Smt. Cheguri Anitha Andalu vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 426 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. Cheguri Anitha Andalu vs The State Of Telangana on 4 June, 2025

Author: T. Vinod Kumar

Bench: T.Vinod Kumar

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

                 WRIT PETITION No. 14425 of 2024

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or orders to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.9979 of 2024, dt.18.04.2024, and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents 2 to 5 not to proceed against the property bearing No.6-3- 1177/A/120 and 6-3-1177/A/104, B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad, till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 455A of the GHMC Act, 1955 and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.."

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban

Development (MA&UD) appearing for respondent No.1, Sri

K.Siddharth Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.2 to 5, and with their consent the Writ Petition is

taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the manner of

disposal of the Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to

unofficial respondent No.6 is not necessary for adjudication of the

present Writ Petition.

4. The case of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit, in brief, is

that she is aggrieved by the order passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No.9799 of 2024, dt.18.04.2024, whereby this Court had

directed the respondents-authorities to take action against the

construction made by the petitioner and her son in the premises

bearing Nos.6-3-1177/A/120 and 6-3-1177/A/104, admeasuring

400 sq. yards in B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad, as the said

order has been passed without making them parties to the said writ

petition. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

5. Petitioner contends that she had purchased a portion of the

property bearing House Nos.6-3-1177/A/120 and 6-3-1177/A/104

admeasuring 200 sq. yards along with a construction in 100 sq. feet

having RCC roof, under a registered sale deed bearing

No.1525/2022, dt.07.05.2022; and that her son namely Cheguri

Eswar Sai Kishore has purchased the remaining portion of the

aforesaid house property admeasuring 200 sq. yards on the same

date vide registered sale deed bearing No.1526/2022, and are in

possession of the said property.

6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that herself and

her son have approached the respondents-authorities and made

application individually, seeking building permission in respect of the

property purchased by them under the aforementioned two sale

deeds; that the respondents-authorities by considering the

applications made by her granted building permission on 23.06.2022

for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors; and that her son was also

granted building permission in respect of the portion of the property

purchased by him vide building permission, dt.04.07.2022, for

construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that since, both the

petitioner's property and her son's property are adjacent to each

other, the petitioner along with her son decided to develop the entire

extent of 400 Sq. Yards into a single building consisting of Ground +

4 Upper Floors, and have accordingly made an application to the

authorities on 23.02.2023 seeking revision of plan, and since, the

said application was not returned on any ground nor rejected, the

petitioner and her son started the construction and completed the

building.

8. Petitioner further contends that due to certain reasons, like

stability and vastu, the petitioner and her son constructed 5th floor

also and an application was submitted to the 2nd respondent on

01.06.2024 seeking regularization of the entire building including 5th

floor constructed by them under Section 455A of the GHMC Act,

1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955').

9. Petitioner further contends that while she and her son have

made an application seeking revision of the permission and also

submitted an application for regularization of construction made by

them including 5th floor, the 4th respondent herein had issued a

Speaking Order, dt.03.10.2023, directing the petitioner and her son

to remove the construction which is made in deviation of the

sanctioned plan within 15 days, even though the application

submitted by the petitioner along with her son seeking regularization

of the construction is pending consideration with the 2nd respondent.

10. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent

addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone,

Hyderabad referring to the order of this Court in W.P.No.9799 of

2024, stating that the Hon'ble Court had directed the GHMC

authorities to take action against the unauthorized and illegal

construction made by Eswar Sai Kishore, who is the son of the

petitioner, and as the GHMC authorities are going to remove the said

construction, and thus, sought for being given police aid to prevent

any breach of law and order.

11. Petitioner further contends that on coming to know of the

same, she got verified the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9799

of 2024 and obtained online copy of the same; that on going through

the said order, she had learnt that one P.Narender describing himself

as resident of House No.6-3-1177, B.S.Maktha, Begumpet,

Hyderabad, has filed the said Writ Petition alleging that the 6th

respondent therein namely Shanta Srivasta @ Shanta Devi @

Shantabai is making unauthorized and illegal construction in the

premises bearing No.6-3-1177/120 & 104 and despite he

approaching the respondents-authorities, no action has been taken

thereon.

12. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said P.Narender

while approaching this Court by filing a writ petition vide

W.P.No.9799 of 2024 claiming himself to be resident of house No.6-

3-1177, B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, did not file any documents in

support of his claim of he residing in the said premises or as regards

the 6th respondent therein making any construction in the

neighbourhood, and that he also did not implead the petitioner or

her son as party respondents to the said writ petition.

