layout Regularisation Scheme, the latest cut off date being 26.08.2020, for regularisation of unapproved and illegal layouts. Learned Single Judge 4 found no illegality in fixing such a cut off date. Once the application for construction is beyond the cut off date, question of directing the respondents to consider the application for regularisation of illegal layout or construction would not arise. Accordingly, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
8. Before we advert to the views expressed by the learned Single Judge, we may mention that in W.P.No.27390 of 2018 challenge made was to proceedings dated 20.07.2018 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for building permission. Learned Single Judge noted that State had fixed 28.10.2015 as the cut off date which was found to be not at all justified. Accordingly, learned Single Judge set aside the proceedings dated 20.07.2018. This came to be challenged by the State of Telangana and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation before the Division Bench in W.A.No.1705 of 2018. In the course of the proceedings the Division Bench was informed that G.O.Ms.No.131, dated 31.08.2020, was issued by the 5 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Planning III) Department, Government of Telangana. The said government order was issued to regularise unapproved and illegal layouts in urban and rural areas. It was called "Telangana Regularisation of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2020" having statutory force. The Division Bench noted that Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules provided for a cut off date to consider applications for regularisation of unapproved layouts; the cut off date being 26.08.2020. When the cut off date was extended to 26.08.2020, the Division Bench took the view that the very basis of challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the cut off date of 28.10.2015 would not survive.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed great emphasis on the observations of the Division Bench in paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgment to contend that layouts and subdivision of plots with registered sale deed/title deed existing as on 26.08.2020 would be consideration for regularisation. He has also referred to 6 relevant provisions of the Layout Regularisation Scheme including clause 6(a) thereof which says that only those layouts and subdivision of plots with registered sale deed/title deed existing as on 26.08.2020 shall be considered for regularisation under the Rules.
10. We are afraid, we cannot accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant. Though the Layout Regularisation Scheme in terms of the Telangana Regularisation of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2020, has not been questioned in this proceeding, the fact remains that such regularisation of unapproved and illegal layout itself is highly questionable, though presented as a policy decision of the State. Supreme Court time and again has held that there should be strict compliance to the municipal laws in matters relating to building permission. Nonetheless, since the State has adopted a policy and the said policy having not been assailed, the cut off date fixed by the policy i.e., 26.08.2020 has to be construed in a manner not to permit further illegal layouts. Therefore, the cut off date has to be strictly construed. We are therefore 7 clear in our view that any building permission based on unapproved and illegal layouts after the cut off date cannot be considered. No mandamus can be issued to perpetuate an illegality.
11. That being the position, we decline to entertain the writ appeal.
12. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 27.02.2023 vs