Telangana High Court
Smt. Pushpa Devi vs State Of Telangana on 24 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.467 & 4546 OF 2015, AND
C.C.No.72 OF 2016
DATE: 24.04.2026
W.P.No.467 of 2015:
Between:
Smt.Pushpa Devi
...Petitioner
and
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat
Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
W.P.No.4546 of 2015
Between:
P. Krishna Vijay Rajan
...Petitioner
and
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
MA & UD, Govt. of AP, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others
...Respondents
C.C.No.72 of 2016
Between:
P. Krishna Vijay Rajan
...Petitioner
and
Sri Janardhan Reddy, Special Officer and Commissioner,
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,
BRKR Bhawan, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others
...Respondents
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
2
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.467 of 2015 is filed declaring the inaction on the part
of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in taking action to remove the illegal and
unauthorized constructions being under taken/made by the 5th
respondent contrary to the sanctioned/approved building plan at
the premises bearing D.No.12-5-7, Vijayapuri, South Lalaguda,
Secunderabad, Ranga Reddy District without leaving any setbacks,
by causing total blockage of aeration, ventilation and suffocation
to the petitioner residential building in-spite of repeated
representations of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to
4 to take action to remove the aforesaid illegal and unauthorized
constructions and to pass such other order.
2. W.P.No.4546 of 2015 is filed declaring the inaction of the
respondent Nos.1 to 4 in taking action against the illegal
constructions being undertaken by the 5th respondent (husband of
the petitioner in W.P.No.467 of 2015) despite a complaint having
been made by the Petitioner on 23.04.2014, as illegal arbitrary and
unconstitutional, apart from being in violation of the Provisions of
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
3
the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and
consequently direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take action under
the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Act, 1955 on the representations of the Petitioners dated 23.04.2014
and the subsequent reminders against the illegal constructions
being taken up by the 5th Respondent, by demolishing the illegal
structures so constructed and also direct the Respondent Nos.1
and 2 to take action against all the officers of the 2nd Respondent
concerned who have not taken steps to prevent the 5th Respondent
from illegally constructing building at D.No.12-5-7, Bathukamma
Kunta, Vijayapuri, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, and pass such other
orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice.
3. Though both the Writ Petitions are filed by different writ
petitioners, however, the subject property in these writ petitions is
one and the same, and the dispute is also with regard to the un-
authorized/deviated constructions being made by respondent
No.5 who are husband and wife referred in the respective writ
petitions. In that view of the matter, both the Writ Petitions are
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
4
taken up analogously and dispose of by way of this common
order.
4. The brief assertion made in the affidavit filed in support of
W.P.No.4546 of 2015 is that, the petitioner is a permanent resident
of House bearing No.12-5-6&6/1, Vijayapuri, Lallaguda, Tarnaka,
Secunderabad. It is an ancestral property purchased by his
deceased grand-father and they have been living in the said house
since many years.
5. The brief assertion made in the affidavit filed in support of
W.P.No.467 of 2015 is that, the petitioner is the absolute owner and
possessor of G+2 residential House bearing No.12-5-8, Vijayapuri,
Lallaguda, Tarnaka, Secunderabad and has been residing therein
along with his family members.
6. It is further contended that the abutting property of the
petitioners belongs to respondent No.5, who are their neighbours
and owners of bearing house No.12-5-7, Vijayapuri, Lallaguda,
Tarnaka, Secunderabad, and that the respondent No.5 is the
absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of 282 Sq.
