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 a Writ, Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 issued speaking orders in Lr. No.G1i 134fiP5-1|,12025 dated 05.02.2025 by revoking the buitding permission without assigning proper reasons in respect of open plot, admeasuring '190.'l 6 Sq.yds in Sy.No.595 of Markandeya Colony, Jangaon village, Ramagundem tVlunicipal Corporation, Peddapalli dist as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and against the provisions of law 2n6 contrary rights guaranteed under 300-4 of constitution of lndia and consequently set a side the speaking orders in Lr. No.G1/'134|TPS-1112025 dated 05.02.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend speaking orders in Lr. No.G/ 134lrPs-1112025 dated 0s-02-2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 issued by the Respondent No.2 in respect of open plot, admeasuring 190. Sq.yds in Sy.No.595 of Markandeya Colony, Jangaon Village, Ramagundem Municipal Corporation Peddapalli dist. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VSRMV PRASAD SANAKA Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.3:---- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.4799 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel I appearing for 2"d respondent. 2 l't petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute and possessor of open plot admeasuring 190. l6 Sq. yards in Survey No.595 situated at Jangaon Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District, on the strength of two registered Sale Deeds bearing document No.355 of 2023 and 2199 of 2023 dated 18.04.2023 and 14.01 .2023 respectively. He has obtained building permit order dated 17.10.2023 from 2nd respondent under TS-bPASS Act, 2020, by way of self-certification and self-declaration. Thereupon, 2"d respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 0l .11.2023 and seven days' time was granted to l't petitioner to submit explanation. He has submitted explanation 07 .l | .2023. However, without considering the said 2 KL, J w.P N .{799 of2025 explanation, 2'd respondent has revoked the building permit order vide revocation order dated 10.11.2023.

3. While the matter stood thus, l't petitioner has strbmitted a fresh application dated 07.01 .2024 under TG-bPASS with znd respondent seeking permission to construct residential building. The building permit order was issued on (17 .07 .2024. While l" petitioner was proceeding with the construction strictly in accordance with the building permit order dated 07.07.2024,2,d respondent issued a show cause notice dated 20.01 .2024 to l'' petitioner stating that there are title disputes with regard to the plots in Survey No.595 and legal opinion from Municipal Standing Counsel is required Seven days' time was granted to I petitioner to submit explanation. It is the contention of l" petitioner that he has not received show cause notice dated 20.01 .2024. Without serving show cause notice on l" petitioner and without affording him an opportunity ofpersonal hearing, 2nd respondent revoked the building permit order dated 07.01 .2024 vide revocation order dated 03.08.2024. Challenging the said revocation order dated

03.08.2024,l" petitioner has filed a Writ Petition vide \ t*t ./ , 3 (L,r W P No 47gS ot202s W.P.No.289l3 of 2024. Vide order dated 23.10.2024, rhis Court set aside the said revocation order dated 03.08.2024 and remanded the matter back to 2nd respondent with a direction to consider the building permit application submitted by l't petitioner under TG-bPASS dated 07.07.2024 and pass orders afresh in accordance with law. This Court also directed 2nd respondent to consider certain aspects mentioned in the said order.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated23.10.2024 passed by this Courl W.P.No.289l3 of 2024, vide impugned speaking order dated 05.02.2025,2nd respondent has revoked the building permit order dated 07.07.2024. Challenging the same, I't petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

5. It is the specific contention of l't petitioner that he has submitted explanation dated 06.11.2024 to show cause notice dated 20.07.2024 along with certain documents. Without considering the same, 2nd respondent has passed impugned speaking order dated 05.02.2025 on the same grounds ./ 4 1i1, .I W P.'io .+799 oi 2025

6. Perusal of the impugned speaking order dated

05.02.2025 would reveal that 2"d respondent has considered the orders passed by this Court, pendency of civil suit, report of Tahsildar etc., and assigned reasons. 2''d respondeut also observed that there are disputes with regard to the title in respect of the subject property.

7. The impugned speaking order dated 05.02.2025 rs an appealable order in terms of Section 252(l) ol the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short 'the Act'). It is not the case of petitioners that the impugned speaking order IS passed without fbllowing the principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under the Act to rnaintain the present Writ Petition despite availability of alternative rernedy of appeal. Tl.rerefore, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners have to prefer an appeal challenging the impugned speaking order dated 05.02.2025 in terms of Section 252 (l) of the Act before the Regional Director/appeIlate aut['rority concemed , I Y 8. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to petitioners to pret-er an appeal before the Regional Director/appellate authority concerned within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order Liberty is also granted to petitioners to raise all the contentions/grounds, which they have raised in the present Writ Petition, before the appellate authority and it is for the appellate authority to consider the same. Till then, the impugned speaking order dated 05.02.2025 passed by 2nd respondent shall not be given effect. If the petitioners fail to prefer an appeal within ten (10) days from thb date of receipt of a copy of this order, liberty is also granted to 2"d respondent to take action against petitioner pursuant to the impugned speaking order dated 05.02.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY NT REGISTRAR ASSI //TRUE COPY// ION OFFICER To, I 'l . The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban,Deveto,qle1!-^, Department, The State of Telangana, o/o at secretariat buildings, HyoeraDao

2. The Commissioner, The Ramagundem Municipal Corporation, Ramagundem, PeddaPalli dist

3. One CC to Sri VSRMV Prasad Sanaka, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration Urban Development, High court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI Y

5. One CC to Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, SCIOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies TJ BS x* \ HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:1 910212025 , , ORDER WP.No.4799 of 2025 6 ...'. - i. t t. . " i..r , , DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS