Abdul Rahman v. 1. The Stqle of Telangana

Counsel for the Respondent Nq.2 !g 4: SRI 9.MADH_USUDHAN REDDY, . SC FOR 9HME The Court made the follgwing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.6411 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Smt. Thakur Roopa Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Madhusudhal Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment for sth respondent.

2. Petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.8l7-B admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey No.2O2, situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on the strength of a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 15229 of 2023 dated 27.09.2023. He has obtained building permit order dated 3L.12.2O24 for construction of Stilt for parking + 2 upper floors. Petitioner has not commencgd construction. In the meanwhile, 3'd respondent has issued show cause notice dated 29.01.2025 stating as follows: , "The Provisional permission obtained for construction oI individual Residential Building vide reference 1", cited, has been examined in detail by the. Post Verihcation team as per the rules and regulations in force. It is noticed that it has been obtained by suppressing the material facts and by misrepresenlation of documents facts as stated belorv: "As per the scrutiny and inspection report of TPS & ACP- 20, Sri ABDUL RAHMAN, submitted proposals the construclion of residential building consist of 1 stilt + 2 upper floors over the Plot No: PLOT BEARING N():817-8, Localitr': KONDAPUR, Survey No: 202, Kondapur(V), Serilinqampally Circle 20, Serilingampally Zone, Serilinqampally(M), GHMC, Rangareddy (Dist). Inspected the sitc. verified the submitted documents and observed that, rh(. survey numbers 2O2 ate covered under prohibrted properties as CEILING SURPLUS LAND. Prior NOC is, required from the concerned authorities for issue of burl.,iing permission. The applicant has not submitted an1' dccument with regard to the regularization of said plot fr,rm the ULC authorities, In this regard, a show cause notice may be issued to the applicant with a directr()n to show cause as to why the provisional permission obtained by self-certihcation should not be revokeri rvithin 7 days, otherwise -the same will be cancelled without any further not.ice. \n\n" Ilence you rre hereby directed to show cause in wnting as to why the provisiona-l permission obtained by you shouldn't be revoked for the reasons stated as above. Your explanation should be submitted within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice, farling which the provisional perrnission granted rviil be revoked without further notice." 3

3. 3'd respondent directed the petitioner to submit explanation within seven days. When petitioner went to office of 3.d respondent to explain the same orally, he refused to hear the same. Thus, according to the petitioner, he has submitted explanation orally. Without considering the same,

3.d respondent has issued revocation letter dated 20.02.2025 revoking the aforesaid building permit order. Challenging the same, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Whereas Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on instructions, would submit that 3'd respondent has issued show cause notice dated 29.01.2025 with the aforesaid allegations and despite granting seven days time, petitioner herein failed to submit explanation. Therefore, 3'd respondent has revoked the building permit order dated 31.72.2024 uide revocation letter dated 2O.O2.2O25. There is no error in it. Perusal of revocation letter would reveal that there is no reference to the show cause notice dated29.Ol.2O25. 5 As discussed supra, the building'permit order is dated 31.12.2024. Petitioner obtained the said building 4 permit order under Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2O2O by uploading a-ll relevant documents by way of self-certification and self-declaration. Thereafter within 21 days, 3.d respondent has to conduct post-verification and issue work commencement letter. Otherwise it amounts to deemed permission in terms of Section 7(10) of Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2O2O and Rule 12(vii) of TS-bPASS Rules, 2O2O. Even then, 3.a respondent has issued revocation letter dated 2O.O2.2O25. Petitioner failed to obtain work commencement letter pursuant to building permit order dated

31.12.2024.

3.d respondent has to consider prima facie title and prima facie possession of the petitioner over the subject property. He cannot revoke the building permit order dated

31.I2.2024 on the ground that petitioner has not submitted NOC from the concerned authorities ald he has not filed regularization proceedings. This Court uide order dated

26.04.2022 in W.P.No. 16868 of 2022 cotsidered the said aspects and directed the Municipality not to insist for NOC 5 from the Revenue Department. This Court also placed reliance on principle laid down in judgment in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad Districtr. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, GHMC preferred an appeal urde W.A.No.4O3 of 2022. The said appeal was dismissed ui.d.e judgment dated O5.07.2022. In fact, petitioner has to bring the said facts to the notice of 3.a respondent by submitting written explanation. petitioner cannot contend that he has submitted explanation orally.' 7 . As discussed supra, there is no reference to the show cause notice in the revocation letter d,ated,20.O2.2O2S. The same is in violation of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under Telalgana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act,2O2O.

8. It is relevant to note that 3.a respondent, being Deputy Commissioner, GHMC has no power, authorit5i or jurisdiction to revoke the building permission ald it is 2"a respondent Commissioner, GHMC, who is having power to r 2001(3) ALD 600 6 revoke the building permission. Therefore, 2"d respondent has to initiate action afresh for revocation of building permission issued in favour of petitioner.

9. Therefore, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, only on the said ground, the impugned revocation ietter dated 20.02.2025 is set aside. Matter is remanded back to 2"d respondent with a direction to initiate fresh action, serve fresh show cause notice on the petitioner granting severr (07) days time to petitioner. On receipt'of the said show cause notice, petitioner shall submit explanation along with copy of order dated 26.04.2022 in W.P.No. 16868 of 2022 andjudgment dated 05.O7.2022 in W.A.No.4O3 of 2022 within seven ({)7} days. Thereafter,2na respondent shall pass orders on consideration of the aforesaid aspects within four (04) weeks. 'l'ill then, petitioner shall not proceed with the construction. Subject to the result of the said enquiry, on obtaining work commencement letter, petitioner shall proceed with the construction strictly in accordance with the aforesaid building permit'order and work commencement order, failing which liberty is granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take action against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure 7 laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

9. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.L. VIJAYA LAXMI S STANT REGISTRA SECTION OFFICER 1 ? The Principal Secretary, Bevenue (U.!-,C) Department, Secretariat Hydelabad, State of Telangana. The Cgmmissioner, Greater Hyderabad Muqicipal Corpgration, Tank Bund Hyderahad

3. The Deputy Cgmmissioner, Grqater flyderabgd Municipal Corporation, Circle No.20, GHMC, Serilingampally Zone, Rqr'1ga Beddy pistrict.

4. The Alst CitI Planner, _Qrggte1. Hydqrabad Municipal Corporation, Sprilingampally Zone, Ranga Reddy ?istrict. : C. The Additional Collector Urban Land Qelling gnd $ofnpetent Aylhorily, Ranga g one gc to sMT THAKUR RO9PA SlNqH,46vocqlQ IOPUCI ?. Qne pQ to s$lG MADHUSUPHAN BEPPY, gC FpR GHMC IoPUcl 8. Two QQq t9 QPJOR AS9IGNMENT, High Cgurt (qF lhe State ef Telapgana at : " HyderabSd [QUT] I Two Qp Copies BSR BS. 6 HIGH COURT DATED:0 410312025 ORDER WP.No.6411 o12025 -\ liE ST4 fa O B A?B M25 a ( lP o | ,.-> ,,'7', \., \- ^ -: i' J, g-g DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS L, %.- 'nv\x'