##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

WRIT PETITION NO.24998 OF 2013

Date: 07.04.2026

Between:

Anugu Srikanth Reddy s/o. A.Sudhakar Reddy, r/o.H.No.2-127/46/B, Vijaypuri Colony,

Uppal village, Ranga Reddy District and others.

…. Petitioners and

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Deputy Commissioner, Uppal Circle-2,

Ranga Reddy and another.

…. Respondents

ORDER:

The present writ petition has been filed declaring the action of

the 1^st respondent in issuing the impugned final notice bearing No.G1/215/Upl/EZ/GHMC/2013, dated 11.08.2013, for demolition of 2^nd and 3^rd floors of the building in H.No.2-127/46/B, Plot Nos.35 & 36 in Sy.No.664, situated at Vijayapuri Colony, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same by directing the respondents to receive the application of the petitioners for revision of plan and pass appropriate orders by

following due procedure of law.

2

2. The brief assertion made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that, petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the land to an extent of 328 square yards bearing No.2-2-127/46/B in Plot No.35 in Sy.No.664, Sairam Colony, Uppal, Ranga Reddy and it is stated that an application was submitted to the respondents for construction of a ground plus one floor residential building and the building permission was duly obtained in the year 2011 and pursuant thereto, the petitioners constructed the building, however, petitioners have constructed two more floors deviating the sanctioned plan, and in fact an application was made before the respondent-Corporation for revision of the said sanctioned plan. However, it appears that the said application has not been

considered and pending as on today.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Srinivas Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondents would contend that in fact, the permission obtained is only for ground plus first floor, however, an enquiry was conducted and the impugned notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorized

construction of second and third floors.

3

4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.Satyam Reddy appearing for the petitioners would contend that petitioners had submitted an application under Building Regularization Scheme bearing Application No.2000121740, seeking regularization of the unauthorized floors. However, as on today, the said application neither rejected nor considered and it is stated that once the Government has introduced a scheme for regularization of deviated portions, the respondent authorities, being statutory authorities, are duty-bound to consider the said application by following the conditions stipulated in the said scheme and in that view of the matter, the impugned notice cannot be acted upon in view of the

pendency of the said building regularization application.

5. Without delving into the merits of the present, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to similar cases that were earlier disposed of by this Court as well as the Rules framed by the

Government of Telangana.

6. It is appropriate 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

4

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(