Telangana High Court
Smt. Cheguri Anitha Andalu vs The State Of Telangana on 4 June, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 14425 of 2024
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or orders to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.9979 of 2024, dt.18.04.2024, and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents 2 to 5 not to proceed against the property bearing No.6-3- 1177/A/120 and 6-3-1177/A/104, B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad, till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 455A of the GHMC Act, 1955 and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.."
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development (MA&UD) appearing for respondent No.1, Sri K.Siddharth Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
3. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.6 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.
2
4. The case of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit, in brief, is that she is aggrieved by the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9799 of 2024, dt.18.04.2024, whereby this Court had directed the respondents-authorities to take action against the construction made by the petitioner and her son in the premises bearing Nos.6-3-1177/A/120 and 6-3-1177/A/104, admeasuring 400 sq. yards in B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad, as the said order has been passed without making them parties to the said writ petition. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
5. Petitioner contends that she had purchased a portion of the property bearing House Nos.6-3-1177/A/120 and 6-3-1177/A/104 admeasuring 200 sq. yards along with a construction in 100 sq. feet having RCC roof, under a registered sale deed bearing No.1525/2022, dt.07.05.2022; and that her son namely Cheguri Eswar Sai Kishore has purchased the remaining portion of the aforesaid house property admeasuring 200 sq. yards on the same date vide registered sale deed bearing No.1526/2022, and are in possession of the said property.
6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that herself and her son have approached the respondents-authorities and made application individually, seeking building permission in respect of the property purchased by them under the aforementioned two sale 3 deeds; that the respondents-authorities by considering the applications made by her granted building permission on 23.06.2022 for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors; and that her son was also granted building permission in respect of the portion of the property purchased by him vide building permission, dt.04.07.2022, for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that since, both the petitioner's property and her son's property are adjacent to each other, the petitioner along with her son decided to develop the entire extent of 400 Sq. Yards into a single building consisting of Ground + 4 Upper Floors, and have accordingly made an application to the authorities on 23.02.2023 seeking revision of plan, and since, the said application was not returned on any ground nor rejected, the petitioner and her son started the construction and completed the building.
8. Petitioner further contends that due to certain reasons, like stability and vastu, the petitioner and her son constructed 5th floor also and an application was submitted to the 2nd respondent on 01.06.2024 seeking regularization of the entire building including 5th floor constructed by them under Section 455A of the GHMC Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955').
4
9. Petitioner further contends that while she and her son have made an application seeking revision of the permission and also submitted an application for regularization of construction made by them including 5th floor, the 4th respondent herein had issued a Speaking Order, dt.03.10.2023, directing the petitioner and her son to remove the construction which is made in deviation of the sanctioned plan within 15 days, even though the application submitted by the petitioner along with her son seeking regularization of the construction is pending consideration with the 2nd respondent.
10. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad referring to the order of this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, stating that the Hon'ble Court had directed the GHMC authorities to take action against the unauthorized and illegal construction made by Eswar Sai Kishore, who is the son of the petitioner, and as the GHMC authorities are going to remove the said construction, and thus, sought for being given police aid to prevent any breach of law and order.
11. Petitioner further contends that on coming to know of the same, she got verified the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024 and obtained online copy of the same; that on going through the said order, she had learnt that one P.Narender describing himself 5 as resident of House No.6-3-1177, B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad, has filed the said Writ Petition alleging that the 6th respondent therein namely Shanta Srivasta @ Shanta Devi @ Shantabai is making unauthorized and illegal construction in the premises bearing No.6-3-1177/120 & 104 and despite he approaching the respondents-authorities, no action has been taken thereon.
12. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said P.Narender while approaching this Court by filing a writ petition vide W.P.No.9799 of 2024 claiming himself to be resident of house No.6- 3-1177, B.S.Maktha, Begumpet, did not file any documents in support of his claim of he residing in the said premises or as regards the 6th respondent therein making any construction in the neighbourhood, and that he also did not implead the petitioner or her son as party respondents to the said writ petition.
