High Court · 2025

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 an order or orders or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in not releasing the final layout even after fulfilling the short falls as notified through letters dated 04.'1 1.2024 and 17.12.2024 in pursuance of the draft layout permit No. 000011/LO/P1 9:HMDAI2O22, dated 11 .o1 .2022 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, intentional, abdication of duties and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to release the final layout as eaily as possible as per law in the interest of justice. t ! I I l.A.NO:1 OF 2O25 Petition Uncrer Sectron 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 2nd respondent authorities to rerease the finar rayout in pursuance of the draft layout pr:rmit No.0000.1 1/Lolp1glHMDAl2o22, datecr ll.ot.zozz as early as possible by considering the short falls submitted on .l 1..1 1 .2024 and 25.12.2024 pendin,q the writ petition in the interests of justice. Counsel for the petitioner : SRt K.V.BHANU PRASAD, SENTOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI KOTHAPALLISAI SRI HAi'ih 99y-t:"]lqllt e Respondent No.1 : Gp FoR McpL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdENT NO.2 : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HUDA The Court made the following ORDER i I l l I i I I I I ,?.:. .-..'. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITIO NNo.l4l of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sai Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Narasimha Goud, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.

2.The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasnring Ac'13'18 guntas in Sy.Nos.154/P and 155/P situated at Nandigaon Village' Patancheru ivlandal, Sanga Reddy District, under eight (8) different sale deeds' With an intention to develop the said tand, it has submitted an application dated 25.10.2021 with 2nd respondent along with all the relevant documents. On receipt of the said application' 2'd rcspondent has issued draft lay out dated 11 01 '2022

3. According to the leamed Senior Counsel' the pctitioner has already developed the said land in terms of the said draft lay out dated 11.01.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an online application dated l8.Og'2023 with 2nd respondent with a request to issue final laY out. .\ 2 \ -- '''€l \ sg'; \-:-._'\.. \ \: \ .,.'

4. Vide letter dated 04.11.2024,2nd respondent reque.stcd the petitioner to c,lrnply with the following shortfalls:- u1 Login to pctitioner's account in DpMS. Go to Aoplication status (in left menu), click on View &_ Subn-rit Shortfall tab. Select the potitioner's proposal to re-submit. Click on re-submit button available on tool bar. Comply all objections and click on submit button.

5. Thercalicr, 2"d respondent has also issued one more shortlall letter dated 17.12.2024 with a request to re_submit the application w jth the very same shorlfalls. According to the petitioner, it hrn submitted reply on 25.12.2024 stating that it l.ras complied with the shortfalls. Even then, 2nd respondent is not considering tlrc, said application dated,25.l2.2O24 submitted by the petitioner seeking to issue final lay out. Aggrieved by tlie said inaction of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the present r.r,rit petition.

6. Whereas, Sri V.Narsimha Goud, leamed Standing counsel appearing for iln'J respondent, on instructions, would submit that Mr. K.Prabhakar. owner of neighbouring land of the subject propefty, has lodged a complaint with Lokayukta and the ; i I l Lokayukta, vide letters dated 16.lZ'2024,31'12'2024 and OI.OI.2O24 directed the petitioner to submit clarification with regard to- the allegations made by the said K'Prabhakar in Lokayukta. The same is pending with the petitioner' He did not submit any explanation. As and when the said case before Lokayukta is dismissed/resolved, further action will be taken for releaseoffinallayout..I.hesaidwritteninstructionsareplacedon record.

7. Perusal of the said written instructions wouid reveal that one K.Prabhakar, approached Lokalukta' pointing out cefiain irregularities in draft lay out. The same are with regard to approach road/car1 track etc. ln fact, the said K. Prabhakar has to approach 2nd respondent by way of submining representation pointing out specific irregularities and it is for the 2nd respondent to consider the same. Lokayukta cannot consider the said aspects as it is not within the purwiew of it. However, 2nd respondent has to consider the said irregularities by putting the said K.Prabhakar and the petitioner on notice and affording them an opporrunity' 4 .11L*;* --.-'t: :.*:1 \r) \ \

8. Thus. 2"d respondent is not considering thc said applicatio, dated 1g.0g.2023 submitted by the peritioner seeking to release final lay out only on the ground of penclencl of the complaint belbre Lokayukta. On the said ground, 2nd respondent cannot keep tle final lay out application pending.

9. In the light of the said discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application dated 18.09.2022 submitted b1, the petitioner with a request to issue final lay out. If any, lurther clarification is required from the petitioner, liberty is granted to 2,,d respondent to seek the same and the petitioner shall clarify the same. 2nd respondent shall also put the petitioner and the said K.prabhakar on notice and afford them an opportunity However, if the 2nd respondent is not inclined to accept the requ3st made by the petitioner with regard to issuance ol final lay out. i-rc shall assign specific reasons, pass appropriate order without reference to the enquiry pending with Lokayukta and communicate a copy ol the said order to the petitioner herein. He shall complete lhe said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks ; I I l 5 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed' I To //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANIREC'ISTRAR \ ( saCrroll oFFtcER 1 2 3 4 5 6 The Principal Secretary, [t4unicipal Administration pnd Urban Development' Secretariat, State of Tetangana at Hyderabad. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Swarna Jayanthi Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Two CCs to GP FOR IVICPL ADIMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Corjrt for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI KOTHAPALLI SAI SRI HARSHA Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI V.NARASIIUHA GOUD, SC FOR HUDA (OPUC) Two CD Copies SA GJP \ llih o .'i -\ +,'! ,.9, $N 1$, l .J I DE: :a? HIGH COURT DATED:091011202s ORDER WP.No.141 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. Vl- Ls -1 Copu[5' ^(t-> ) , I { i I l I I i I