meters equivalent to 338 Sq. yards and have obtained sanctioned
permit vide Permit No.32770/DC/NZ/Cir-18/2014, dated
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
5
18.3.2014, pursuant to application dated 07.03.2014. It is also
contended by the petitioners that vide the said permit dated
18.03.2014 out of the total area of 282.1 Sq. meters of the plot
belonging to them, an extent of 82.93 Sq. meters is affected by road
widening area, and an extent of 199.17 Sq. meters is only available
for seeking permission, nonetheless total area of 276.50 meters has
been permitted and permission was granted for Ground plus 1st
floors by the officials respondents with a height of 6 meters. It is
further contended that in a stark contrast to the permit dated
18.03.2014, respondent No.5 have constructed as many as 5 floors
(Ground + four upper floors) over the subject property and have
also dug a cellar without there being any sanction by the
respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. Further, it is asserted that respective
petitioners have filed complaints before respondent Nos.2 and 3
on 23.04.2014, 24.08.2014, and that as the said respondent Nos.2
and 3 have not initiated appropriate action under the provisions of
the GHMC Act, 1955, by invoking Sections 451 and 452 of GHMC
Act, 1955, basing on the said complaints, and aggrieved by the said
inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3, petitioners have filed the
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
6
present W.P.No.4546 of 2015 and W.P.No.467 of 2015 challenging
the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
7. Further, initially when W.P.No.4546 of 2015 was posted for
admission on 25.02.2015 this Court has passed the following order:
“The grievance of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent, who is
the neighbor of the petitioner, is making construction in violation of
the approved plan. He submits that though the 5th respondent
obtained permission for construction of Ground + 1st floor, he is
making construction in deviation of the same and also without
leaving any setbacks as per the approved plan.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.A.
Deepthi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents seeks time for
getting instructions.
In view of the specific averments and photographs filed by
the petitioner, prima facie it shows that the 5th respondent is making
construction without leaving any setbacks. In view of the same, the
respondents 3 and 4 are to ensure that the 5th respondent shall not
make any construction in violation of the approved plan.”
8. This Court directed the matter to be posted after two weeks
and that is how the matter is being adjourned from time to time
and posted today before this Court for hearing.
9. C.C.No.72 of 2016 has been filed stating that despite the
specific orders passed by this Court, respondent No.5 has
proceeded with the construction and completed construction in all
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
7
respects and when there are positive directions given by this Court
in the interim order dated 25.02.2015 in W.P.No.4546 of 2015 by
directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to stop illegal construction made
by respondent No.5, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have not take any
action and deliberately and wantonly disobeyed the aforesaid
orders passed by this Court, which forced the contempt petitioners
to file this Contempt Case.
10. Sri G.Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
GHMC filed counter in C.C.No.72 of 2016 and prayed to treat the
said counter as counter in both the Writ Petitions as well. In the
said counter it is stated that respondent No.5, who are husband
and wife, in both the writ petitions have started construction work
duly obtaining the building permission from respondent
authorities for the proposed construction of G+1st floor for
residential purpose in premises No.12-5-7 situated at
Bathkammakunta, Tarnaka, Secunderabad vide permit
No.32770/DC/NZ/Cir-18/2014, dated 18.03.2014 in file
No.16053/TPS/C-18/NZ/GHMC/W12/2015 and further, they
have started construction without issuing the commencement
notice as required under Section 440 of GHMC Act, 1955, which is
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
8
mandatory and that they have laid the RCC slabs for cellar,
ground + three upper floors instead of permitted G+1 floor,
therefore, they illegally constructed cellar, 2nd and 3rd floors duly
violating the Rules and Regulations of GHMC Act, 1955.
11. In that view of the matter, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have issued
Show-cause Notice under Section 452(2) of the GHMC Act, 1955 to
respondent No.5 in both writ petitions and for which they have
not given any reply. Consequently, final notice under Section 636
of GHMC Act, 1955, was issued after expiry of time given in the
said notice. Pursuant to which, respondent authorities have
demolished the unauthorized construction of 2nd and 3rd floors
deviations made by respondent No.5 in both the writ petitions and
they have also assured to closed the Cellar constructed in
deviation of the sanctioned plan.