13. Petitioner further contends that this Court merely basing on the affidavit filed in the said writ petition and the alleged complaint dt.29.08.2023, stated to have been filed with the respondents- authorities, had passed the impugned order; and that this Court while passing the order in the aforesaid writ petition had taken note of the submission made on behalf of the 6th respondent i.e., Shanta Srivasta @ Shanta Devi @ Shantabai, that she is no more and during 6 her life time she having sold the said property to one Nagarjuna, and thus, the 6th respondent therein is in no way concerned with the construction.
14. On behalf of the petitioner it is further contended that though the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents-GHMC in the aforesaid writ petition had brought to the notice of this Court that one Eswar Sai Kishore(petitioner's son), who had obtained building permission, had made construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan, and this Court despite noting the aforesaid submission made, choose to proceed with the same without making them as parties to the said case, and passed the impugned order directing the respondents-authorities to take action as per the Act.
15. It is the further contention of the petitioner that based on the order of this Court directing the respondents-authorities to take action against the construction made by the petitioner's son, the respondents-GHMC authorities have addressed a letter seeking police aid for causing demolition fo the building.
16. It is the further case of the petitioner that since, this Court had passed an order in Writ Petition.No.9799 of 2024, at admission stage, without impleading the affected parties and that the 6th respondent against whom relief had been sought therein being no 7 way connected with the subject property, the petitioner and her son having sought for regularization of the construction made by them by making an application under Section 455A of the Act, 1955 with the 2nd respondent-authority and the said application being pending and also that the application made by the petitioner seeking permission for construction of Stilt + 4 Upper floors was neither returned nor rejected on any ground by the authorities, the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9799 of 2025 is unsustainable, and is liable to be set aside.
17. Petitioner further contended that since, the order of this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024 is passed by a Single Judge of this Court and since, the said order as passed affects the rights of the petitioner, she has filed a writ appeal vide W.A.No.468 of 2024 under Clause 15 of Letters Patent before a Division Bench of this Court, and the said appeal was disposed of on 05.06.2024.
18. Petitioner contends that the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ appeal had observed that the order of this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024 will not be binding on the petitioner, as she was not made as party to it; and that the Division Bench while disposing of the said appeal had granted liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition or file a fresh writ petition challenging the order in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, and thus, the 8 petitioner herein had filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order in W.P.No.9799 of 2024 on her behalf as well as on behalf of her son namely Eswar Sai Kishore, who is living in USA at present and as such being unable to approach this Court.
19. By contending as above, the petitioner seeks for setting aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, dt.18.04.2024.
20. Per contra, learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respective respondents would contend that the present Writ Petition as filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed in limini as the petitioner is not entitled for being granted any relief having made construction in deviation of the building permissions obtained by her and her son.
21. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner and her son namely Eswar Sai Kishore, on purchasing the property bearing house Nos.6-3-1177/A/120 & 104, admeasuring 400 sq. yards in two parts, each admeasuring 200 sq. yards, have approached the respondents-authorities and submitted applications seeking two separate building permissions for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors, which were duly granted by the authorities vide permissions, dt.23.06.2022 and dt.04.07.2022, respectively, 9 specifying the permitted construction area of the building with a height of 6 meters with setbacks of 1.5 meter on the front, and 1 meter on rear, side1 and side2 to be maintained by each of the applicants, respectively.
22. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that though the petitioner and her son have obtained separate building permissions, the petitioner while undertaking construction had clubbed the two portions of the subject house, in respect of which two separate permissions have been obtained, and made construction of a single building consisting of Stilt + 4 upper floors, thereby violating the building permit orders.
23. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that if only the petitioner and her son intended to make construction of one building by clubbing the entire extent of land admeasuring 400 sq. yards, the petitioner could have made an application, which could have been considered and granted by the respondents by applying the setbacks as would be applicable in respect of plot of land admeasuring 400 sq. yards rather than obtaining separate permissions for 200 sq. yards for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors for which setback norms are different from that of the plot of land admeasuring 400 sq. yards.
