Telangana High Court
Sri.Methuku Shankaraiah vs The State Of Telangana on 19 August, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.5199 OF 2025
ORDER :
Notice vide Lr.Roc.No.410880/2022/K2 dated 24.06.2024 issued by respondent No.4 - the Commissioner, Ieeja Municipality, Ieeja, Jogulamba Gadwal District, invoking the power under Section 180(1) of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019, to the petitioners by levying a penalty of Rs.37,60,152/- (Rupees thirty seven lakhs sixty thousand and one hundred and fifty two only) for illegal construction of building in Survey No.908 of Ieeja Town and Municipality, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, is challenged in this writ petition as being illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought a consequential relief to direct respondent No.4 to assess the subject building for house tax under the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019.
2.1. It is stated that the petitioners are owners of the land admeasuring Acs.2-00 (now converted into plots) in Survey No.908 situated at Ieeja Town and Municipality, Jogulamba-Gadwal District. The said property was divided into plots and partitioned among the petitioners and thereafter applications for grant of individual building permissions have been made. However, as the petitioners belong to one family, they have constructed common roof for all the structures. 2
BVR,J WP_5199_2025 Respondent No.4 has informed that the building constructed by the petitioners is in violation of the sanctioned plan. The construction of the building was stopped by respondent No.4.
2.2. It is stated that the Director of Town and Country Planning has addressed a letter to the Director of Municipal Administration stating that as per Section 180(1) of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 (for short 'Municipalities Act'), penalty can be imposed on unauthorised constructions. On receipt of the said letter, the Director of Municipal Administration has requested respondent No.4 to take action against the petitioners as per Section 180(1) of the Municipalities Act. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued show cause notice dated 14.02.2023 informing the petitioners that the building constructed by them is in contravention of the building permission and the Municipal Council has calculated the penalty of Rs.37,60,152/- for construction of the building in deviation of the sanctioned plan. It is stated that subsequently another show cause notice dated 14.02.2023 under Sections 178(6) and (8) and 181 of the Municipalities Act was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why the unauthorised building constructed in deviation of the sanctioned plan shall not be removed. Questioning the said show cause 3 BVR,J WP_5199_2025 notice, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Regional Director cum Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad wherein order dated 20.06.2023 was passed vide Proceedings No.E-557392/RDMA/A1/2023 dated 20.06.2023 holding that issuance of one show cause notice against all the petitioners for unauthorised construction in deviation of the sanctioned plans is not correct. The appeal was allowed and respondent No.4 was directed to issue individual show cause notice to each building permission holder by specifically mentioning about the extent of deviations made by the individuals in contravention to the sanctioned plan. It was further observed that the petitioners have to take immediate action for removal of the deviated portion as per the individual building permission sanctioned by the Municipality within the stipulated time.
2.3. It is further stated that after receipt of individual show cause notice dated 22.06.2023, each of the petitioners gave a reply on 23.06.2023 stating that they will remove the deviation portion of the structures as directed by the Municipality and accordingly deviation portions were removed on 03.07.2023 which is evident from the letter of respondent No.4 dated 10.11.2023.
4
BVR,J WP_5199_2025 2.4. It is stated that deviations of the subject building were removed and respondent No.1 - the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Hyderabad, issued a Memo ROC No.516739/2022/C2 dated 08.05.2024 stating that as per the earlier Memo ROC No.516739/20202/C2-1 dated 23.12.2022, a direction was issued to take necessary action on the recommendation of the Vigilance and Enforcement and submit action taken report, but no action was taken.
2.5. It is submitted that deviation portion of the building was removed and the same was verified by the Municipality. Hence, the petitioners made application to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to assess the subject building for house tax. However, respondent No.4 has referred to the earlier proceedings / Vigilance Report of the Town Planning Section and stated that the penalty which was imposed earlier has to be paid for taking further action in the matter. On receipt of the said letter, a detailed representation was made by the petitioners on 01.07.2024 stating that the subject building is constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that it is a residential building, as such, demanding penalty amount of Rs.37,60,152/- is illegal and invalid.
5
BVR,J WP_5199_2025 3.1. The case of the respondents as per the counter affidavit of respondent No.4 is that Mr. M. Shankaraiah and others have obtained eleven (11) individual building permissions for residential purpose in Survey No.908/B, but they have clubbed all the permissions and constructed commercial shops as a single unit without maintaining permitted setbacks. The petitioners filed W.P. Nos.2002 of 2022 and batch before this Court not to demolish the subject building and the same were disposed of by this Court by the common order dated 12.01.2022 directing the respondents to follow due process of law. Thereafter, one Mr. N. Prahalad Reddy filed W.P. No.15486 of 2023 which was disposed of by the order dated 20.06.2023 directing the Regional Director cum Appeal Commissioner of Municipal Administration to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and thereafter the appeal was disposed of within two (2) weeks in obedience of the said order. The appellate authority passed orders on 20.06.2023. Accordingly, respondent No.4 issued eleven (11) individual notices to M. Shankaraiah and others in respect of each building specifically mentioning the unauthorised construction / deviations in respect of the individual building permissions and they were directed to remove the same within twenty four (24) hours from the date of receipt of 6 BVR,J WP_5199_2025 the notice. The petitioners have submitted letters dated 23.06.2023 requesting four (4) weeks time to comply with the directions due to labour issues, machinery problem and other technicalities.
