High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circum$tances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of lr/landamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.5 in raising objection/shortfall in the proceedings rn File No. 003674/GHtMCl18',l7|SEC112023' BP dated 23t0612023 basing on the report daled 2510212022 of the 10th respondent who solely relied on Town survey Register observing that the H.No. 1-10-233, 1-10-233t2 and 1-10-233/3, Ashoknagar' Gaganmahal' Himayathnagar Tahsil in so far as the TS No 1212 to an extent of of 198 :2.1 Sq Mtrs or 237 Sq.yards is Governmc'nt Land out of 640 square yards of Plot No' 13' in Survey No. 184 of the aforesaid House Numbers situated at Gagan Mahal Village as illegal,arbitrary,unconstitutionalandinviolationofArticlesl4'19(f)'21and300- A of constitution of lndia and contrary to the law laid dowrr by the Honourable SupremeCpurtincatenaofdecisionsasregardstheprobativevalueoftheTown SurveyRecordsandaccordinglyquashtheaforesaidsaidproceedingsdated 23lo6t2o233Jrdreportdated25lO2l2O22ol|herespondentssandl0respectively and con9equently direct the respondents; more particularly thq Respondent No'0 to accord sanction for construction of residential/commercial building as per the extant rules and reguiations in respect of the property belonging tq the petitioners bearing H.No. 1-'10-233' 1'10-23312 and 1-10-233/3' Plot No 13' Survey No 184 admeasqring 640 square yards situated at Ashoknagar' Gaganrnahal' Hyderabad IA NO:1 oF 2025 PetitionUndersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affldavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to For thereasonsstatedirrtheaccompanyingaffidavit,thepetitionerhereinpraysthat thisHonourableHighCourtmaybepleasedtoissueadirectiondirectingthe Respondent No.5 to accord sanction/permission for construQtion of residential/aommercial building as per the extant rules and regulations in respect afthepropertybelongingtothepetitionersbearingHNol-10-233'1-10-2331? and 1-'10-233/3, Plot No 13, Survey No' 184 admeasuring 640 square yards situatedatAshoknar]ar,Gaganmahal'HyderabadwithoutreferencetotheTown SurveyRecordspen'lingdisposaloftheWritPetitionintheinterestofjustice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.S. PRASAD REP Ms. PEARL LAW ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Corn""l for the Rer;pondent No.2 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3,4&10: AGP FOR REVENUE 6oun"el for the Re:;pondent Nos. Stoe: sRl G' MADsE?souJTfiilSto'"' AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following: ORDER ,, 1 i i r THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No. 43J7 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri B.S. Prasad learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Pearl Law Associates, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Govemment pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 10 and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9.

2. Petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of plot bearing No.l3, H.Nos.1-10-233, l-10-23312 and 1-10-233/3, admeasuring 640 Sq. yards, in Survey No. 184, situated at Gaganmahal, Hyderabad, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.3274 of 1962 dated 07.12.1962. With an intention to construct new house by demolishing the old house, petitioners have submitted an application dated 14.06.2021 to 5,h respondent - GHMC, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad, seeking 2 KL, J U.P.No.4337 of 2O25 permission for construction. Thereupon, 5s respr:ndent has issued shortfall intimation letter dated 03.08.2021. Without submitting any reply to the said shortfall intimation letter, petitioners have filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.21058 of 2021 seeking to declare the action of 5ff respondent in issuing shortfall intimation letter dated 03.08.202 I as illegal. However, this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 disposed of the said Writ Petition granting liberfy to petitioners to submit explanation/reply to the said shortfall letter dated 03.08.2021 and on receipt of the same, respondents therein shall take necessary steps in accordance with law by putting petitioners on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. It appears that petitioners have not submitted any explanation/reply complying with the shortfall intimation letter dated 03.08.2021.

