Telangana High Court
Vijay Kumar Yerram vs The State Of Telangana on 4 September, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.992 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated
02.09.2025, passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.21699 of 2025 by a
learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby, the interim order, dated
26.08.2025, passed in the said Writ Petition was recalled upon contest.
2. Heard Sri K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri K. Pratik Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant,
Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC,
appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao,
learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.S. Anirudh Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent No.6.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had
contended that the appellant has 25% share in respondent No.6-
company. Respondent No.6 has started a project for construction of a
multistoried residential building by name and style 'Namitha 360 Life'
in Survey Nos.12(P) and 13(P) situated at Izzathanagar Village,
2 AKS,J & VRKR,J
Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, after obtaining
necessary permission from GHMC on 30.05.2019. Initially,
respondent No.6 has obtained building permission for construction of
multistoried residential building consisting of 2 Cellars + 3 stilts + 25
upper floors. However, within the validity of the permission,
respondent No.6 could not complete the entire project and there were
also certain deviations in the construction. While so, respondent No.6
is making efforts to construct another three extra floors and has
applied for building permission, but the GHMC has declined to grant
revised sanction plan for three additional floors. The GHMC vide
proceedings, dated 03.12.2024, has informed respondent No.6 that
there are 14 shortfalls from the original sanctioned plan and until and
unless respondent No.6 rectifies the shortfalls as pointed out in the
proceedings, dated 03.12.2024, the GHMC will not consider the case of
respondent No.6 for grant of revised sanction plan for construction of
three additional floors.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had further
contended that GHMC has once again inspected the subject premises
3 AKS,J & VRKR,J
and issued proceedings, dated 11.05.2025, reiterating its stand
that respondent No.6 must comply with the shortfalls and this time,
the GHMC has pointed out 18 shortfalls. Instead of complying
with/rectifying the said shortfalls, respondent No.6 is proceeding
with construction and if the construction is made contrary to the
sanctioned plan, the appellant would also be put to irreparable loss
and hardship, as admittedly, he is also one of the share-holders in
respondent No.6-company.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had further
contended that GHMC has revalidated the permission, which was
earlier granted to respondent No.6, vide proceedings, dated 11.06.2025,
without ensuring whether respondent No.6 has rectified the shortfalls
as pointed out in the proceedings, dated 03.12.2024 and 11.05.2025. In
those set of circumstances, challenging the proceedings, dated
11.06.2025, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the
subject W.P.No.21699 of 2025. Initially, the learned Single Judge vide
interim order, dated 26.08.2025, was pleased to grant interim direction
directing respondent No.6 not to proceed with further construction till
4 AKS,J & VRKR,J
the next date of hearing. Seeking to vacate the said order, dated
26.08.2025, respondent No.6 filed vacate stay application i.e. I.A.No.2
of 2025 and upon contest, the learned Single Judge was pleased to
vacate the interim order, dated 26.08.2025, without appreciating any
of the contentions raised by the appellant.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had further
contended that though GHMC has issued proceedings, dated
03.12.2024 and 11.05.2025, directing respondent No.6 to
rectify/comply with the shortfalls which were pointed out in those
proceedings, respondent No.6 without rectifying the shortfalls is
proceeding with construction. Learned Senior Counsel had further
contended that the learned Single Judge could not have permitted
respondent No.6 to go ahead with the construction. If the
construction is contrary to the sanctioned plan, the entire project will
collapse. This issue was clearly dealt with by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another v. U.P.
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others1, wherein the Honourable
Supreme Court has categorically held that even if the constructions
Civil Appeal No.14604 of 2024, dated 17.12.2024.
5 AKS,J & VRKR,J
are as old as 24 years and if those constructions are found to be
contrary to the sanctioned plan, the authorities can always take action
against those illegal constructions. In the instant case, respondent
No.6 is proceeding with the construction contrary to the sanctioned
plan. Therefore, the learned Single Judge could not have vacated the
interim order granted in favour of the appellant. Therefore,
appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the
impugned order, dated 02.09.2025, passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in
W.P.No.21699 of 2025 and allow the Writ Appeal and further, direct
respondent No.6 not to proceed with the construction, unless and
until respondent No.6 rectifies/complies with the shortfalls as pointed
out by the GHMC vide proceedings, dated 03.12.2024 and 11.05.2025.
7. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.6 had contended that if respondent No.6 is prevented
from going ahead with the construction, respondent No.6 would not
be in a position to clear the shortfalls as pointed out by the GHMC
vide proceedings, dated 03.12.2024 and 11.05.2025. Learned Senior
Counsel had further contended that respondent No.6 undertakes that
6 AKS,J & VRKR,J
it would strictly comply with the original sanctioned plan, dated
30.05.2019, and also the proceedings, dated 11.06.2025, revalidating
the permission and only thereafter, it would seek revised building
permission for construction of three additional floors. Learned Senior
Counsel had further contended that let GHMC not issue Occupancy
Right Certificate, if the building is constructed contrary to the
sanctioned plan.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 had
further contended that respondent No.6 is willing to rectify the
shortfalls, so that GHMC can reconsider the case of respondent No.6
for construction of three additional floors by granting appropriate
permission. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in
vacating the interim order and permitting respondent No.6 to go
ahead with the construction. Therefore, there are no merits in the
Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 had
further contended that the appellant has filed civil case against
respondent No.6 and there is litigation going on between the
7 AKS,J & VRKR,J
appellant and respondent No.6. Only to harass respondent No.6,
the appellant has filed the subject Writ Petition. The appellant has
also got interest in respondent No.6-company, which means, he has
rival interest in the case. Therefore, the subject Writ Petition could not
have been filed by the appellant. On this count also, the Writ Appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
10. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that respondent No.6
has given an undertaking before this Court that it would rectify the
shortfalls as pointed out by GHMC vide proceedings, dated 03.12.2024
and 11.05.2025, and only thereafter, it would seek revised building
permission for construction of three additional floors. When
respondent No.6 gives such an undertaking before this Court, this
Court is of the considered view that the Writ Appeal can be disposed
of with an observation that respondent No.6 shall make endeavour to
rectify/comply with the shortfalls as pointed out by GHMC vide
proceedings, dated 03.12.2024 and 11.05.2025, and thereafter only,
respondent No.6 shall take steps for securing revised building
8 AKS,J & VRKR,J
permission for construction of three additional floors, which it
intends to construct.
11. With the above observations and recording the undertaking
given by respondent No.6, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. It is made
clear that Occupancy Right Certificate shall not be issued to
respondent No.6 unless and until it complies with the sanctioned plan
and the GHMC officials shall monitor the construction work of
respondent No.6 from time to time. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall
stand closed.
________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J
Date: 04.09.2025.
MD