10
24. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner and her son though have obtained separate building permissions for construction of Stilt + 2 Upper floors, made construction of single building by clubbing the aforesaid permissions into one unit and thereby violated Section 7(2) of TG-bPASS Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act, 2020'), under which the petitioner and her son had obtained separate/individual building permit orders.
25. On behalf of the respondents it is also contended that the petitioner and her son on obtaining building permit orders and proceeding with the construction in deviation of the said permissions, the authorities have issued show-cause notice, dt.06.09.2023 calling upon the petitioner and her son to show cause as to why action should not be initiated; that though the aforesaid notices were duly served, as no response was submitted, the authorities have passed a Speaking Order, dt.03.10.2023, holding the construction made by them is in deviation of the permissions, dt.23.06.2022 and dt.04.07.2022, and are liable to be proceeded being in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1955 and Act, 2020 and the Telangana Building Rules, 2012.
26. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the aforesaid speaking order was sent by registered post and was duly received by the petitioner's son; and that the petitioner nor her son, who had 11 received the aforesaid speaking order, did take any steps to challenge the same, if were aggrieved by the same, and on the other hand, allowed the said speaking order to attain finality.
27. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that insofar as application submitted on the TG-bPASS web portal on 23.02.2023 seeking revised building permission from that of Stilt + 2 Upper floors to Stilt + 4 Upper floors vide File No.002178/ GHMC/1083/KHB2/2023-BP(REV)(23/02/2023) is concerned, the same was rejected by the authorities categorizing the aforesaid proposal under high risk category; and that the petitioner did not challenge the said rejection order till date.
28. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents would further submit that while the revision of the building plan submitted by the petitioner and her son on 23.02.2023 for Ground + 4 Upper floors despite being rejected, proceeded with the construction and in fact made further construction of 5th floor, which the petitioner now claims as is on account of viability and vastu, which claim of the petitioner cannot be allowed, as the same is alien to law.
29. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that though petitioner received both the show-cause notice and the speaking order with regard to the construction made by them being held as 12 made in deviation of the sanctioned building permit order and thus, unauthorized and illegal construction, had kept quite although this period and it is only after the unofficial respondent approaching this Court in April, 2024 alleging inaction on the part of the respondents- authorities in considering his application bringing to the notice of the authorities of the unauthorized and illegal construction being made, chose to file initially Writ Appeal and thereafter the present writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel would also submit that the petitioner had submitted application under Section 455A of the Act, 1955 on 01.06.2024, seeking regularization of the aforesaid unauthorized and illegal construction made by them, just before the petitioner filing a Writ Appeal, against the order of this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2023, on 03.06.2024.
30. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot seek regularization of the unauthorized and illegal construction made by her by submitting an application and the respondents-authorities cannot regularize the said unauthorized and illegal construction, on mere asking of the applicant.
31. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that an application under Section 455A of the Act can be filed seeking regularization of the construction made without obtaining permission. However, as per the Scheme of the Act, such construction can be regularized 13 subject to such construction meeting all the parameters laid down in the relevant Statutes, Master Plan, Zonal Development Plan, Building Bye-Laws, Building Rules and other relevant government orders including A.P. Fire Service Act and the National Building Code, and paying penalty equivalent to 33% of the various categories of fees and charges payable, and not otherwise.
32. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the building constructed by the petitioner is in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The application submitted does not confirm to the mandate provided under Section 455A of the Act, for the petitioner cannot claim of she being entitled to seek regularization of the said unauthorized and illegal construction made in violation of the Rules in force.
33. Learned Standing Counsel by referring to the alleged application submitted by the petitioner under Section 455A of the Act would submit that even by the said application, the petitioner is only seeking regularization of the construction made by her and her son of Stilt + 4 Upper Floors and is silent with regard to the 5th floor constructed by them without any permission or sanction from the authorities, and as such, the said application cannot be considered. 14
34. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the petitioner while making application though had invoked Section 455A as well as 455AA of the Act, in order to consider the said application under Section 455A of the Act, the construction so made should comply with the requirements/norms as provided under the Rules. Insofar as Section 455AA of the Act is concerned, the said provision would be applicable only in respect of applications which have been made seeking regularization of the constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plan as on 28.10.2015, for which the Government had issued Building Penalization Scheme(BPS). Learned Standing Counsel submits that since, the petitioner made construction subsequently in deviation of the permissions obtained, the said provision has no application.
35. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner had submitted application under Section 455A of the Act only on 01.06.2024, and immediately thereafter had filed a writ appeal on 03.06.2024, and the present Writ Petition on 07.06.2024, the said application is under consideration and necessary orders would be passed therein; and that based on the orders passed, the respondents-authorities would take further action in accordance with law.
15
36. Learned Standing Counsel thus, submits that in either way, the application submitted by the petitioner both under Sections 455A and 455AA of the Act, does not merit consideration, and thus, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
37. I have taken note of the aforesaid contentions urged.
38. Firstly, it is to be noted that the correctness or otherwise of an order passed by a Single Judge of this Court in a Writ Petition cannot be assailed before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in another Writ Petition. Such course of action resorted to would be legal impropriety, would lead to judicial indiscipline.
39. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that in the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court having granted liberty to the petitioner to seek review or filing a fresh writ petition against the order in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, dt.18.04.2024, and thus the petitioner being entitled to file the present Writ Petition, it is to be noted that liberty granted by the Division Bench to file a fresh Writ Petition does not entitle the petitioner to call in question the order of the learned single of this Court in another writ petition before a Coordinate Bench of the same Court, and is confined only to the relevant factors not being brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioner, who had filed the earlier petition or facts stated therein 16 being wrong, resulting in this Court passing the said order, affecting the rights of the petitioner herein.
40. Though on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab 1 as well as the Division Bench of this Court in Palavalasa Padmanabham v. State of A.P. 2, the Division Bench having granted liberty to file fresh writ petition, it is to be noted that the Division Bench had granted liberty to the petitioner to either seek review of the order or file a fresh Writ Petition, which by itself cannot be construed as if the petitioner being entitled to maintain the present Writ Petition without there being any new facts or the facts considered by this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, being incorrect or at variance.
41. The decision of the apex Court in Shivdev Singh's case(1 supra), which has been referred to by the Division Bench while granting liberty to the petitioner to seek review or file a fresh Writ Petition was considered by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and 1 AIR 1963 SC 1909 2 2003(4) ALD 449(DB) 17 Others 3, and the Apex Court in the said decision held that the petitioner would only be entitled to seek review of the judgment.
42. The petitioner admittedly, did not take any steps to seek review of the order of this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024, by brining to the notice of the Court that the facts considered therein are contrary to the record, and thus, the Court having arrived at an erroneous decision therein.
43. On the other hand, a reading of the order of this Court in W.P.No.9799 of 2024 would show that though the petitioner therein had claimed the 6th respondent therein making unauthorized and illegal construction and that the respondents-authorities not taking any action against such unauthorized and illegal construction, this Court taking note of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel of the said construction being made is by one Eswar Sai Kishore, i.e., the son of the petitioner herein, and the respondents- authorities having issued show-cause notice, dt.06.09.2023 and thereafter passing a Speaking Order on 03.10.2023, and the said Speaking Order, having attained finality, and being forwarded to the Nodal Officer on 16.04.2024 for enforcement in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1955 and Act, 2020, had directed the respondents-authorities to take further action thereagainst, which 3 (1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 389 18 has already been held by the respondents-authorities themselves to be unauthorized and illegal construction made by said Eswar Sai Kishore in deviation of the sanctioned plan.
44. Thus, the said order of this Court cannot be said as either erroneous or having failed to consider the relevant materials, for the petitioner to seek for setting aside the said order without showing that the facts considered therein to be not correct.
45. Though on behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the petitioner having sought for regularization of the construction made by her in deviation of the building permit order, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the said application under Section 455A or 455AA of the Act had been submitted only on 01.06.2024 and not before, and as such cannot be said as pending consideration on the date when this Court had passed the said order on 18.04.2024 and this Court having failed to take note of the same while considering the said writ petition and passing orders therein.
