The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Andhra Pp!99h, RqO bV its principat Secretary to Municipal 2. The Director of Town Planninil, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, R.R. Diitrict, Lakdikapool, Hvderabad. 4 The Viqr Chairman,. Hyderabad Urban'Devel6pment Authority, paigah 5. The Office fo the Gieater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Rep. byits ^ Commissioner, Kukatpally gircle No. 14, Ranga Reddy District 6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella DiviEion. R.R. District. 7. The Tahsildar, Kukatpally, R.R. Diskict. 8. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, R.R. District. 9. The Station House Officer, Kukatpallv, Ranoa Reddv District. 10.The lrrigation & C-.A. Q. Departmbnf Rep.6y its Eiecutive Engineer, Having office at North Tanks Division, First Flobr, Budhabhavan] M.G. Road] Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.5 in not sanctioning the plan seeking permissin for construction of stilt plus 2 floors on plot NO. 37, corresponding to Municipal No.22-161137, in Sy.NO. '140, situated at Kukatpally, as ilelgal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of powers and consequentially set aside the letter No. G1/40/84/364110-11, dated 7-6-2010 l.A. NO: 1 OF 201O(WP MP. NO: 17403 OF 20101 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondent No.5 not to demolish or disturb the construction over the I 7 property bearing plot NO. 37, corresponding to Municipal No. 22-161l37, in Sy.NO. 140, situated at Kukatpally, pending disposal of main Writ Petition l.A. NO: 2 OF i:0'10(WPMP. NO: 37999 OF 2q10) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the copy of the layout of the Gram Panchayat and the copy of the Soil lnvestigation fleport in Ref.No.71SB-S|.GES .2010 dt. 13-6-2010 as additional material papers in the above WP in the interest of justice Counsel Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M. A. MUJEEB for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2,3,6,7&8: GP FOR REVENUE for the Respondent No.4: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel Counsel Counsel SC FOR HUDA for the Respondent No.S: SRI RAVI MAHENDER, for tte Respondent No.9: GP FOR HOME for tlle Respondent No.'10: AGP FOR IRRIGATION AND CAD SC FOR GHMC The Court ma,le the following: ORDER / THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITI ON No.13817 of2OLO ORDER: The above writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondent No.S in not sanctioning the building permission for construction of stilt plus 2 floors on plot No.37, corresponding to Municipal No.22-16l/37, in Sy-No.140, situated at Kukatpally, as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of powers and consequently, set aside the letter No.Gl/aOlBA1364/lO-Ll, dated 07.06.2OlO.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.S has issued a memo vide letter No. G 1 / 4O / B A / 364 / lO- | L, dated 07 .06.20 lO, rejecting the building permission of the petitioner on the ground that the site under reference seems to be falling in FTL (Full Tank Level) and also for non-production of the soil test certificate from the competent authority. It is further informed by the learned Standing Counsel that the Writ Appeal Nos. 997 of 2010 and batch are pending before the Hontrle Division Bench of this Court, in that view of the matter the grant of building permission is kept in abeyalce. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, that the said writ appeal No. 997 of 2O1O and batch, was disposed by this Hon'ble 2 Court on 25.03.2014, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has ordered as under: 'We, therefore, modifo the order of the leamed trial Judge, deleting the portion of the order by which the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to raise structures, and retaining the pc,rtion of the order whereby the municipal authorities were direct(d to consider the petitioners' representation and pass appropriate orders and we affirm this portion of the judgment and order of the learned trial ludge. Since the writ petitioners have alread/ made representation, the same shall be disposed of within eight weeks from today. The decision has to be renderd upon giving hearing to the writ petitioners and passing a speaking order, without being influenced by reasoning or obseMations made by the learned trial ludge or by us."

3. In vit:w of the same, the learned Standing Counsel, Sri Ravi Mahender, appearing for respondent Nos.S and 6, would submit that, in view of the disposal of the writ appeals by this Hon,ble Division bench, thel' would inspect the site and process the applicatior:. filed by the petitioner. It is also stated by the learned Standing Counsel thar, the procedure for granting building permissior: has now changed and the application has to be made through online mode under BuildNow website. The petitioner may be directeil to file the application through_ o>{ine mode, 3

4. In view of the above, after hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the contentions of the respondent, petilioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application under the BuildNow Rules within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the copy of the order and produce all the relevant documents by uploading the sarne through online portal. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are hereby directed to process the same in accordance with law as well as the provisions of the GHMC Act, d

1955. It is needless to mention that, if there are any lacunae, contraventions, during physical inspection or while considering the application, the petitioner shall be given a .notice before passing any orders on the application llled by the petitioner.

5. In 'r^iew of the above, the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6- Miscellaneous petitions, if any, are pending, shall stand closed To, SD/. S.MAL LIKARJUNA RAO SISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary to Municipal Administration, Secretariat' T.S.,Hyderabad. rtre oi?Jitoi of Town Planning, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad' it" oi.iri"i collector, R.R. Di;trict, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad' iii; il; ah;"min, Ayoerauaa Uiban Dev6loprneht Authoritv, Paigah Palace, RasoolPura, HYderabad. il;ofiilf" ihE crbaier Hvderabad Municipal C-orporation, Rep bvits comriiltnli, kulatpally eircle No. 11' Beng? ReddJ District' ih; R;;"G biviiioriat 6fficer, Chevella Division, R'R District' The Tahsildar. Kukatpallv. R R. District. 2 3 4 q 6 7 a Telangarna, at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. The Asr;istant Director, Survey and Land Records, R.R. Diskict. 9. The Station House Officer, Krkatpaily, Ranga Reddy District. 10.].he.. E<ecutive Engineer, lrrigation a C.n.O' Deparinent, Having office at . . North Tanks plvislon, First Floor, Budhabhavan,'M.G. Roid, Sec-underabjd. 11. One CC: to SRl. RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 12;One CC; to SRl. M. A. MUJEEB. Advocate tOpUCl 13.TWO CC:S tO GP FOR IRRIGATION AND CAD,Hiqfi COUrt forthE StAtE Of 14.Two CC:s to cP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 15.Two CC:s to cP FOR MUN|C|PAL ADM|N|STRAT|ON AND URBAN 16.Two CC:s to Gp FOR tRRtcATtoN AND CAD HiqtiCourt forihe State oi 'l7.One CC: to V. NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HUDA tOpUCl 18.Two CEr Copies DEVEL,fPMENT ,High Court for the State of Telanqana. at Hvderabad IOUTI Telangerna, at Hyderabad [OUT] Hyderabad [OUT] I BM PSK HIGH CCIURT DATED:1!910812025 L ( * TAsHEI 2I JAi zffi z * t_ ORDER WP.No.13817 ot 2010 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS V ,L-\ a\l