Smt.Leelavathi Harkut, Died vs The State Of Telangana, Principal ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 600 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt.Leelavathi Harkut, Died vs The State Of Telangana, Principal ... on 10 April, 2026

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
                    HYDERABAD

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

                WRIT PETITION NO.45961 OF 2016

                          DATE: 10.04.2026
Between:

Smt.Leelavathi Harkut (died) (per LRs petitioners 2 to 7)
r/o. H.No.21-3-411 & 413, Moosabowli Road,
Mehboob-ki-Mehandi, Hyderabad and others.
                                                        .... Petitioners
           and

The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration & Urban Development,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.
                                                       .... Respondents

ORDER:

The present writ petition has been filed declaring the

proceedings bearing No.BPS/329/C5/SZ/089/2008-09, dated

01.07.2009, issued by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 regularizing the

deviations of constructions to the sanctioned plan made by the

respondent No.4 without considering representations made by the

petitioner No.1 from 02.11.2002, 18.02.2014, 24.11.2014 & 23.07.2015,

as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 to demolish the illegal constructions made

by the respondent No.4.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner No.1

(deceased) is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of house

property bearing H.No.No.21-3-411, 412 & 413, situated at

Moosabowli Road, Mehboob-ki-Mehandi, Hyderabad, and the

respondent No.4 is the neighbor of the petitioner No.1 on Western

side premises bearing H.No.21-3-414 admeasuring 150 square yards

and on Southern side, there is a common passage which is being

used as ingress and egress by the petitioner No.1 and the respondent

No.4 along with other layout plot owners.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner No.1 is that, the

respondent No.4 started making illegal construction on her property

without following the rules and regulations or obtaining municipal

permission as required under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act, 1955'). Further, while making

such construction, the respondent No.4 has not left proper setbacks

towards the Western side property of the petitioner, and despite the

same, the respondent No.4 has also erected staircase abutting to

Western side of property of the petitioners and also installed the gate

to the common passage. It is stated that because of such illegal

construction being made by the respondent No.4, as the petitioner

No.1 was put to lot of inconvenience, she has lodged several

complaints to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 02.11.2002, 18.02.2014,

24.11.2014, 07.04.2015 and 23.07.2015 requesting the respondent

Nos.1 to 3 to take necessary action against the respondent No.4 for

raising such illegal constructions on the said house bearing No.21-3-

414, without leaving any setbacks as per the sanctioned plan.

4. It is stated that the respondent Nos.2 and 3, despite receiving

the said representations of the petitioner No.1, failed to act upon the

same, thereby constraining the writ petitioner to file the writ petition

in W.P.No.28447 of 2015 before this Court, which was disposed of on

03.09.2015 directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the

complaints made by the writ petitioner and take necessary steps on

the said representations by affording a reasonable opportunity to the

respondent No.4 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law

within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the

said order.

5. Further, it is stated that the respondent No.4 has also filed

W.P.No.33192 of 2015 challenging the intimation letter bearing

No.414/3/21/ACP/C5/GHMC/2015, dated 30.09.2015 issued by the

respondent No.3, directing the respondent No.4 herein, to remove

the unauthorized construction immediately, within three days from

the date of receipt of the said letter and the said writ petition was

disposed of by this Court on 09.11.2015 by recording the submissions

of the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, who

stated that the said letter was mistakenly issued and subsequently,

another letter bearing No.414/3/21/ACP/C5/GHMC/2015, dated

06.11.2015 was issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 informed the respondent No.4 herein that there are no

new construction and the constructions already raised were in

conformity with the sanctioned plan and by the said letter,

respondent Nos.2 and 3 have withdrawn the letter dated 30.09.2013

and dropped all further actions.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that in

pursuance of the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.28447 of

2015 dated 03.09.2015, the respondent No.3 has issued intimation

letter dated 09.10.2015 to the petitioner No.1, fixing the personal

hearing on 26.10.2015 to consider the complaints of the petitioner

No.1 in respect of the unauthorized constructions made by the

respondent No.4, and when the petitioner No.1 approached the

respondent No.3 on 26.10.2015, wherein the statements of the

petitioner along with the respondent No.4 were recorded, and the

petitioners main grievance was that the 4th respondent has made

constructions deviating the sanctioned plan and though staircase is

sanctioned through inside, it was constructed from outside

protruding into the petitioners house and also occupied the common

lane about 2 feet on Southern side of the petitioners' land.