13. Petitioner further contends that this Court merely basing on

the affidavit filed in the said writ petition and the alleged complaint

dt.29.08.2023, stated to have been filed with the respondents-

authorities, had passed the impugned order; and that this Court

while passing the order in the aforesaid writ petition had taken note

of the submission made on behalf of the 6th respondent i.e., Shanta

Srivasta @ Shanta Devi @ Shantabai, that she is no more and during

her life time she having sold the said property to one Nagarjuna, and

thus, the 6th respondent therein is in no way concerned with the

construction.

14. On behalf of the petitioner it is further contended that though

the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents-GHMC in

the aforesaid writ petition had brought to the notice of this Court

that one Eswar Sai Kishore(petitioner's son), who had obtained

building permission, had made construction in deviation of the

sanctioned plan, and this Court despite noting the aforesaid

submission made, choose to proceed with the same without making

them as parties to the said case, and passed the impugned order

directing the respondents-authorities to take action as per the Act.

15. It is the further contention of the petitioner that based on the

order of this Court directing the respondents-authorities to take

action against the construction made by the petitioner's son, the

respondents-GHMC authorities have addressed a letter seeking

police aid for causing demolition fo the building.

16. It is the further case of the petitioner that since, this Court had

passed an order in Writ Petition.No.9799 of 2024, at admission

stage, without impleading the affected parties and that the 6th

respondent against whom relief had been sought therein being no

way connected with the subject property, the petitioner and her son

having sought for regularization of the construction made by them by

making an application under Section 455A of the Act, 1955 with the

2nd respondent-authority and the said application being pending and

also that the application made by the petitioner seeking permission

for construction of Stilt + 4 Upper floors was neither returned nor

rejected on any ground by the authorities, the order passed by this

Court in Writ Petition No.9799 of 2025 is unsustainable, and is liable

to be set aside.

17. Petitioner further contended that since, the order of this Court

in W.P.No.9799 of 2024 is passed by a Single Judge of this Court

and since, the said order as passed affects the rights of the

petitioner, she has filed a writ appeal vide W.A.No.468 of 2024 under

Clause 15 of Letters Patent before a Division Bench of this Court,

and the said appeal was disposed of on 05.06.2024.

18. Petitioner contends that the Division Bench of this Court while

disposing of the aforesaid writ appeal had observed that the order of

this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024 will not be binding on the

petitioner, as she was not made as party to it; and that the Division

Bench while disposing of the said appeal had granted liberty to the

petitioner to file a review petition or file a fresh writ petition

challenging the order in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, and thus, the

petitioner herein had filed the present Writ Petition challenging the

order in W.P.No.9799 of 2024 on her behalf as well as on behalf of

her son namely Eswar Sai Kishore, who is living in USA at present

and as such being unable to approach this Court.

19. By contending as above, the petitioner seeks for setting aside

the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024,

dt.18.04.2024.

20. Per contra, learned Government Pleader and learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the respective respondents would contend that

the present Writ Petition as filed by the petitioner is liable to be

dismissed in limini as the petitioner is not entitled for being granted

any relief having made construction in deviation of the building

permissions obtained by her and her son.

21. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner

and her son namely Eswar Sai Kishore, on purchasing the property

bearing house Nos.6-3-1177/A/120 & 104, admeasuring 400 sq.

yards in two parts, each admeasuring 200 sq. yards, have

approached the respondents-authorities and submitted applications

seeking two separate building permissions for construction of Stilt +

2 Upper floors, which were duly granted by the authorities vide

permissions, dt.23.06.2022 and dt.04.07.2022, respectively,

specifying the permitted construction area of the building with a

height of 6 meters with setbacks of 1.5 meter on the front, and 1

meter on rear, side1 and side2 to be maintained by each of the

applicants, respectively.

22. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that though the

petitioner and her son have obtained separate building permissions,

the petitioner while undertaking construction had clubbed the two

portions of the subject house, in respect of which two separate

permissions have been obtained, and made construction of a single

building consisting of Stilt + 4 upper floors, thereby violating the

building permit orders.

23. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that if only

the petitioner and her son intended to make construction of one

building by clubbing the entire extent of land admeasuring 400 sq.

yards, the petitioner could have made an application, which could

have been considered and granted by the respondents by applying

the setbacks as would be applicable in respect of plot of land

admeasuring 400 sq. yards rather than obtaining separate

permissions for 200 sq. yards for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper

floors for which setback norms are different from that of the plot of

land admeasuring 400 sq. yards.

24. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner

and her son though have obtained separate building permissions for

construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors, made construction of single

building by clubbing the aforesaid permissions into one unit and

thereby violated Section 7(2) of TG-bPASS Act, 2020 (for short 'the

Act, 2020'), under which the petitioner and her son had obtained

separate/individual building permit orders.

25. On behalf of the respondents it is also contended that the

petitioner and her son on obtaining building permit orders and

proceeding with the construction in deviation of the said

permissions, the authorities have issued show-cause notice,

dt.06.09.2023 calling upon the petitioner and her son to show cause

as to why action should not be initiated; that though the aforesaid

notices were duly served, as no response was submitted, the

authorities have passed a Speaking Order, dt.03.10.2023, holding

the construction made by them is in deviation of the permissions,

dt.23.06.2022 and dt.04.07.2022, and are liable to be proceeded

being in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1955 and Act, 2020

and the Telangana Building Rules, 2012.

26. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the aforesaid

speaking order was sent by registered post and was duly received by

the petitioner's son; and that the petitioner nor her son, who had

received the aforesaid speaking order, did take any steps to challenge

the same, if were aggrieved by the same, and on the other hand,

allowed the said speaking order to attain finality.

27. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that insofar as

application submitted on the TG-bPASS web portal on 23.02.2023

seeking revised building permission from that of Stilt + 2 Upper

floors to Stilt + 4 Upper floors vide File No.002178/

GHMC/1083/KHB2/2023-BP(REV)(23/02/2023) is concerned, the

same was rejected by the authorities categorizing the aforesaid

proposal under high risk category; and that the petitioner did not

challenge the said rejection order till date.

28. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents would

further submit that while the revision of the building plan submitted

by the petitioner and her son on 23.02.2023 for Ground + 4 Upper

floors despite being rejected, proceeded with the construction and in

fact made further construction of 5th floor, which the petitioner now

claims as is on account of viability and vastu, which claim of the

petitioner cannot be allowed, as the same is alien to law.

29. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that though

petitioner received both the show-cause notice and the speaking

order with regard to the construction made by them being held as

made in deviation of the sanctioned building permit order and thus,

unauthorized and illegal construction, had kept quite although this

period and it is only after the unofficial respondent approaching this

Court in April, 2024 alleging inaction on the part of the respondents-

authorities in considering his application bringing to the notice of the

authorities of the unauthorized and illegal construction being made,

chose to file initially Writ Appeal and thereafter the present writ

petition. Learned Standing Counsel would also submit that the

petitioner had submitted application under Section 455A of the Act,

1955 on 01.06.2024, seeking regularization of the aforesaid

unauthorized and illegal construction made by them, just before the

petitioner filing a Writ Appeal, against the order of this Court in

W.P.No.9799 of 2023, on 03.06.2024.

30. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner

cannot seek regularization of the unauthorized and illegal

construction made by her by submitting an application and the

respondents-authorities cannot regularize the said unauthorized and

illegal construction, on mere asking of the applicant.

31. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that an application

under Section 455A of the Act can be filed seeking regularization of

the construction made without obtaining permission. However, as

per the Scheme of the Act, such construction can be regularized

subject to such construction meeting all the parameters laid down in

the relevant Statutes, Master Plan, Zonal Development Plan, Building

Bye-Laws, Building Rules and other relevant government orders

including A.P. Fire Service Act and the National Building Code, and

paying penalty equivalent to 33% of the various categories of fees and

charges payable, and not otherwise.

32. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the

building constructed by the petitioner is in deviation of the

sanctioned plan. The application submitted does not confirm to the

mandate provided under Section 455A of the Act, for the petitioner

cannot claim of she being entitled to seek regularization of the said

unauthorized and illegal construction made in violation of the Rules

in force.

33. Learned Standing Counsel by referring to the alleged

application submitted by the petitioner under Section 455A of the

Act would submit that even by the said application, the petitioner is

only seeking regularization of the construction made by her and her

son of Stilt + 4 Upper Floors and is silent with regard to the 5th floor

constructed by them without any permission or sanction from the

authorities, and as such, the said application cannot be considered.

34. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the

petitioner while making application though had invoked Section

455A as well as 455AA of the Act, in order to consider the said

application under Section 455A of the Act, the construction so made

should comply with the requirements/norms as provided under the

Rules. Insofar as Section 455AA of the Act is concerned, the said

provision would be applicable only in respect of applications which

have been made seeking regularization of the constructions made in

deviation of the sanctioned plan as on 28.10.2015, for which the

Government had issued Building Penalization Scheme(BPS).

Learned Standing Counsel submits that since, the petitioner made

construction subsequently in deviation of the permissions obtained,

the said provision has no application.

35. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner

had submitted application under Section 455A of the Act only on

01.06.2024, and immediately thereafter had filed a writ appeal on

03.06.2024, and the present Writ Petition on 07.06.2024, the said

application is under consideration and necessary orders would be

passed therein; and that based on the orders passed, the

respondents-authorities would take further action in accordance

with law.

36. Learned Standing Counsel thus, submits that in either way,

the application submitted by the petitioner both under Sections 455A

and 455AA of the Act, does not merit consideration, and thus, prayed

to dismiss the present writ petition.

37. I have taken note of the aforesaid contentions urged.

38. Firstly, it is to be noted that the correctness or otherwise of an

order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in a Writ Petition

cannot be assailed before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in

another Writ Petition. Such course of action resorted to would be

legal impropriety, would lead to judicial indiscipline.

39. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that in the

Writ Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court having granted liberty

to the petitioner to seek review or filing a fresh writ petition against

the order in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, dt.18.04.2024, and thus the

petitioner being entitled to file the present Writ Petition, it is to be

noted that liberty granted by the Division Bench to file a fresh Writ

Petition does not entitle the petitioner to call in question the order of

the learned single of this Court in another writ petition before a

Coordinate Bench of the same Court, and is confined only to the

relevant factors not being brought to the notice of the Court by the

petitioner, who had filed the earlier petition or facts stated therein

being wrong, resulting in this Court passing the said order, affecting

the rights of the petitioner herein.

40. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that having

regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court Shivdev Singh v.

State of Punjab 1 as well as the Division Bench of this Court in

Palavalasa Padmanabham v. State of A.P. 2, the Division Bench

having granted liberty to file fresh writ petition, it is to be noted that

the Division Bench had granted liberty to the petitioner to either seek

review of the order or file a fresh Writ Petition, which by itself cannot

be construed as if the petitioner being entitled to maintain the

present Writ Petition without there being any new facts or the facts

considered by this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, being incorrect or

at variance.

41. The decision of the apex Court in Shivdev Singh's case(1

supra), which has been referred to by the Division Bench while

granting liberty to the petitioner to seek review or file a fresh Writ

Petition was considered by the Apex Court in its decision in the case

of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and

AIR 1963 SC 1909

2003(4) ALD 449(DB)

Others 3, and the Apex Court in the said decision held that the

petitioner would only be entitled to seek review of the judgment.

42. The petitioner admittedly, did not take any steps to seek review

of the order of this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, by brining to the

notice of the Court that the facts considered therein are contrary to

the record, and thus, the Court having arrived at an erroneous

decision therein.

43. On the other hand, a reading of the order of this Court in

W.P.No.9799 of 2024 would show that though the petitioner therein

had claimed the 6th respondent therein making unauthorized and

illegal construction and that the respondents-authorities not taking

any action against such unauthorized and illegal construction, this

Court taking note of the submission made by the learned Standing

Counsel of the said construction being made is by one Eswar Sai

Kishore, i.e., the son of the petitioner herein, and the respondents-

authorities having issued show-cause notice, dt.06.09.2023 and

thereafter passing a Speaking Order on 03.10.2023, and the said

Speaking Order, having attained finality, and being forwarded to the

Nodal Officer on 16.04.2024 for enforcement in terms of the

provisions of the Act, 1955 and Act, 2020, had directed the

respondents-authorities to take further action thereagainst, which

(1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 389

has already been held by the respondents-authorities themselves to

be unauthorized and illegal construction made by said Eswar Sai

Kishore in deviation of the sanctioned plan.

44. Thus, the said order of this Court cannot be said as either

erroneous or having failed to consider the relevant materials, for the

petitioner to seek for setting aside the said order without showing

that the facts considered therein to be not correct.

45. Though on behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that

the petitioner having sought for regularization of the construction

made by her in deviation of the building permit order, as rightly

pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the said

application under Section 455A or 455AA of the Act had been

submitted only on 01.06.2024 and not before, and as such cannot be

said as pending consideration on the date when this Court had

passed the said order on 18.04.2024 and this Court having failed to

take note of the same while considering the said writ petition and

passing orders therein.

46. The subsequent filing of the application by the petitioner under

Section 455A of the Act cannot be considered as a fact, which was

existing as on the date when the unofficial respondent herein had

approached this Court by alleging inaction on the part of the

respondents-authorities in dealing with the unauthorized and illegal

construction, for the petitioner herein to claim of the unofficial

respondent herein having approached this Court by not making her

as party or this Court having passed an order without impleading

her in the said writ petition.

47. If only the construction made by the petitioner is in accordance

with the initial building permit order obtained by her or further

regularization as sought for by her having been acceded to by the

authorities, thereby the authorities being prevented to take any

action against the aforesaid construction and by virtue of the order of

this Court, the respondents-authorities initiating action affecting the

rights/interest, the petitioner can seek that relevant facts having not

been considered by this Court.

48. On the other hand by the submissions made by the learned

Standing Counsel it would be clear that the petitioner and her son

having been issued with show-cause notice with regard to the

construction made/being made by them in deviation of the

sanctioned building permit order, and having kept quite, resulting in

the authority passing the speaking order, dt.03.10.2023, holding the

aforesaid construction to be unauthorized and illegal, and the said

order having attained finality, it was incumbent on the part of the

respondents-authorities to take action to deal with the said

unauthorized and illegal construction made, in exercise of powers

conferred on the said authorities under the Act, 1955 and Act, 2020,

without the unofficial respondents having to approach this Court at

the first instance.

49. Since, the unofficial respondents herein being aggrieved by the

inaction of respondents in dealing with unauthorized and illegal

construction, having filed the writ petition vide W.P.No.9799 of 2024,

and this Court in the said Writ Petition having taken note of the fact

of the respondents-authorities having passed a Speaking Order and

the said order having been forwarded to the Nodal Officer on the

same attaining finality, had only directed the authorities to take

further action, which the respondents-authorities are in a way

required to undertake under the Act. Thus, the claim of the

petitioner in the present Writ Petition that the said order in the

underlying Writ petition having been passed without notice to them

and thus being liable to be set aside, is devoid of merit.

50. It is also to be noted that the petitioner having made

construction in deviation of the building permission obtained by her

and also the application made for revision of the building plan for

Stilt + 4 Upper Floors having been rejected, still

continued/proceeded with the construction not only in terms of the

revised plan but also made further construction of 5th floor, for which

there is neither an application for revised permission nor seeking

regularization, and as such the petitioner cannot claim this Court

having passed an order without issuing notice to them.

51. Further, it is also to be noted that the petitioner having made

unauthorized and illegal construction, cannot plead of violation of

principles of natural justice or equity, when the unofficial respondent

had approached this Court questioning the inaction of the

respondents-authorities in considering his representation/complaint

and taking action against the unauthorized construction being

complained of, by discharging their duties under the Act, 1955. It is

settled position of law that even a stranger or passer-by on the Road

can lodge a complaint with regard to unauthorized and illegal

construction and need not be an affected party.

52. Thus, considered from any angle, the endeavour of the

petitioner in the present Writ Petition appears only to protect the

unauthorized and illegal construction made by her and her son,

without obtaining valid permission and in deviation of the sanctioned

building permit order and in violation of the Building Rules and

Regulations, with impunity.

53. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Writ

Petition as filed is apart from being misconceived, is devoid of merit

and is accordingly, dismissed.

54. However, insofar as the claim of the petitioner of having made

an application under Section 455A of the Act, 1955, seeking

regularization of the construction made by her is concerned, as

pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the said application

does not speak of the petitioner seeking regularization of the alleged

5th floor constructed by her. Further, insofar as the power of the

Commissioner to consider the application made under Section 455A

of the Act, 1955 is concerned, this Court by its judgment in the case

of A.Praveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana & others 4 had

dealt with the said power of the Commissioner and had also held

that the Commissioner can only regularize a building, which is

constructed without obtaining building permission by exercise the

power conferred on him under the Statute, only if the said

construction confirms to the Building Rules.

55. Since, it is stated that the construction made by the petitioner

does not confirm to the Building rules for her to seek regularization

in terms of Section 455A of the Act, this Court is of the further view

that without expressing any opinion, the 2nd respondent-authority is

Order, dt.12.10.2023 in W.P.No.28640 of 2023

to be directed to dispose of the said application made under 455A of

the Act, 1955, by taking note of the decision of this Court in

A.Praveen Kumar's case(4 supra), if not already

considered/disposed of.

56. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

stand closed. No order as to costs.

_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 04th June, 2025 gra