SOURCE :- SIASAT NEWS
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has clarified that complaints regarding illegal constructions need not be filed only by direct victims.
Any individual, including a stranger or even a passerby, can lodge a complaint about unauthorised constructions. This clarification came in a recent verdict addressing a dispute over illegal buildings in Hyderabad’s Begumpet area.
Background of the case
Anita Andallu Cheguri approached the High Court seeking to overturn previous orders that directed authorities to take action against unauthorised constructions on a 400-square-yard plot in BS Maktha, Begumpet, Hyderabad. Justice T Vinod Kumar presided over the case.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that both the petitioner and her son had purchased 200 square yards each and secured permissions for two-storied buildings with stilts.
Later, they applied to revise these permissions to allow for ground plus four floors on the combined 400 square yards. Subsequently, a fifth floor was constructed, citing structural and architectural reasons. Despite applying for both revised permissions and regularisation, the authorities did not make a decision.
Complaint by a non resident
The High Court’s earlier action was based on a petition by a person named Narender, who did not reside in the area.
Orders were issued by a single judge without including the current petitioners as respondents or hearing their arguments. Acting on these orders, GHMC (Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation) officials served notices to the petitioners.
When the petitioners appealed, the single judge advised them to seek a review before the same judge or file a fresh petition, leading to the current proceedings.
Arguments and court’s observations
GHMC’s legal counsel stated that construction permissions had been denied and that regularisation was only applicable to buildings constructed before 2015. After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Vinod Kumar clarified that the law allows any private individual to complain about illegal constructions. If authorities fail to act, the High Court can intervene and order action.
The court rejected the argument that the petitioners should have been made respondents from the outset, stating that this does not violate principles of natural justice.
The court further noted that if the constructions had been made with proper permissions and subsequently regularised, the authorities would have acted accordingly, and the petitioners’ rights would not have been ignored. However, in this case, the constructions were undertaken without any permissions.
Verdict and directions
Justice Vinod Kumar concluded that the single judge’s previous orders were justified and could not be deemed unreasonable.
The petition seeking cancellation of GHMC’s notices, which were issued as per High Court orders, was dismissed.
However, the court directed GHMC to resolve the petitioner’s regularisation application in accordance with the High Court’s earlier decision in the A. Praveen Kumar case.
SOURCE : SIASAT
