The court emphasized the obligation of municipal authorities to process applications for regularization of unauthorized construction within statutory timelines, ensuring timely resolution of grievances related to illegal structures.

ORDER :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

This writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 26.09.2015 with regard to the illegal construction being made by the 3rd respondent at premises bearing No.16-3-548/1, situated at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri M.V. Suryanarayana, learned counsel representing Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner represented that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.16-3-547/1, situated at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad and respondent No.3 is the owner of house bearing No.16-3-548/1, situated at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad and there is a common passage in between both the houses and that respondent No.3 commenced construction by encroaching onto common passage; that petitioner was constrained to file a suit vide O.S.No.2159 of 2010 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for injunction and the same was granted by the trial Court restraining the respondent No.3 from making any construction in the common passage. He further submitted that respondent No.3 is making construction of four floors without obtaining any permission and without leaving any setbacks, which is affecting the air and ventilation of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner has submitted representation dated 26.09.2015 to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 about illegal construction made by respondent No.3. However, respondent corporation neither considered representation nor taken any action. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that respondent No.3 submitted an application dated 24.12.2015 vide reference No.2000029313 for regularization of unauthorized construction in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152 MA dated 02.11.2015 and the same is pending.

5. Learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 further submitted that as and when the BRS application of respondent No.3 is disposed of, the respondent-Corporation will take further course of action basing on the outcome of the BRS application of respondent No.3.

6. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record.

7. It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized/illegal constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plan or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015. As per the said G.O., the application for regularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 60 days from the date of notification of the said Rules along with 50% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs.10,000/- whichever is less. The competent authority, i.e., Municipal Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporations, Metropolitan Commissioner in case of HMDA, shall, on scrutiny of applications and inspection of sites, either approve or reject the applications and communicate the same to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications.

8. The Regularization Rules were notified on 02.11.2015, as per which, applications for regularization were to be filed within 60 days from the said notified date and the same were supposed to be processed within a period of six months fro