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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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., 1 2024 SCC Online SC 3767 8 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. 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 9
13. In the instant case, since the grievance of the petitioner remains unredressed due to the pendency of the BRS application of respondent No.7, in the light of the aforesaid order dated 28.04.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(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 respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (GHMC) are directed to process the application submitted by respondent No.7 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 respondent No.7, the 2nd respondent is directed to take appropriate action to redress the petitioner's grievance strictly in accordance with law.
14. Subject to above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 09.09.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked.
tk