12. It is further stated in the counter that after demolition
respondent No.5 in both writ petitions have stopped construction
for a limited time, however, in the meanwhile, respondent-
corporation have received complaints that the respondent No.5
again started construction work. Pursuant to which, respondents
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
9
have inspected the site and observed that respondent No.5 have
again started construction work. As such, they have stopped the
construction work and seized the work tools by intimating
respondent No.5 from time to time vide letters dated 15.06.2015,
01.07.2015, 03.08.2015 and 19.09.2015 to stop construction work
forthwith and not to raise any construction. Nonetheless,
respondent No.5 have not complied with the said notices and
continuously proceeded with the construction work during the
night time and public holidays, thereby violating the rules and
regulations of the GHMC Act, 1955 and also violating the rules
under GO.Ms.No.168 MA dated 07.04.2012.
13. While matter stood thus, the Government has issued scheme
for regularization of the deviated portions to the sanctioned plan
and in pursuance of the Building Penalization Scheme, respondent
No.5 submitted application vide application No.2000004860 dated
06.12.2015 for regularization of deviations and unauthorized
construction. Further, it is contended that Court in
W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016 stayed the consideration of the
applications filed under Building Penalization Scheme and thus,
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
10
the respondent authorities are unable to move forward to take
further recourse in the said matter. Further, it is contended that the
respondent Nos.2 to 4 have got highest regard to the orders of this
Court and that they have taken all measures to prevent
unauthorized construction by the respondent No.5, and there is no
willful disobedience of orders, dated 25.02.2015 passed by this
Court in W.P.No.4546 of 2015 and prayed to close the Contempt
Case.
14. Heard Sri Shiva Rama Sharma, learned counsel representing
Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.467 of 2015, Sri D.V. Shiva Prasad, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.4546 of 2015, Sri Sivaraju
Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.C.No.72
of 2016 and Sri G. Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel
for GHMC for respondent Nos.2 to 4 in Writ Petitions and learned
Senior Counsel Mr. K.S.Murthy appearing for counsel for
respondent No.5 in W.P.No.4546 of 2015 and 467 of 2015 and
respondent No.4 in C.C.No.72 of 2016. Perused the record.
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
11
15. The main grievance of the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions
is that respondent No.5, who is owner neighbor of the petitioners,
having obtained permission for construction of G+1 floor vide
sanctioned permit No.32770/DC/NZ/Cir-18/2014, dated 18.03.2014,
and has deviated the sanctioned plan and made construction of un-
authorized floors, which is not permissible as per the sanctioned plan
and also violative of the provisions of GHMC Act, 1955, which
prohibits any un-authorized construction to the sanctioned plan, and
despite several applications/representations to respondent Nos.2 to
4 requesting to take action on the un-authorized construction made
by respondent No.5, and despite there being an interim order
inW.P.No.4546 of 2015 dated 25.02.2015.
16. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel would reiterate the
contentions in counter-affidavit filed by respondent authorities that
there are deviations in the construction made by respondent No.5
according to the sanctioned plan, and that the authorities have taken
all the measures, however, in view of the Government introducing
Building Penalization Scheme, the respondent No.5 has made
application under Building Penalization Scheme and the same is
pending consideration. In that view of the matter, since the
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
12
application filed by the respondent No.5 for Building Penalization
Scheme is pending vide application No.2000004860 dated 06.12.2015,
unless and until the authorities deal with the said application no
action can be initiated against respondent No.5.
17. Evidently, as on today, the said application is 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 they can act upon the
complaints of the respective petitioners only after considering the
application of the respondent No.5 under the Scheme.
18. Without delving into the merits of the present case, 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.
19. 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
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
13
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.
20. 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.
21. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated
02.11.2015 was challenged in W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
14
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.O.Ms.No.152 dated
02.11.2015. In case the GHMC or the other Municipal
Corporations in the State of Telangana, after considering the
applications for regularization, decide to reject the request for
regularization, it is open to them to communicate the orders of
rejection to the applicants concerned, and thereafter take action
for demolition of the illegal structures in accordance with law.
In such of those cases 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.”
22. Subsequently, the said W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016, along with a
batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of vide order, dated
28.04.2021, with a direction that the interim order dated 18.10.2016
passed in W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2016 shall continue to operate till a
decision is taken by the Supreme Court on W.P.(Civil) No.1236 of
2020.