3.2. Respondent No.4 had issued another show cause notice vide G/UC/2 Shops / Ieeja / 2023 dated 01.08.2023 to Mr. Methuku Chandra Sekhar and Mr. Mekala Aravind Kumar who constructed six (6) shops (2 +
4) without permission from the Municipality and they were directed to remove unauthorised constructions within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice. As the directions were not complied with, shops were demolished on 27.10.2023 with the assistance of the Enforcement Squad of the District Task Force under the cover of panchanama. It is further submitted that under Section 180(1) of the Municipalities Act, the Municipality has calculated the penal amount which is 25% (Rs.37,60,152/-) of the total value of the property (Rs.1,50,40,160/-) and notices vide Lr.Roc.No.516739/2022/C2-1 dated 23.12.2022 and Lr.Roc.No.516739/2022/C2-1 dated 08.05.2024 were issued to Mr. M. Shankaraiah and others to pay the penalty amount. 7
BVR,J WP_5199_2025
4. Heard Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr. S.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development - respondent No.1; learned Government Pleader for Revenue
- respondent Nos.2 and 3; and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.4, and perused the material on record.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that penalty can be levied under Section 180(1) of the Municipalities Act only when the deviations are not removed. The petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. No.2002 of 2022 and batch and thereafter availed statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority under Section 252(1) of the Municipalities Act, and after orders have been passed by the appellate authority, the deviated / unauthorised structures have been demolished. In case, the unauthorised structures are not removed, respondent No.4 has power to levy penalty. However, if unauthorised structures are removed, the question of levying penalty does not arise.
6. The learned standing counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that penalty was imposed in accordance with the law in terms of Section 180(1) of the Municipalities Act. It is an admitted case of the petitioners that they 8 BVR,J WP_5199_2025 have made unauthorised structures in deviation of the individual sanctioned plans and there is no illegality on the part of respondent No.4 who issued the impugned notice dated 24.06.2024 in compliance of the directions issued by the higher authorities and the Vigilance Department.
7. Section 180(1) of the Municipalities Act reads as under:
"Section 180. (1) Penalty for unlawful Buildings,- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person who, whether at his own instance or at the instance of any other person or anybody including a department of the Government, undertakes or carries out construction or development of any law in contravention of the statutory Master Plan or without permission, approval or sanction or in contravention of any condition subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or either fine which may extend to twenty five percent (25%) of the value of land or building including land in question as fixed by the Registration Department at the time of using the land or building: Provided that the fine imposed shall, in no case be less than fifty per cent of the said amount besides demolition of the building and recovery of demolition cost from the owner of the building."
8. It is the categorical case of the petitioners that they have removed the deviations / unauthorised constructions made in the subject building. The petitioners have also asserted in their reply dated 01.07.2024 to the 9 BVR,J WP_5199_2025 notice dated 24.06.2024 that they have removed the common slab which was erected for construction of complex and as on today, they have residential houses only and they are not using the subject building for commercial purpose. So also, respondent No.4, in paragraph No.7 of its counter affidavit, stated that the six (6) shops which were constructed without permission have been demolished on 27.10.2023 with the assistance of the Enforcement Squad of the District Task Force, under the cover of panchanama.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, when unauthorised constructions have been removed and there is no rebuttal to the statement of the petitioners that the subject building has not been used for commercial complex and there are only residential houses in the subject building which are being used by thepetitioners for residential purpose, levying of penalty does not arise in terms of Section 180(1) of the Municipalities Act:
It is pertinent to note that the unauthorised shops have been demolished on 27.10.2023 after the show cause notice dated 22.06.2023 have been issued in compliance of the order passed by the appellate authority on 20.06.2023. The petitioners, in fact, gave reply on 23.06.2023 to the show cause notice stating that they will remove the deviation 10 BVR,J WP_5199_2025 portions and that from 03.07.2023 onwards deviated portions have been removed. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that penalty can be levied only when the unauthorised building is used which is not the case herein.
In view of the same, the question of imposing penalty under Section 180(1) of the Municipalities Act does not arise.
10. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned notice vide Lr.Roc.No.410880/2022/K2 dated 24.06.2024 issued under Section 180(1) of the Municipalities Act directing respondent No.4 not to levy any penalty towards the subject building. Respondent No.4 is further directed to assess the subject building of the petitioners for house tax by causing inspection and by following due process of law under the provisions of the Municipalities Act. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.
______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J August 19, 2025.
PV