Telangana High Court
WP/42623/2015 of Naresh Kumar Agarwal, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on 24 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYSIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 42623 OF 2015 Between: Naresh Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Radhe Shyam
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYSIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 42623 OF 2015
Between:
Naresh Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Radhe Shyam Agarwal, aged about 48 years, Fl/o. Flat No.1S/HIG, Phase No.1 and 2, K.P.H.B. Colony, Sy.Nos.1042, 1046
to 1053, 1060 to 1065, Kukaptally, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.14A, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy Distt'ict
..,RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate urit declaring that the action of the respondents contained in the notice dated 19.12.2015 reiecting the building regularization application of the petitioner in respect of the building bearing No.HlG15/'1, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondenb to grant the benefit of building regularization to the petitioner in respect of the said building and direct the respondents to forbear from demolishing any part of the building bearing No.HlG15/1, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.
LA NO: I OF 2015(WP
P. NO: 54950 OF 2015)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to demolish any part of the construction made by the petitioner in I
Plot No.35 admeasuring 315.39 sq. meters in Sy.Nos.1O42, 1046 to 1053 and 1060
to 1065 of Kukatpally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel firr the Petitioner: SRI S.S.R. MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER (SC FOR GHMC)
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT
TITION NO
of 2015
Date: 24.02.2026
Between:
Naresh Kuntar Agarwal,
S/o.Radhe Shyam Agarwal,
aged about 48 years, R/o.[rlat No.l5il{[C, Phase No.l and 2, K.P.H.B Colony, Sy.Nos. 1042,1046 to 1053, 1060 to 1065, Kukaptally, Flyderabad.
... Petitioner
and
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, I{yderabad and another.
. ... Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "...to issue u l\rit o.f' l4anclamus or an.y other appropriatc v'rit declaring that the action of tlrc respondents contuinccl in thc notice dated 19.12.2015 rejccting the building regularization application o/' the pe tition<'r in rcspact o/' tlrc builcling bttting No.lllG- I 5/ t, K\'HB Colonv. Kuliatpall.v, Ilanga lledd-v' District is ttrbitrar_t,, ill<'!ol arul riolotit'c' of' principl<'s o/' natural .justicc ttntl conscrltrcnll-y sct uside thc sumct ar.
und dircct tlrc rcsportdcnts to grant thc bcnc/it o/' buikling rcgularizatiotr to the pctitiorter in respcct of thc suid builtling and tlirect tha rcspondcnts to./brbeat- .lrutnt dcnutlishing on.v part o.f'thc builcling lrcuring No tl l(;- I5/ I . Kl'l tB C\tlon-v, Kukatptllv. ltuttgct ltcdd.y Distt'ict und grant such othcr rclic.f as it dccms .[it itt I ltc ci rcums\onccs o.l' thc casc... "
2. HeeLrd Mr.S.S.R.Murthy, learned Counsel foi the petitioner as well as Mr.K.Ravi Mahender, learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabacl Municipal Corporation representing respondents. Perused the record
3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.35 admeasuring 315.39 sq. meters situated in Kukatpally, Hyderabad. He obtained permission to construct a residential building consisting of stilt plus four upper floors. However, in deviation from the sanctioned plan, he constructed a cellar, a fifth floor, and a penthouse. Subsequently, he applied for regularization of the additional constructed area under the Building Regularization Scheme (BRS) on 01.12-2015. but the same was rejected by the authorities through a notice dated 19.12.2015.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned rejection, the petitioner approached this court c,rntending that his application under the BRS scheme was not properly cottsidered and that the respondent authorities are attempting to demolish the subject premises arbitrarily. His primary grievance is that the authorities failed to examine his request for regularization in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation argued that the rejection was justified on the ground that the building permission was granted for residential use only, whereas the petitioner had constructed a commercial complex, which is not eligible for regularization under Clause 9(h) of G.O.Ms.No.l52 dated 02.II.2015. It was further contended that the petitioner had made unauthorized constructions, including the fifth floor and penthouse, and that part of the penthouse had already been demolished.
6. ' This Court is of the considered view that the impugned notice dated 19.12.2015 is not a reasoned speaking order, as it did not reflect proper consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and as such, the notice should be treated merely as a show-cause notice rather than a final order, since it lacked adequate reasoning.
7. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner to submit a fresh explanation along with relevant documents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent t authorities are directed to conduct a proper inquiry, provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass a reasoned speaking order in ar:cordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act and relevant Govemment Orders.
8. This Court further directs that, until the finalization of the proceedinS;s, the petitioner shall not undertake any further construction on the fifth 1loor or penthouse, including any additions to the already dismantled portions.
9. Witt. the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed ol- There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if ?try, shall stand closed L. To, Sd/.B.REKHA RANI SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE SECTION OFFICER 't. The Commissioner, The Greater Hyd nicipal Corporation, Tank Buttd, HYderabad.
2. The DeputY Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No.144, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District
3. On,a CC to SRI S.S.R- MURTHY, Advocate [OPUC]
4. On,= CC to SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER (SC FOR GHMC) [OPUC]
5. Twr CD CoPies BN/PMK I i I ! tt a ! i qx
I ., ;: II I t I HIGH COURT DATED i 2410212026
ORDER
t THE S 2 3 APR 20t6 o () WP.No.42623 ot 2015 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS * * ril,.rr":r:f "'P)