IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the rejection of building permission for unauthorized construction, emphasizing the need for prior approval and discouraging frivolous litigation through exemplary costs.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No. 2, Sri B. Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 & 4, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it having been granted land for construction of its office, had made construction under wrong impression that the building permission is being obtained by its head quarters; that on being issued with a notice by the respondents-authorities, it had applied for building permission on 20.01.2024 through TG-bPASS online process; that the 3rd respondent-authority, by its proceedings, dt.20.07.2024, had rejected the aforesaid building permission application made by the petitioner; that the petitioner had assailed the said rejection order by filing a Writ Petition vide W.P. No. 22042 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court by order, dt.14.08.2024, granting liberty to the petitioner avail other remedies against the said order of rejection; that thereafter it has been issued with the impugned notice of even date as of the rejection letter, whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the unauthorizedly constructed building within (15) days.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the Municipal Tribunal, in terms of Section 179 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short ‘the Act’) has not been constituted, the petitioner has no other remedy except approaching this Court against the impugned notice.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 3 & 4 submits that the building permission application made by the petitioner on 20.01.2024 was in respect of an already constructed building and accordingly the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent noting that “as the building is not satisfying Building Rules, proposal is returned unapproved.” Since, permission is required to be obtained before commencement of construction, while by the application filed it had sought for post facto permission in respect of an existing building consisting of Ground + 2 upper floors and that this Court in the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner vide W.P. No. 22042 of 2024 impugning the said rejection order, dated 20.07.2024, has passed a detailed order noting therein that under the provisions of the Act there is no provision, by which permission can be obtained for an already constructed building.

5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the authorities on rejecting the building permission application made, had informed the same to the petitioner enclosing therewith the impugned proceeding and since, the petitioner had already assailed the order of the authorities in rejecting the building permission application made, the present Writ Petition filed being the second petition, questioning the consequential action of the authorities pursuant to the rejection of the building permission application made in directing the petitioner to remove the said unauthorized construction made within (15) days, is not maintainable.

6. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Juvvadi Sagar Rao vs. Union of India and Others, W.P. No. 1236 of 2020, had noted its displeasure with the practice of the state governments releasing regularization schemes to regularize illegal and unauthorized constructions.

8. It is also to be noted that under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, there is no provision akin to Section 218(A) of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, whereby the State had the power to issue notification to regularize any unauthorized and illegal construction. Similarly, there is no provision a