IN THE HGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Dated:04.12.2025 Between:

Naveen Choudary …Petitioner And The Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad and another.

…Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing notice dated 06.08.2014 under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the HMC Act, 1955’), without enumerating the deviations of the building and without considering the reply dated 11.08.2014 submitted by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Smt Dhana Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri N.Saida Rao, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner of Plot No.9, H.No.1-60/30/9/134, Anjaiah Nagar, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed No.617/2013, dated 17.01.2013; that petitioner an application for grant of permission for construction and the same was considered and the respondents granted permission for construction of G + two upper floors vide Permit No.33847/DOCUMENT/WZ/Cir-11/2014, dated 21.05.2014; that the petitioner constructed one extra floor i.e., third floor in deviation of the sanctioned plan; that respondents issued notice under Sections 452(1) and 461(1) of the HMC Act, 1955, to which the petitioner submitted reply dated 11.08.2014 stating that except construction of third floor, he has not deviated from sanctioned plan and requested to regularize the third floor under Section 455-A of the HMC Act, however, the respondent without considering the same, threatened the petitioner to remove the construction; and that aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents represented that the petitioner has obtained permission for construction of G + two upper floors for residential purpose, however, contrary to the sanctioned plan, the petitioner raised two extra floors and also converted the said building into commercial purpose, therefore, the respondents have rightly issued the notices under Section 452(1) and 461(1) of the HMC Act, 1955. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that subsequent to filing of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner submitted an application vide No.200003308, dated 25.12.2015 for regularization of unauthorised construction in terms of GO.Ms.No.152, MA, dated 02.11.2015 and the same is pending consideration and therefore, learned Standing Counsel prayed that appropriate directions be given to respondents to consider the said application of the petitioner as per GO.Ms.No.152.

4.1. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents-GHMC further submitted that the State Government has issued GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015 for regularization of unauthorized constructions made in deviation of sanctioned plan and the said GO was challenged in WP(PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein a Division Bench of this Court vide interim order dated 18.10.2016 directed GHMC/respective Municipal Corporations to decide the applications for regularization and if the applications for regularization are rejected, to take further action for demolition of illegal structures in accordance with law. He further submitted that insofar as applications where the GHMC or the other Municipal Corporations, tentatively decide to regularize the illegal structures, such a decision shall merely be recorded in the file, and shall neither be given effect to nor shall it be communicated to the applicants, pending further orders from this Court.

5. 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 san