Telangana High Court
P Santosh Kumar vs Prl.Secy., Ma., Andud Dept., Hyd., 4 ... on 5 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.186 OF 2016
ORDER:(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti) Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Mr. Ch.Jaya Krishna, learned counsel representing Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appears for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
2. This writ petition is filed by way of public interest litigation seeking the following relief:
"to issue a appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents herein in not taking any action, in pursuance of the petitioners representation dated 14.11.2016 and earlier whatsapp messages, with regarding to illegal constructions/conversion, as they are contrary to 2 CJ & JAK, J W.P(PIL).No.186 of 2016 provisions of GHMC Act, as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power and abdication of duty cast on them and consequently to direct the respondents to take action as per the provisions, of GHMC Act, Building Rules by demolishing/removing the illegal constructions/conversion made/being made in Hyderabad, more particularly in Bagh Lingampally and Bathkamma Kunta residential colonies and such other similarly situated areas, to save the residents/general public and to deter other upcoming illegal constructions, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders..."
3. Brief facts of the case:
It is the specific case of the petitioner that unauthorized constructions are made in Bathkammakunta and Bagh Lingampally without permission and in spite of the repeated representations, no action is being initiated by the respondents. Hence, the writ petition.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that Bathkammakunta falls in the jurisdiction of Circle No.16 (Old Circle No.9B) and Bagh Lingampally falls in the jurisdiction 3 CJ & JAK, J W.P(PIL).No.186 of 2016 of Circle No.15 (Old Circle No.9A). It is further submitted that in the said area, lot of buildings have come up which are unauthorized and without any permission. It is also submitted that respondents have not initiated any action with respect to the unauthorized constructions.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 that counter affidavit has been filed by Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.16, GHMC wherein it is stated that action has been initiated by GHMC and demolition work has been taken up for unauthorized constructions. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the writ affidavit is devoid of any details.
6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record. Considered the rival submissions.
7. It is evident from the record that Bathkammakunta falls in the jurisdiction of Circle No.16 (Old Circle No.9B) and Bagh Lingampally falls in the jurisdiction of Circle No.15 (Old Circle No.9A) and that petitioner came up with the writ 4 CJ & JAK, J W.P(PIL).No.186 of 2016 petition neither without any details of persons who made unauthorized constructions nor they have been arrayed as parties to the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.16, GHMC, it is specifically stated that action has been initiated against unauthorized constructions and that certain individuals have made applications under Building Regularization Scheme. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit is as follows:
"(c) It is respectfully submitted that Bathkammakunta falls in the jurisdiction of Circle No. 16 (Old Circle No.9B) and Bagh Lingampally falls in the jurisdiction of Circle No. 15 (Old Circle No.9A). With regard to the constructions in Bathakammakunta area, the respondent corporation has initiated the action by issuing the required notices as per the provisions of the HMC Act, 1955 and in response to the notices, some of the owners of the properties in Bathkammakunta area have submitted the copies of the sanctioned plans and some of the property owners have submitted the copies of the applications submitted under Building Regularisation Scheme introduced by the Government of Telangana. The constructions which are not having either building permission or regularization, the
5 CJ & JAK, J W.P(PIL).No.186 of 2016 respondent corporation have initiated the action by taking up the demolition of such unauthorized constructions.
(d) It is respectfully submitted that on verification it is observed that the property owners of Bathkammakunta area have availed the G.O.Ms.No. 152 MA dated 02-11- 2015 issued by the Government of Telangana by submitting the applications under Building Regularisation Scheme. The property owners of Bathkammakunta area have utilized the building regularization scheme introduced by the Government of Telangana by submitting the applications under Building Regularization scheme for regularisation for which they are eligible under this scheme since the buildings were constructed much before cut-off date i.e. 15-10-2015 and the same are pending. The said BRS applications are kept pending in the light of the orders passed in PIL NO. 361/2015 and subsequent PIL on BRS applications, and once the said BRS application is disposed of, the respondents corporation will take further course action basing on the outcome of the BRS applications duly examining the above said BRS application in terms of G.O.Ms No. 152 MA, dt. 02-11- 2015."
8. In view of the specific pleadings made in the counter affidavit that respondent Corporation has initiated action and 6 CJ & JAK, J W.P(PIL).No.186 of 2016 taken up demolition of unauthorized constructions in the said area, the grievance of the petitioner stands readdressed and no further orders are necessary in the writ petition.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (PIL) is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 05.06.2024 KRR