Subsequent unauthorized construction and regularization proceedings did not establish deliberate disobedience warranting contempt.

The petitioner, owner of Flat No.102 in Dream Home Dwaraka Nilayam Apartment, alleged that the owners/builders had deviated from the sanctioned plan by constructing an additional third floor and a penthouse on the fourth floor, while also encroaching upon common and parking areas.

The building permission sanctioned construction of a ground floor plus two upper floors, with the ground floor intended for parking.

The petitioner submitted a representation to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) seeking action against the alleged unauthorized construction.

GHMC stated that notices had been issued under Sections 452(2) and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and that the unauthorized structures had been demolished.

During the writ proceedings, the Standing Counsel stated on instructions that the illegal constructions had already been removed.

The petitioner alleged that this statement was false, that the structures continued to exist, and that GHMC had subsequently entertained applications for regularization under the Building Regularization Scheme (BRS).

The fourth-floor penthouse had been regularized in 2010, while applications concerning Flats Nos. 301 and 303 on the third floor were pending.

Whether GHMC had failed to act upon the petitioner’s complaint regarding unauthorized construction and deviations from the sanctioned building plan?

Whether GHMC could consider the pending BRS applications relating to the alleged unauthorized constructions, and what procedure was required to be followed?

Whether the respondents had deliberately or willfully disobeyed the interim orders of the Court by falsely stating that the unauthorized constructions had been demolished?

The Court applied Sections 452(2) and 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, which empower the municipal authorities to issue notice and take action, including removal or demolition, against unauthorized constructions.

The Court also considered the Building Regularization Scheme issued under G.O.Ms. No.901, MA&UD (M1) Department, dated 31 December 2007, under which eligible unauthorized constructions could be considered for regularization subject to the terms of the Scheme and the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

For contempt, the applicable principle was that contempt requires proof of deliberate and willful disobedience of a binding court order; mere subsequent construction, disputed factual circumstances, or an absence of continuing compliance was insufficient to establish contempt on the material before the Court.

The Court found that GHMC had issued notices under Sections 452(2) and 636 of the HMC Act and that the photographs and records indicated that demolition action had in fact been undertaken.

Although the possibility that the unofficial respondents had reconstructed the premises after demolition could not be ruled out, the Court held that GHMC could not be said to have wholly ignored the petitioner’s complaint.

Since the penthouse had already been regularized and applications concerning other third-floor flats were pending under the BRS, the Court directed GHMC to examine those applications in accordance with the Scheme, after giving notice to the petitioner.

If the applications were not maintainable or feasible, GHMC was required to reject them by a reasoned order and thereafter take further action under the HMC Act.

With respect to contempt, the Court relied on the fact that demolition proceedings had actually been initiated and carried out, and that the later existence of structures could have resulted from reconstruction after demolition.

In the absence of sufficient proof that the respondents had deliberately or willfully disobeyed the Court’s interim order, the essential elements of civil contempt were not established.

If the applications were found permissible, GHMC was to pass appropriate orders subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings concerning the regularization Scheme; otherwise, it was to pass reasoned rejection orders and take further action under the HMC Act.

The contempt case was closed, as the Court held that no deliberate or willful disobedience of its interim orders had been established.

No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.