3. Further, they have submitted another application dated

21.01.2022 to 5th respondent with a request to accord permission for construction of building in the subject properry. The same rvas rejected vide rejection letter dated 30.03.2022. I ( / 3 KI, J W.P-No.4337 of 202s Challenging the said rejection letter dated 30.03.2022, they have filed a Writ Petition vide W.P. No.46221 of 2022. This Corrt vide order dated 28.12.2022 allowed the said Writ Petition by setting aside the rejection letter dated 30.03.2022 and directing respondents therein to follow the guidelines/directions issued by this Court vide common order dated 13.12.2021 in Writ Petition No.20398 of 2021 and batch. It appears, GHMC authorities have not passed any order thereafter.

4. Perusal of the record reveals that petitioners have submitted one more application dated 04.04.2023 to 56 respondent with a request to issue building permit order. On receipt of the said application, 56 respondent has issued shortfall letter dated 23.06.2023 with the following remarks. "1) this office has not received any explanation/representation in persuasion with the orders Dt:28.12.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.46221 of 2022 against the rejection No.000625/GHMCl0316/SECI/2022-BP, Dt: letter

30.03.2022. I 4 KI-. J \r'.P.No-4337 of 2025 3) As per copy of Judgment Dr'.26.03.2021 of Hon'ble )O(V Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.S of 2020 frled between 1) Sri Suresh Suri s/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry, 2) Sri Ramesh Suri S/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry, 3) Smt. Kalvakolanu Vidya d/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry and l) Bommakanti Suryanarayana S/o. Late BVR Sastry, in which the suit is decreed in terms of compromise declaring the plaintiffs No.l to 3 as the Legal Heirs of Late Suri Krishnanada Sastry. Whereas the partition deed document No.2l4/2022 executed between the applicants and there is no discussion about Smt. Kalvakolanu Vidya D/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry, who is one of the legal heirs oflate Suri Krishnanada Sastry. 4) Renewed Builder license to be submitted" "l) This office has not received any explanation/representation in persuasion,rith the orders Dt:28.12.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court in W .P.No.4622112022 against the rejection No.000625/GHMCl0316lSECll2022-BP, Dt: letter

30.03.2022. 3) As per copy of Judgment Dt: 26.03.2021 of Hon'ble XXV Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad in O.S.No.5 of 2020 filed betueen 1) Sri Suresh Suri S/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry, 2) Sri Ramesh Suri S/o. Suri Krishnanada I : l i 5 KL, J W.P.No-4337 of2025 Sastry, 3) Smt. Kalvakolanu Vidya D/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry and 1) Bommakanti Suryanarayana S/o. Late BVR Sastry, in which the suit is decreed in terms of compromise declaring the plaintiffs No.l to 3 as the Legal Heirs of Late Suri. Krishnanada Sastry. Whereas the partition deed document No.2l4/2022 executed between the applicants and there is no discussion about Smt. Kalvakolanu Vidya D/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry, who'is one of the legal heirs of Late Suri Krishnanada Sastry. 4) Renewed Building license to be submitled,' Petitioners have not submitted any explanation to the same. However, petitioners are contending that they have submitted explanation on30.01.2024 and complied with all the shortfalls pointed out by 5s respondent in the aforesaid shortfall letter.

5. Further, petitioners by narrating all the facts including their title and possession over the subject property, submitted another representation dated 31.01.2025 to 5th respondent seeking permission for construction of building on the subject property. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation dated 31.01.2025,5th respondent is not 6 KL, J w P.No.4337 of 2025 proceeding further. Aggrieved by the said inaction of 5th responde'nt, petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.

6. As cliscussed supra, this Cottrt vide order dated

28.12.2022 in Writ Petition No.46221 of 202-2 directed 5'h respondent to consider the directions/guidelines issued by this Court vide common order dated 13.L2.2021 irr Writ Petition No.20398 ctf 2021 and batch. The conclusive portion of the said common order is also extracted in the order dated

