SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 5

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
The Union of India - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.5357, 16252, 16875, 18780, 18781 and 20587 of 2023 and 4175, 4222, 4230, 4277, 4326, 4342, 6801, 6841, 6967, 7014, 7065, 7070, 7083, 7090, 7099, 7101, 7107, 7111, 7121, 7122, 7126, 7148 & 7581 of 2024
Decided On : 04-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
For the Respondent: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

Amendments to building rules by the State do not violate national security laws, and enforcement of the Works of Defence Act is the responsibility of the Union authorities.

Headnote:(A) Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Guidelines dt.18.05.2011 and 21.10.2016 - Writ Petitions filed by the Union of India challenging the Municipal Corporation's action in granting building permissions without No Objection Certificates (NOC) from defence authorities, asserting that such actions contravene mandatory requirements for constructions near defence establishments. Court held that amendments to building rules do not violate the Act and that the responsibility for enforcement lies with the petitioners. (Paras 4, 56, 72)

(B) Administrative Law - The principle of separation of powers - The State's discretion to amend building rules for development does not infringe upon national security laws. (Paras 56, 58)

(C) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that enforcement of the Works of Defence Act is the responsibility of the Union, not local authorities. (Paras 58, 72)

Facts of the case:
The Writ Petitions were filed by the Union of India against the Municipal Corporation's failure to enforce the requirement for NOCs for constructions adjacent to defence establishments, alleging security risks and illegal amendments to building permissions.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the amendments to the building rules do not contravene the Works of Defence Act, and the responsibility for enforcement lies with the Union authorities.

Issues: Whether the Municipal Corporation's actions in granting building permissions without NOCs violated the Works of Defence Act and guidelines issued for construction near defence establishments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the amendments to the building rules were within the State's authority and did not violate national security provisions; enforcement of the Works of Defence Act is the responsibility of the Union.

Result: Writ Petitions disposed of with directions for compliance with the Works of Defence Act.

Table of Content
1. common order addressing multiple writ petitions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioners argue against construction without noc from defense authorities. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. respondents defend the amendment of building rules post-2016. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. fifth respondent claims compliance with layout permissions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. unofficial respondents assert legal compliance in construction. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
6. court examines guidelines and their legal implications. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)
7. court emphasizes the need for compliance with woda. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
8. no clear enforcement of restrictions on constructions near defense establishments. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71)
9. court issues directions for future compliance and actions. (Para 72)
10. writ petitions disposed of with no costs. (Para 74)

ORDER :

T. VINOD KUMAR, J.

Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development; learned Standing Counsel appearing for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority; learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation; Sri Abhay Kumar Sagar, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality; Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 in W.P.Nos.5357 and 20587 of 2023; Sri Koda Satyanarayana Rao learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned counsel appearing for on behalf of respondent No.5 in W.P.No.4222 of 2024; and Sri K.Ramchandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondent in W.P.Nos.6967 and 7070 of 2024 and perused the record.

2A. Though notice is ordered to the unofficial respondents in this batch of Writ Petitions some of the notices are returned unserved. However, in view of the manner of disposal and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that the matters can be disposed of without having the audience of the said respondents.

3. For ease of reference, the facts as stated in W.P.No.4222 of 2024 are taken as basis for disposal of all these Writ Petitions.

4. This batch of Writ Petitions are filed by the Union of India assailing the action of the respondents-Municipal Corporation in not initiating appropriate action against the constructions being made by the unofficial respondents without obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the defence authorities in the land adjacent to such defence establishments.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that originally G.O.Ms.No.168 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dt. 07.04.2012 provided for obtaining NOC from the concerned defence authorities mandatory, while applying and obtaining building permission from the concerned municipal authorities; that the said condition has been deleted/amended by the respondent-authorities under G.O.Ms.No.7 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M1) Department dt. 05.01.2016 without the consent or concurrence of the concerned defence authorities; that removal of condition of requirement of obtaining NOC from the concerned defence authorities is contrary to the Guidelines dt. 18.05.2011 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi; and that allowing such constructions immediately adjacent to the defence establishments, is contrary to the provisions of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (for short, ‘the WODA ’).

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that on account of the respondent-municipal authorities granting building permission without insisting on obtaining NOC from the concerned Local Military Authority (LMA)/defence authorities, and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top