Telangana High Court
Kamireddy Suresh Reddy vs The State Of Telangana, Municipal ... on 25 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.11488 of 2015
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the Show-cause notice
dated 31.03.2015 vide No.G1/348/MC SRD/2015 and final Order
dated 31.03.2015 in CO No.UC/24/2015 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar representing Sri Sreenivasa Rao
Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner
is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 1861
Sq.yrds, situated at Majeera Nagar, Sanga Reddy District, having
acquired the same under three registered sale deeds i.e., sale deed
Nos.4146, 4910 and 5411 of 2011 dated 27.04.2011, 12.05.2011
and 27.05.2011 respectively; that petitioner applied and obtained
permission for construction of two Cellars + Ground + four upper
floors vide proceedings No.G1/11/2012, dated 29.02.2012 from
respondent No.2-Municipality; that petitioner has completed the
construction and also obtained fire clearance from the concerned
department vide proceedings No.RC.No.381/MSB/CR/MDK/2014,
dated 23.03.2014. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 had
issued two notices on 17.04.2015 i.e., Show-cause notice dated
31.03.2015 and final Order dated 31.03.2015, alleging that
petitioner has erected Gate towards southern side in 10 to 12 feet
road, erected gas pipe towards residential houses, fixed large number
of big size air conditioners, erected big size generator, erected electric
transformer near to residential house, constructed compound wall
on the municipal water supply pipe line and 5th floor contrary to the
sanctioned plan. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
petitioner had submitted an application for regularization in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.152, MA & UD (M1), dated 02.11.2015 vide application
No.BPS/53/2015 and the same is pending.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit
that the application filed by the petitioner is pending consideration
and once the BRS application is disposed of, the respondents
Corporation will take further action basing on the outcome of the
BRS application of the petitioner.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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."
10. 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.
11. 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 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
2024 SCC Online SC 3767
(1974) 2 SCC 506
(1995) 5 SCC 762
(1999) 6 SCC 464
(2013) 3 SCC (Civil) 89
(2021) 10 SCC 1
(2021) 16 SCC 822
(2023) 6 SCC 643
pending appeals/revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event
not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.
12. In the instant case, since the grievance of the petitioner
remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS application, 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 respondents are
directed to process the application submitted by the petitioner for
regularization of unauthorized/illegal construction, and 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 the petitioner, the 2nd
respondent is directed to take appropriate action in respect of
subject property strictly in accordance with law.
13. 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: 25.11.2025
tri