46. The subsequent filing of the application by the petitioner under Section 455A of the Act cannot be considered as a fact, which was existing as on the date when the unofficial respondent herein had approached this Court by alleging inaction on the part of the 19 respondents-authorities in dealing with the unauthorized and illegal construction, for the petitioner herein to claim of the unofficial respondent herein having approached this Court by not making her as party or this Court having passed an order without impleading her in the said writ petition.
47. If only the construction made by the petitioner is in accordance with the initial building permit order obtained by her or further regularization as sought for by her having been acceded to by the authorities, thereby the authorities being prevented to take any action against the aforesaid construction and by virtue of the order of this Court, the respondents-authorities initiating action affecting the rights/interest, the petitioner can seek that relevant facts having not been considered by this Court.
48. On the other hand by the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel it would be clear that the petitioner and her son having been issued with show-cause notice with regard to the construction made/being made by them in deviation of the sanctioned building permit order, and having kept quite, resulting in the authority passing the speaking order, dt.03.10.2023, holding the aforesaid construction to be unauthorized and illegal, and the said order having attained finality, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents-authorities to take action to deal with the said 20 unauthorized and illegal construction made, in exercise of powers conferred on the said authorities under the Act, 1955 and Act, 2020, without the unofficial respondents having to approach this Court at the first instance.
49. Since, the unofficial respondents herein being aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in dealing with unauthorized and illegal construction, having filed the writ petition vide W.P.No.9799 of 2024, and this Court in the said Writ Petition having taken note of the fact of the respondents-authorities having passed a Speaking Order and the said order having been forwarded to the Nodal Officer on the same attaining finality, had only directed the authorities to take further action, which the respondents-authorities are in a way required to undertake under the Act. Thus, the claim of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition that the said order in the underlying Writ petition having been passed without notice to them and thus being liable to be set aside, is devoid of merit.
50. It is also to be noted that the petitioner having made construction in deviation of the building permission obtained by her and also the application made for revision of the building plan for Stilt + 4 Upper Floors having been rejected, still continued/proceeded with the construction not only in terms of the revised plan but also made further construction of 5th floor, for which 21 there is neither an application for revised permission nor seeking regularization, and as such the petitioner cannot claim this Court having passed an order without issuing notice to them.
51. Further, it is also to be noted that the petitioner having made unauthorized and illegal construction, cannot plead of violation of principles of natural justice or equity, when the unofficial respondent had approached this Court questioning the inaction of the respondents-authorities in considering his representation/complaint and taking action against the unauthorized construction being complained of, by discharging their duties under the Act, 1955. It is settled position of law that even a stranger or passer-by on the Road can lodge a complaint with regard to unauthorized and illegal construction and need not be an affected party.
52. Thus, considered from any angle, the endeavour of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition appears only to protect the unauthorized and illegal construction made by her and her son, without obtaining valid permission and in deviation of the sanctioned building permit order and in violation of the Building Rules and Regulations, with impunity.
22
53. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition as filed is apart from being misconceived, is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
54. However, insofar as the claim of the petitioner of having made an application under Section 455A of the Act, 1955, seeking regularization of the construction made by her is concerned, as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the said application does not speak of the petitioner seeking regularization of the alleged 5th floor constructed by her. Further, insofar as the power of the Commissioner to consider the application made under Section 455A of the Act, 1955 is concerned, this Court by its judgment in the case of A.Praveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana & others 4 had dealt with the said power of the Commissioner and had also held that the Commissioner can only regularize a building, which is constructed without obtaining building permission by exercise the power conferred on him under the Statute, only if the said construction confirms to the Building Rules.
55. Since, it is stated that the construction made by the petitioner does not confirm to the Building rules for her to seek regularization in terms of Section 455A of the Act, this Court is of the further view that without expressing any opinion, the 2nd respondent-authority is 4 Order, dt.12.10.2023 in W.P.No.28640 of 2023 23 to be directed to dispose of the said application made under 455A of the Act, 1955, by taking note of the decision of this Court in A.Praveen Kumar's case(4 supra), if not already considered/disposed of.
56. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 04th June, 2025 gra