[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Anugu Srikanth Reddy vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 7 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.24993 OF 2013
Date: 07.04.2026
Between:
Anugu Srikanth Reddy s/o. A.Sudhakar Reddy,
r/o.H.No.2-127/46/B, Vijaypuri Colony,
Uppal village, Ranga Reddy District and others.
.... Petitioners
and
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,
rep.by its Deputy Commissioner, Uppal Circle-2,
Ranga Reddy and another.
.... Respondents
ORDER:
The present writ petition has been filed declaring the action of
the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned final notice bearing
No.G1/215/Upl/EZ/GHMC/2013, dated 11.08.2013, for demolition
of 2nd and 3rd floors of the building in H.No.2-127/46/B, Plot Nos.35
& 36 in Sy.No.664, situated at Vijayapuri Colony, Uppal, Ranga
Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the
same by directing the respondents to receive the application of the
petitioners for revision of plan and pass appropriate orders by
following due procedure of law.
2. The brief assertion made in the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition is that, petitioners are the absolute owners and
possessors of the land to an extent of 328 square yards bearing
No.2-2-127/46/B in Plot No.35 in Sy.No.664, Sairam Colony, Uppal,
Ranga Reddy and it is stated that an application was submitted to the
respondents for construction of a ground plus one floor residential
building and the building permission was duly obtained in the year
2011 and pursuant thereto, the petitioners constructed the building,
however, petitioners have constructed two more floors deviating the
sanctioned plan, and in fact an application was made before the
respondent-Corporation for revision of the said sanctioned plan.
However, it appears that the said application has not been
considered and pending as on today.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Srinivas Pachwa,
learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondents would contend
that in fact, the permission obtained is only for ground plus first
floor, however, an enquiry was conducted and the impugned notice
was issued calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorized
construction of second and third floors.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.Satyam Reddy appearing for the
petitioners would contend that petitioners had submitted an
application under Building Regularization Scheme bearing
Application No.2000121740, seeking regularization of the
unauthorized floors. However, as on today, the said application
neither rejected nor considered and it is stated that once the
Government has introduced a scheme for regularization of deviated
portions, the respondent authorities, being statutory authorities, are
duty-bound to consider the said application by following the
conditions stipulated in the said scheme and in that view of the
matter, the impugned notice cannot be acted upon in view of the
pendency of the said building regularization application.
5. Without delving into the merits of the present, this Court
deems it appropriate to refer to similar cases that were earlier
disposed of by this Court as well as the Rules framed by the
Government of Telangana.
6. It is appropriate 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.
7. 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.
8. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated
02.11.2015 was challenged in W.P.(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."
9. Subsequently, the said W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016, 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.
10. 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
others3, M.I. Builders (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu4, 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
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
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.
11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein made an
application on 01.03.2016 under Building Regularization Scheme for
regularization of the additional structures made in the above subject
property, which is also pending.
12. In the light of the aforesaid order dated 28.04.2021 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(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 official
respondents (GHMC) are directed to process the application
submitted by petitioners 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 petitioners,
the official respondents (GHMC) are directed to take appropriate
action thereof strictly in accordance with law.
13. Subject to above directions and observations, the present Writ
Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.2 to consider the
building regularization application vide Application No.2000121740
dated 26.02.2016 and if it in consonance with the scheme floated by
the Government, it may be kept in abeyance and no coercive steps
will be taken in the meanwhile subject to the result of the SLP
pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter may be
considered after finalization of the proceedings by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
14. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions
pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
Date: 07.04.2026
kkm
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.24998 OF 2013
Date: 07.04.2026
kkm
