HC Rejects Plea to Legalise Illegal Construction in Begumpet
The Telangana High Court has clarified that a writ petition order passed by a single judge cannot be challenged before a coordinate bench through another writ petition, as it constitutes legal impropriety.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has clarified that a writ petition order passed by a single judge cannot be challenged before a coordinate bench through another writ petition, as it constitutes legal impropriety. Justice T. Vinod Kumar issued this ruling while hearing a petition concerning unauthorised construction in Begumpet.
Table of Contents
Liberty to File Fresh Petition Limited to New or Unnoticed Facts
Justice Kumar stated that while a division bench may grant liberty to a petitioner to file a review or fresh writ petition, such liberty is not a license to re-litigate the same order before a different bench. A fresh petition is only valid if new facts emerge or if previously stated facts were incorrect.
Case Background: GHMC Action Against Unauthorised Construction
Also Read: Women Emerging as Pillars of India’s Progress: FM Nirmala Sitharaman
The case stems from a senior citizen and her son, who had constructed a building by merging two plots, though the approval was granted for two separate structures. A complaint was filed by a passer-by alleging deviation from the sanctioned plan, prompting the GHMC to initiate action based on a single judge’s order.
Petitioner’s Challenge Rejected
The petitioner, who wasn’t named in the original case, appealed to the division bench, which permitted her to file a review or fresh petition. She subsequently filed a new writ challenging the earlier decision and sought regularisation of the building. Justice Kumar, however, dismissed the plea, emphasizing that even strangers or third parties can raise legal objections regarding unauthorised construction.
Regularisation Request Denied Due to Violation
The court highlighted that regularisation under the Building Penalisation Scheme (BPS) applies only to constructions made up to October 28, 2015. The building in question was constructed beyond this date, and thus not eligible for regularisation.
GHMC’s Stand Supported by the Court
The GHMC stated that the BPS cannot be extended to post-2015 deviations. The court upheld this position, further asserting that violations of sanctioned building permits cannot be excused or retrospectively legalised under the current law.
