Smt. Samreen Sulthana vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 960 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.242 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 Ms. Babita, 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.24539 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 in an open plot admeasuring 121 square yards in

Survey No.145/B2/A1 (near H.No.18-124/A) of Huzurabad

Village and Mandal, 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.

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 16.05.2022. 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 16.05.2022.

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

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

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

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

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