7. It is also stated by the petitioner No.1 that after recording such

statement by the respondent No.3, no local inspection was done by

the respondent Nos.2 and 3. But, however, as the official respondents

failed to issue any further intimation, a legal notice dated 01.03.2016

has been issued by the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.3

having received the legal notice from the petitioner, has sent a letter

No.414/3/21/ACP/C5/GHMC/2015-16 dated 08.03.2016 to their

counsel, wherein it was stated that respondent No.3 has already

given intimation letter to the writ petitioner on 06.11.2015, by stating

that respondent Nos.2 and 3 having gone through the allegations

made by the petitioner-Smt. Leelavati Harkut and Smt. Maya Devi by

conducting physical inspection of the site at premises No.21-3-414

situated at Mahboob-ki-Mahend, came to a conclusion that the owner

has obtained building permission for construction of ground and first

floors for residential purpose vide Permit No.17/40, dated 29.07.2002

in File No.414/3/21/2002 and constructed building by deviating the

sanctioned plan, however, the 4th respondent herein Smt. Maya Devi

applied for regularization under Building Penalization Scheme

(hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme'), and the same was approved by

their Office vide proceedings No.BPS/329/C5/SZ/08/2008-09, dated

01.07.2009. Further, as the said deviations were regularized under the

Scheme, further proceedings were dropped by the official

respondents and the said fact was informed to the writ petitioner by

later dated 06.11.2015 and the petitioner No.1 was constrained to file

various representations to take action on the illegal and unauthorized

constructions.

8. It is stated by the learned counsel for petitioner that the said

regularization proceedings dated 01.07.2009 are ex facie illegal and

violative of due procedure of law, violative of principles of natural

justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution

of India.

9. Per contra, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed a counter-

affidavit, inter alia, stating that that the deviated portions of

construction existing as on the date of the inspection have been

considered under the Scheme issued by the Government for

regulation of unauthorized constructions and the said deviations

have regularized by proceedings of the respondent Nos.2 and 3,

dated 01.07.2009. In that view of the matter, though the writ

petitioner No.1 addressed several representations, they cannot

consider the same. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Raparthi

Venkatesh contends that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is

liable to be dismissed.

10. Heard Mr. K.Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners,

and Mr. Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent Nos.2 and 3 and having given earnest consideration to

their submissions, perused the material on record.

11. Evidently, the respondent No.4 obtained due permission from

the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for construction of ground plus first

floors for residential purpose vide permit No.17/40 dated 29.07.2002

in file No.414/3/21/2002 and subsequently, as there are some

deviations made to the said sanctioned plan, an application was filed

by the respondent No.4 for regularization of the deviation portion in

pursuance of the scheme floated by the Government, called as,

Building Penalization Scheme (Scheme) and that said deviations

were regularized by virtue of the proceedings by the 3rd respondent

by proceedings No.BPS/329/C5/CZ/08/2008-09, dated 01.07.2009.

Once the said deviations are regularized, the 3rd respondent cannot

invoke their powers to take action on the representations of the

petitioner, and only ground, where the writ petitioners agitating

their grievance is that though representations were filed by

complaining the deviations made by the respondent No.4, their

complaints were not addressed while considering the application of

the 4th respondent under the Scheme. However, the fact remains that

respondent No.4 has constructed the said house with valid

permission, and the said regularization was done in pursuance of the

scheme floated by the Government under the Scheme. It is for the

competent authorities to deal with such deviations, and if the same

are found to satisfy the criteria prescribed under the said scheme, the

authorities have got ample power to regularize the same, and more

so, the petitioners have not made out any case to show how the said

regularization proceedings are violative of the Scheme, except

asserting that their representations were not considered.

12. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have not made any

substantial ground to show that the regularization proceedings

issued by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in favour of respondent No.4

in violation of the Scheme issued by the Government.

13. Thus, the Writ Petition is misconceived and in the event if the

petitioners have any grievance in respect of their claim, they ought to

have approached the competent Civil Court by filing a proper suit,

and thus, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly

liable to be dismissed.

14. In the light of the above stated factual findings, the Writ

Petition is dismissed.

15. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications if any shall stand closed.

________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO,J Date: 10.04.2026 kkm