[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
J. Narsimha vs The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Prl. ... on 3 December, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.38977 of 2015
DATE OF ORDER: 03.12.2025
BETWEEN:
J.Narasimha
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
Rep. by Prl.Secretary and 3 others.
... Respondents
:ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking direction to respondent
No.2 to consider the representations dated 20.11.2014 and
12.12.2014 submitted by the petitioner and to take appropriate
action for demolition of illegal constructions made by respondent
Nos.3 and 4 who have encroached upon the property belonging
to the petitioner, and for consequential relief.
2. Heard Sri M.Rathan Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri CMR.Velu, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.3 and 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner represented that he is
owner of House bearing No.10-165/6, Satya Raghavendra
Colony, Malkajgiri, R.R.District; that the respondent Nos.3 and 4
who are neighbors of the petitioner have commenced illegal
construction and have encroached about 5 yards into the
petitioner's property by extending a beam (cantilever beam) into
the petitioner's premises, without obtaining any permission.
Therefore, the petitioner submitted representations on
20.11.2014 and 12.12.2014 to respondent No.2 to take action
against respondent Nos.3 and 4. However, the respondents did
not take any action. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition
is filed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 represent that
the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not encroached upon the
petitioner's property; and that the writ petition has been filed
merely on an apprehension.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 by referring
to the counter represent that the respondent No.3 has submitted
application vide application No.2000018529, dated 19.12.2015
in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152 MA dated 02.11.2015; and that the
said application is pending.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 further
submits that as and when the BRS application of respondent
No.3 is disposed of, the respondent-Corporation will take further
course of action basing on the outcome of the BRS application of
respondent No.3.
7. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the
submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and
perused the entire material on record.
8. It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has
formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized/illegal
constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned
plan or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.152, dated
02.11.2015. As per the said G.O., the application for
regularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted
within a period of 60 days from the date of notification of the
said Rules along with 50% of regularization amount as per Rule
5 or minimum of 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 same to
the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond
six months from the date of receipt of applications.
9. The Regularization 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
10. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, 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 18.10.2016 as under:-
"We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to
modify the earlier order, and direct that the
applications for regularization be processed in
accordance with the regularization scheme notified in
G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015. In case the GHMC
or the other Municipal Corporations in the State of
Telangana, after considering the applications for
regularization, decide to reject the request for
regularization, it is open to them to communicate the
orders of rejection to the applicants concerned, and
thereafter take action for demolition of the illegal
structures in accordance with law. In such of those
cases where the GHMC, or the other Municipal
Corporations, tentatively decide to regularize 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."
11. Subsequently, the said WP(PIL) along with a batch of Writ
Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated 28.04.2021, with a
direction that the interim order dated 18.10.2016 passed in
W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016 shall continue to operate till a decision
is taken by the Supreme Court on W.P.(Civil) No.1236 of 2020.
12. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and
another Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others 1,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of
decisions, viz., K.Ramadas Shenoy Vs. Chief Officers, Town
Municipal Council 2, Dr. G.N.Khajuria and others Vs. Delhi
Development Authority and others 3, M.I. Builders
(Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu 4, Esha Ekta
2024 SCC Online SC 3767
(1974) 2 SCC 506
(1995) 5 SCC 762
(1999) 6 SCC 464
Apartments Co-Op Housing Society Limited Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Mumbai 5, Supertech Limited Vs. Emerald
Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and others 6,
Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authority Vs.
Maradu Municipality 7, State of Haryana Vs. Satpal 8, 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
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.
13. In the instant case, since the grievance of the petitioner
remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS
(2013) 3 SCC (Civil) 89
(2021) 10 SCC 1
(2021) 16 SCC 822
(2023) 6 SCC 643
application of respondent No.3, in the light of the aforesaid order
dated 28.04.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in
WP(PIL) No.63 of 2013 and its batch, as well as the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar
Barjatya's case (cited supra), the respondent No.2 (GHMC) is
directed to process the application submitted by respondent
No.3 for regularization of unauthorized/illegal construction, and
to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the interim order
dated 18.06.2016 passed in WP(PIL) No.63 of 2016, within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Subject to result of the BRS application filed by
respondent No.3, the respondent No.2 is directed to take
appropriate action to redress the petitioner's grievance strictly in
accordance with law.
14. Subject to above directions and observations, the writ
petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 03.12.2025
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.38977 of 2015
Dt.03.12.2025
tk