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
15
23. It is appropriate to refer to the recent judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another
Vs. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others1, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring to a catena of decisions, viz.,
K.Ramadas Shenoy Vs. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council2,
Dr. G.N.Khajuria and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority
and others3, M.I. Builders (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Radhey Shyam
Sahu 4, Esha Ekta Apartments Co-Op Housing Society Limited Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Mumbai5, Supertech Limited Vs.
Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and others 6,
Kerala State Costal Zone Management Authority Vs. Maradu
Municipality7, State of Haryana Vs. Satpal8, has issued further
directions in addition to the directions given in Re: Directions in
the matter of demolition of structures, vide order dated 13.11.2024
in WP(Civil).Nos.295 and 328 of 2023, WP(Criminal).No.162 of
2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically directed that in
the event of any application/appeal/revision being filed by the
1
2024 SCC Online SC 3767
2
(1974) 2 SCC 506
3
(1995) 5 SCC 762
4
(1999) 6 SCC 464
5
(2013) 3 SCC (Civil) 89
6
(2021) 10 SCC 1
7
(2021) 16 SCC 822
8
(2023) 6 SCC 643
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
16
owner or builder against non-issuance of completion certificate or
for regularization of unauthorized construction or rectification of
deviation, etc., the same shall be disposed of by the authority
concerned, including the pending appeals/revisions, as
expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 90 days as
statutorily provided.
24. In the light of the aforesaid order dated 28.04.2021 passed by
a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL).No.63 of 2013 and its
batch, as well as the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya‘s case (cited supra), the official
respondents (GHMC) are directed to process the application
submitted by petitioner for regularization of unauthorized/illegal
construction, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with
the interim order dated 18.06.2016 passed in WP(PIL) No.63 of
2016, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. Subject to result of the said BRS application of
the respondent No.5 in both the writ petitions, the authorities may
consider the complaints filed by respective petitioners and take
appropriate action thereof strictly in accordance with law.
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
17
25. Subject to above directions and observations, the present
Writ Petitions are disposed of,
a) directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the
building regularization application vide Application
No.2000004860, dated 06.12.2015 by the respondent No.5 and if it
in consonance with the scheme floated by the Government, it may
be kept in abeyance and no coercive steps will be taken in the
meanwhile, final orders may be passed subject to the result of the
SLP pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
b) The complaints of the petitioners dated 23.04.2014 and
24.08.2014 may be considered if the case of the 5th respondent is
not entitled to be considered under the BPS Scheme vide
G.O.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015, strictly in accordance with law.
26. In so far as the Contempt Case is concerned, in view of the
directions passed by this Court in W.P.No.4546 of 2015, dated
25.02.2015, “that respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall not allow the
respondent No.5 to proceed with the illegal construction in deviation
to the sanctioned plan” as it is categorically stated by respondent
Nos.2 to 4 that they have inspected the site after issuance of interim
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
18
orders by this Court and they have already demolished 3rd and 4th
floors, which are un-authorizedly constructed by respondent No.5.
But, subsequently the said constructions were made even after
demolition and more so, the authorities are unable to take action as
the 5th respondent has made appropriate application under Building
Penalization Scheme.
27. In that view of the matter, though there is a direction by this
Court directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take further action, since
action has already been contemplated by issuing proper notices
under Sections 452(1) & (2) and 636 of GHMC Act, 1955, and that 3rd
and 4th floors have already been demolished in pursuance of the
interim order, more so, the application filed for Building Penalization
Scheme by the 5th respondent has to be considered before any further
action can be contemplated.
28. In that view of the matter, in the considered view of this Court,
there is no willful disobedience by respondent Nos.2 to 4 violating
the interim direction granted by this Court in W.P.No.4546 of 2015,
dated 25.02.2015. Hence, the Contempt Case is liable to be closed.
SCR,J
W.P.Nos.467 & 4546 of 2015 & C.C.72 of 2016
19
29. In the light of the above directions, both the Writ Petitions
are disposed of, and the Contempt Case is closed.
30. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous
applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
Date: 24.04.2026
pn/kkm