28.12.2022 in Writ Petition No/6221 of 2022'.. The sarne is relevant in the present Writ Petition also and is extracted below. "12. In view of the above, this Cou( is of the opinion that in order to justifu the action taken by the respondent authorities in revoking the building permission of the petitioners, they ought to have acted fairly and in stdct adherence to the principles of natural justice. However, since the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the impugned revocation letters passed against the petitioners stand withdrawn to the extent of revocation of permission to construct buildings, the said submission is placed on record. The impugned revocation letters passed by t}Ie respondent I I 7 KI, J w.P.No.4337 of 2025 authorities against the petitioners stand withdrawn to the extent of revocation of permission to construct buildings, in terms of submissions made by the leamed Special Govemment Pleader. The petitionerc are directed to submit. their explanations to the objections pointed out in the impugned revocation letters to the respondent authorities within a period of two weeks from today. On such submission of explanations by the petitioners, the respondent authorities are entitled to pass appropriate orders, in accordalce with the provisions of TS-bPASS Act and the Rules made thereunder, within a period of onc week from the date of receipt of such explanations. It is made clear that until passing of orders by the respondent authorities within the time prescribed on the explanations submiued by the petitioners, the petitioners shall not proceed with any tlpe of constructions in their respective subject lands." Therefore, 5'h respondent has to consider the aforesaid guidelines/directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid V/rit Petitions while considering representation dated 31.01.2025 submitled by petitioners. I I

7. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of t , directing 5'h respondent to consider building application dated B KL, J V,I P No..1337 of 2025

04.04.2023 as well as representation dated 31.01.2025 submitted by petitioners and dispose of the same in accordance with law. If any further clarificatior/documents are required from petitioners, liberly is granted to 5e respondent to call for the same liom petitioners and petitioners shall submit the same. However, 5fr respondent shall afford the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing. On consideration of the aforesaid documents and aforesaid aspects, if 5th respondent is not inclined to accept the request made by petitioners for issuance of building permission, he shall assign specific reasons, pass orders strictly in accordance with law and communicate a copy of the same to petitioners. However, he shall complete the said exercise *ithin a period of eight (g) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand c losed. sD/-P PADMANABRET,EFRRX //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, r The Chief SecrL-tary, GAD Department' Dr'B R Ambedkar Secretariat ' iliiui,i;i fititrao'r s ,HYoerabad' ,fti.:Pj":'##xfl"Jjl,-"}Isli?s,1'Atuflili3!:qil:#f T3:$j"J'L""1' ; [ll+*l$*iC*,ii't *#l;,.::] :i, ffi d <ar secre'far a'i U"DL & Road, Hyderabad. 15, Musheerbad, Hyderabad.

5. The commissioner,Greater Hyderabad Municipar corporation, Tank Bund 6 The.Deputy commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipar corporation, circre- 7. The zonal commis5ioner,_ secunderabad Zone. Greater Hyderabad Municipar "'-'"-' ^ corporation, Beside citv civit court -w;t M;;"Jparry setunutrab;;. 8 The Chief City Planner (Town ptanning Sectionitr"rt",. Hvderabad ^ rvrunrcrpat ,uorpf?ratton Iank Bund Road, Saifabad, Hyderab-ad. u j,l9lr:l:19"] CltV Ptanner.(Town ptanning Section) 'Circte _.15. creater Hydera bad Mun icipat Corporation Hyderabad. ,, jl:,,11T199r, Himayath Nagar Mandat, Near RTC Katynamandapam, , " ryy^r19?11p.1q, 11. One CC to tMS. pEARt 12 \ta4 CQs to Gp FoR TMUNtCtpAL n-oH,rifir6inaiior.r errro uRBAN . DEVELopMENT ,Hish court-tor irr" Si;i;;f i;i;;;",';i,"iiH"ril?tld roul 13 rw_o ccs to Gp rof; cerue nAL Aburllsii,iit'oil His; ifi;tT",Ei;iJ . . ofTelangana at Hyderabad [OUt] '14. Two CCs to GP F-OR REVENUE High Court for the State of Telangana, at 15 One CC to SRt G MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC tOpUCl 16.Two CD Copies ,LAW ASgoc_tATES, Advocate topucl tragtrngampa y, Hyderabad. Hyderabad [OUT] Bru \"w- HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 ORDER WP.No.4337 of 2025 I II ,:) ? ll3 t;':r ir5 : C Df .3 i:, /r T C !.1 i' ':.1 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS