WP/28637/2010 of M/s. Avanthi Constructions, a partnership firm, registered Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), on 21 November 2025

ORDER:

The instant Writ Petition has been hled challenging the proceedings No. tOaZTfeT Cg / GHMC I 2008, dt'25' 10'2010' issued by the 1st and 2'd respondents as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 3ooA of the constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice, and consequentially to set aside the same.

- \ -F"-=] \

2. The brief facts of the case are that, tht: into a Development Agreement with one Sri C'lt the owner of the land admeasuring 754 sq premises bearing Door No.3-4-462, Narayant Pursuant to the said agreement, the buildi r obtained from the erstwhile Municipal Corpo:'i uid.e Permit No.28/50 in File No'ot dt.0B.O5.2OO3, for construction of a building t: plus three-floors.

3. It is the further case of the petir construction of the apartment was complett:r rvas named as "Sai Avanti CRS Villa' and thz'1 sanctioned plan, an additiona-l floor was alsc petitioner submitted an application.for regula additional floor under A.P. Regularization anrl authorized Constructed Buildings Sch requisite charges. It is stated that purs application, the l"t and 2"a respondents :'' unauthorized fToor uide proceedings No' 1032 / dt.21.o7.2010. petitioner entered Prabhakar, who is yards situated at guda, Hyderabad. g permission was tion of Hyderabad slcsclTP3/2oO3, ,nsisting of ground ioner that entire ald the building in deviation of the constructed. The 'ization of the said Penalization of Un- )me by paYing ralt to the said gularized the said 3PSIC-9lCZ/2OO8, i \l \r\t\

r- a 4 . It is further contended by the petitioner that under the active influence of the 3'd respondent alleged to have submitted an application, dt.25. 10.2010, before the 1"t arld 2"d respondents for cancellation of the said regularization proceedings by enclosing the interim order passed by competent Civil Court in IA'No'682 of 2o06inoS.No.3936of2006,dt.22.og.2oo9,whichisallegedtobe operating against the writ petitioner' It is further contended that the l"t and 2"a respondents, through the impugned proceedings No. 1o32lTP/ Cg I CZ / GHMC / 2OOS, dt'25' lO'2020' cancelled the earlier regularization proceedings, dl'21'O7 '2010, stating that the petitioner had obtained the said regularization proceedings by suppressing the pendency of civil suit ald also by suppressing the inter se disputes between the petitioner and the 3'd respondent' Now by the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenges the said revocation proceedings, dt.25. 10'20 10'

5. When the matter came up for hearing on 'admission" this Court on 3O.\2.2OIO, this Court directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date with regard to the structures in question, and the said interim protection was extended on 19.01.2011 for a further period of two(02) weeks' and it is seems that thereafter there is no extension of the said ir granted by this Court.

6. The 3.d respondent liled an interlocutory ap1: No.1 of 2011 (WVMP No.903 of 2Ol1) seeking aforesaid interim protection granted by this Cc'r vacate petition, the 3'd respondent, while denyir 1 made in the writ petition, asserted that the sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Hyd': construction of ground plus three upper floors, ' floor ealmarked for parking, and that the writ pe filed the original sanctioned plan issued b1' authority along with the writ petition. She further the petitioner had constructed an unauthorizerl respect of which she had instituted O.S. No.396l the competent Civil Court and obtained an c injunction restraining the petitioner from proceec construction or from alienating the property to 11 that further contended that in violation of thr, petitioner completed the construction of the adc i challenging the same, she alleged to have ir i proceedings, which are pending adjudication. erim protection ication uide l.A. to vacate the .rt. In the said the averments plan originally 'abad permitted rith the ground -itioner had not the competent contended that fourth floor, in of 2006 before :der of interim ing with further ird parties, ald said order, the jonal floor, and .iated contempt

7. It was also contended by the vacate petitioner/3.a respondent that the petitioner filed the buitding pena.lization application subsequent to the gralt of the s/afus quo order passed by the Civil Court, and that even such application was submitted in her name without any authorization or consent. The 3.d respondent further stated that she immediately brought these facts to the notice of the GHMC, pursuant to which the authorities cancelled and revoked the regularization granted earlier in respect of the fourth-floor flat, and thus contended that the revocation order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, particularly as the regularization had been obtained by the petitioner during the pendency of the civil proceedings initiated by her, as such stated that continuation of the interim order relating to the structure was causing serious hardship and accordingly prayed to vacate the interim order.

8. The l"t and 2"a respondents filed counter affidavit contending that the writ petitioner constructed al additional floor without any permission and failed to bring the same to the notice of the l"t and 2"a respondents as to the pendency of civil suit filed by the 3'd respondent herein against the writ petitioner r,,rde OS.No.3963 of 2006 on the fiIe of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City li

.o Civil Court, Hyderabad, at the time of Iiling :' the application seeking regularization of the unauthorized construction of additional floor. It is contended that upon the r pplication of the

3. d respondent, the respondent-Corporation inv,r <ing Section 450 of the HMC Act, 1955 has rightly revoked .l ,e regularization proceedings, and that there is no error or infirr rit5z in the order passed by the 1"t and 2"d respondents and pralt d to dismiss the writ petition. 9 . Heard learned counsel for I :titioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Cc unsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos. i & 2.

10. The main grievance of the writ petiticr application/ complaint filed by the 3.d resp (

25. lO.2OlO and the 1"t arrd 2"d respondents, wir.l notice and without affording an opportunity to th without conducting any enquiry as to the gerr allegations made in the said application, h a.r regularization proceedings on the very same da1 application of the 3*t respondent. er is that the ndent was on out issuing any : petitioner, and rineness of the , cancelled the rf receipt of tJre

11' Learned counsel for the petitioner wourd submit that the 1"t and 2nd respondents being the statutory bodies are duty bound to follow the due process of law and no order carr be passed without issuing a notice and conducting enquiry by following due process of law, and thus contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

12. per contra, learned Standing Counsel 2nd respondents while rerterating the counter supported the tmPugned order passed by the

13. respondents and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. appearing for I"r and averments, I "t and 2.,a submission made by sed the material on I have given earnest consideration to the the counsel appearing on either side and peru record.

14. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the l"t and 2"d respondent, it is evident that the 3.d respondent submitted an application on 25'70 '2010 seeking cance,ation of reg,rarization proceedings granted in favour of the petitioner by producing a copy of the order passed by the jurisdictional Civil Court and the impugned proceeding was also passed on the very same day i.e., on 25'10'2070 and in the counter also the l"t and 2-d respondents

- .\l x+ have not controverted the said fact, and thus, it s clear that the 1"t and 2.d respondents did not issue any notice o the petitioner nor afforded any opportunity to the petitioner no' have conducted any enquiry prior to the passing of the impugned c -der

15. It is trite law that any administrative or qu€.r i judicial action having civil consequences on the rights of parti:; is required to follow the principles of natural justice and such leviation to the procedure is in excess of their jurisdiction, whictr is vested under law and such procedure should be deprecated.

16. Inasmuch as the revocation of the regularizz,t Lon proceedings has the effect of prejudicially impacting the exislirg rights of the petitioner and the said order being quasi-judicial rr character, this Court is of the considered view that the instar 1 case warrants interference to interdict with the impugned ordt:r and thus, the impugned order, dt.25.10.2010, passed by t.r : 1st and 2nd respondents, revoking the regularization granted n favour of the petitioner on 21.07.2010, being violative of due p ocedure of law as well as violative of principles of natural jus _ice cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, the writ petitior deserves to be ailowed.

17 . In view of the above hndings, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceeding No.1O32lTPlC9/GHMCl2OO8, dt.25.to.20Lo, ls hereby set aside. However, the 1"t and 2"d respondents sha-ll be at liberty to consider and dispose of the application, dt.25.10.2010, hled by the 3.d respondent, by following due process of law including issuance of notice to both the petitioner as well as the 3.d respondent by conducting an enquiry axd pass orders, take action pursuart thereto, strictly in accordalce with Iaw.

18. Since, the interim order granted by this Court on 30.1,2.2010 was not extended after 19.01.201i, it is deemed that the sarne stands vacated automatically and accordingly, the interlocutory application uide l.A. No.l of 2011 (WVMP No.9O3 of 2011) 1S closed. No order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Dt.2t.1t.2025 -That Ruli! Nisi has been made absol ute as above' SINGH, on this witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUS Of Nove TICE APAR mber Two Th ESH KUMAR ousand And TwentY Five FridaY, The TwentY First DaY SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR ,/: l-/ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Commissioner' Greater Hyderabad [r/lunicipal Corporation (GHMC)' Hyderabad. The Dv- Commissioner' Circle No.9, HYderaoao

To,

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)' j l

-

3. One CC to SRI E.VENKATA SIDDHARTHA' Advocate ( rPUCI

4. One CC to SRI G.IvIADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR (i {l\4C lOPUCl

5. Two CD CoPies. BSK BS k ( \ il $W.,:r.

t t HIGH COURT DATED:21 1.1112025

ORDER

WP.No.28637 of 2010 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (A- vt 1 HE T,TAT I ) ) L I ( Z l:) t''r il lilt: I A. , t s \t @