HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.38977 of 2015 DATE OF ORDER: 03.12.2025 BETWEEN:

J.Narasimha … Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Rep. by Prl.Secretary and 3 others.

… Respondents :ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representations dated 20.11.2014 and 12.12.2014 submitted by the petitioner and to take appropriate action for demolition of illegal constructions made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 who have encroached upon the property belonging to the petitioner, and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri M.Rathan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri CMR.Velu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner represented that he is owner of House bearing No.10-165/6, Satya Raghavendra Colony, Malkajgiri, R.R.District; that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are neighbors of the petitioner have commenced illegal construction and have encroached about 5 yards into the petitioner’s property by extending a beam (cantilever beam) into the petitioner’s premises, without obtaining any permission. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representations on 20.11.2014 and 12.12.2014 to respondent No.2 to take action against respondent Nos.3 and 4. However, the respondents did not take any action. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 represent that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not encroached upon the petitioner’s property; and that the writ petition has been filed merely on an apprehension.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 by referring to the counter represent that the respondent No.3 has submitted application vide application No.2000018529, dated 19.12.2015 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152 MA dated 02.11.2015; and that the said application is pending.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 further submits 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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 from the last date of receipt of applications

10. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015 was challenged in WP (PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.10.2016 as under:-

“We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to modify the earlier order, and direct that the applications for regularization be processed in accordance with the regularization scheme notified in G.