Telangana High Court

R.Narender vs The State Of Tg., Rep By Its ... on 9 September, 2025

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                           *****
              WRIT PETITION No.30246 OF 2014

BETWEEN

R.Narender, S/o.R.Ganesh
                                                     ... Petitioner

                              And

The State of Telangana,
Municipal Administration Department
and 7 others.
                                                  ... Respondents

Date of Judgment Pronounced: 09.09.2025


SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:


 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY


1.   Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may       (Yes/No)
     be allowed to see the Judgments?

2.   Whether the copies of judgment may be           (Yes/No)
     marked to Law Reports/Journals?

3.   Whether their Lordship/ Ladyship wish to        (Yes/No)
     see the fair copy of the Judgment?


                               ___________________________________
                               LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
                                    2



    * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                   + WRIT PETITION No.30246 OF 2014

%      Dated 09-09-2025

# R.Narender, S/o.R.Ganesh
                                                            ... Petitioner
                                  And

$ The State of Telangana,
  Municipal Administration Department
  and 7 others.
                                                        ... Respondents


! Counsel for Petitioner           : Sri D.Sudarshan Reddy

^ Counsel for Respondent No.1      : Govt. Pleader for Municipal Administration
  Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : Sri M.Arun Kumar
  Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : Govt.Pleader for Endowments


<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 2024 SCC Online SC 3767
2. (1974) 2 SCC 506
3. (1995) 5 SCC 762
4. (1999) 6 SCC 464
5. (2013) 3 SCC (Civil) 89
6. (2021) 10 SCC 1
7. (2021) 16 SCC 822
8. (2023) 6 SCC 643
                                   3

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                WRIT PETITION No.30246 of 2014

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed declaring the inaction of respondent

Nos.2 to 5 in taking action on the representations of the petitioner

dated 18.09.2014, 25.09.2014 and 27.09.2014, to stop the illegal

constructions being made by unofficial respondent Nos.7 and 8 in

premises No.15-4-132, TS.No.18, Ward-20, Block J & K, Gowliguda,

Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri D.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration

Department (R1), Sri M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for

respondents 2 to 4 (GHMC), and learned Government Pleader for

Endowments (R5 & R6). No representation on behalf of respondent

Nos. 7 and 8.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Sri Jungle

Vitobha Temple, Gowliguda, Osman Sahi, Hyderabad, is having

lands to an extent of 15,146 square yards and the details of the said

property is recorded in the register maintained under Section 43 of

the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and

Endowments Act, 1987 (for short Act 30 of 1987). However, the said

lands are in occupation of the encroachers. The Regional Joint

Commissioner, Endowments, directed the Assistant Commissioner,

Endowments Department (6th respondent) to take necessary steps for

collection of rents/nuzul from the occupants and also to initiate

eviction proceedings against the encroachers. As no action has been

taken, the petitioner filed WP.No.35936 of 2012 and the same is still

pending and in fact contempt case is also filed against the

respondents therein.

4. Learned Counsel would further submit that while the matter

stood thus, respondents 7 and 8 herein, who are occupants of the

temple land admeasuring 108 square yards in premises No.15-4-

132, in TS.No.18, Ward 20, Block-J & K, Gowliguda, Hyderabad,

commenced construction by demolishing the old structures and the

petitioner made representation to the endowment officials on

27.09.2014 and also to respondents 2 to 4 on 18.09.2014 and

25.09.2014. However, neither the Municipal authorities nor

endowment officials have taken any action to protect the temple

lands. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that

this Court by interim order dated 15.10.2014 directed respondent

Nos.2 to 4 to restrain respondent Nos.7 and 8 from proceeding with

further construction in the subject property; and that despite the

said directions by this Court, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not take any

action to stop unofficial respondentNos. 7 and 8 from proceeding

with further construction and prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2

to 4 wherein it is stated that the respondent officials inspected the

subject property and found a building consisting of ground + 4 upper

floors; that during inspection, respondent No.7 has shown a copy of

application submitted by him under Building Regularisation Scheme

(BRS) for regularization of the building constructed in deviation to

the sanctioned plan vide No.2000016093, dated 18.12.2015, as per

G.O.Ms.No.152 MA dated 02.11.2015; and that the said application

is pending. He further submits that once the BRS application of

respondent No.7 is disposed of, the respondents Corporation will

take further course of action basing on the outcome of the BRS

application of the 7th respondent.

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.,

2024 SCC Online SC 3767

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

pending appeals/revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event

not later than 90 days as statutorily provided.

(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