Skip to main content
Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law
Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
existing 3rd floor, whereas the existing structure was ground + 2
floors. Hence, the proceedings under Building Penalization
Scheme dated 05.07.2010 was cancelled and the respondent
Corporation has issued proceedings vide Proc.No.BPS/4870/
C7/CZ/2008-13 dated 14.05.2013. The petitioner has not
challenged or appealed against the said cancellation order. It is
further averred that the petitioner again applied under the new
Building Regularisation Scheme, 2015 on 27.11.2015 for
regularization of his construction consisting of ground + 3 upper
floors along with additional ramps constructed over the common
passage.
Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as 'the HMC Act') vide Lr.No.4870/
TPS/C7/CZ/GHMC/2017 dated 10.08.2017 directing the
petitioner to vacate the illegal construction of ground + 3 upper
floors within 24 hours. Again the respondent Corporation has
issued notice under Section 636 of the HMC Act on 08.08.2018.
But, the petitioner did not comply with the speaking order dated
10.08.2017 and 08.08.2018. The respondent Corporation has
not taken any further action in respect of the premises, as the
application under the Building Regularisation Scheme has not
been disposed of. However, the ramp constructed over the
common passage cannot be regularized and the same is illegal
even considering the pendency of the application. The
respondent Corporation had issued a letter dated 05.01.2019 to
the police officials seeking protection for the demolition of ramp
portion and the roof laid over the common passage and after
following the due procedure, the respondent Corporation
demolished the ramps constructed illegally.
10. It further reveals from the record that the petitioner has
made an application under the new Building Regularisation
Scheme of 2015 dated 27.01.2015 for regularization of his
construction consisting of ground + 3 upper floors along with
additional ramps constructed over the common passage. In the
meanwhile, respondent No.5 filed Writ Petition No.40246 of 2012
questioning the action of the respondent authorities therein in
not taking any consequential action in furtherance of notice
dated 20.11.2012 under HMC Act and not taking any steps to
restrain the respondent No.4 from making further construction
and also not considering the representation dated 30.09.2012
and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 06.02.2017 and
the operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder: