The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy' learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sn M. Krishna, learned standing Perused the counsel appearlng for 2"d resPondent' record.

2. Petitioners herein are claiming that theY aie absolute owners and possessors of Plot Nos'39 to 49' total admeasuring 1814 square yards vide Sale deed bearing docurnent No.743O of 2Ol2 dated 31'12'2072 and Plot Nos.SO to 53 i.e., total extent 748 square yards vide SaIe Deed No.7431 of 2Ot2 dated 31'12'2012 and Plot bearing Nos.54 to 61 i-e., total extent 1080 square yards vide Sale deecl No7432 of 2Ol2- They have also obtained 25 building permit orders from 2"d respondent, the details of the same are specifically mentioned in impugned speaking order dated 15.02-2025' All are ) RL,J L r- \o / 6! ur 2O2s -i'.-.;. - a,, ..,..| dated 10.A7.tD2S There is no dispute lr,ith regar.,.i ro the SAINC

3. Accorrlinp to the petitioners they aI'e pror eeding with constr uction in accordance with the said b.rilding permit orcre rs. Even then, 2.d respondent rs intelfering with the seri,l cc,nstruction on the complaint iodgerl by J.a respondenl

4. 2,,d resilorrrlent has also issued hearing nolicr: lated 06.11.2024 rlirr,r:ting the petitioners to appear for hearing on 09.17 .2.(t21 . In the said hearing notice ,.Iated 06.1i.202.1 , .here is reference to the representation tlated

19.47.2021 :;r-rtlritted by J.a respondent alieging open spaccs in Sy.Nirs.743, 746, 247, 749, 749 trncl. 7SO situated ai ,rlatl:rgul village have been conver.ted into plots ared pelitio.lers are making construction of houses il1egal1y and :'eqlLested to take action against petitioners. Therefore, on corsideration of the said representation, 2,.,a Iespondent -ssJ.ed hearing notice dated 06'tl 2024' KI,,J w.P-No 6892 ol2o25 ,ir '! 3 Petitioners frled a writ Petition vide W'P'No' t452 of 2025 challengtng the said hearing notice' 5. The said writ petition came *' t:t hearing on 2l.Ol'2025' Learned' counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have submitted representations pursuant to th'e hearing notice dated 06'1L'2O24 stating that they have valid perrnissions f61 6enstrutction on the said survey numbers' Learned Standing Counsel appearing fot 2ndrespondent submitted that petitioners have not produced valid documents including registered sale deeds to show their ownership over the land and they are proceeding with the construction over the subject land' This Court considered' the said submissions made by the petitioners and 2'd respondent' This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 21.01.2025 and paragraph No'4 of the said order is relevant and the same is extracted below: 'Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is evident that the respondent No'2 must verify the documents to be produced by the petitioner i I 1i I -,'. I 4 i'P.\b 68e2 or2f2E r'ir j "j" "n. of the petitioners to can claim orv which zLre in the p( asoertar, whether thelssession or any .:ermission ,oPetidoners make construt"t"" ;;.tt}: 'rrmbers formir I part of the impugnsd hearing noLcr:. Ilince it i" the petitioner's case that no hea:ir rg lvas conduct by the respondents on og.112024, w.p.No. 14.td 52 of 2025 is disposeci of by direc;ting the responden t *o'' to call the petitioners for a fres -r h,:aring. rerev,r t .,,.,.n.,t" ," *',:::::::","",1l.** ,;,1 noticr_.. Ttrr: petitioners rr t::":'.:'""i#'T.ij or th e irr tr,u gn..,.,,.."'i1; : permts:;iorLr; rvere granted to the petitioners in respe,:t o[ lht surrel numbers and .nnei-,^r;^_^ going or ,r is -"0. "*ll1n": "*::-;IJ:l none of thc parties shall proceed with construction o- with disturbance to possession in the meantime until the reslronlents arrived at a hnal conclusion. Tht,. respond,)ntri shalj conclude the hearing within 4 \ .eeks from the derte of hearing to be fixed as directed. The date of hearrirrg shall be fixed belore 3l -O1.2025.,,

6. In com-tlizrrce with the said order, lna resporrdent has conduct,:d hearing and passed speaking order rlated

15.O2.2025 stating that on perusal of the documents hled by the petiti,rner:s ald 3.d respondent would reveal that link documents from Kamala Netrru Nagar co-oper:ative KL,J W P-No-6a92 o12025 5 Housing Society represented by Sri R' Madhava Rao submitted by 3'u respondent is an agreement of sale but not registered document' Therefore' the parties have misled and obtained the building permissions concealing the fact of un-registered link documents as such further action will be initiated by following the due procedure laid down under law' There after' 2nd respondent has issued notice dated' 24'02'2025 directing the Petitioners to stoP Challengng the sPeaking order dated 15.02-2025 passed by the 2'd respondent' petitioners filed the Present writ Petition' 7. It is clear that there is no challenge to the notice dated24.02.2o25issuedbythe2'drespondentinthe construction' present writ Petition' 8. Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy' learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend th:at 2"d respondent without issuing any show cause notice' without furnishing copy of representation dated Lg.O7.2f)q4 said to have been submitted by 3'd I 6 XL.I t.P No.6a92 ot 2O2s respond()nt and without calling for explalation from the petitioners issued said speaking order. The a.Llegations made aSain'st petitioners in the hearing notice dated O6.11.20a,4 are different to the allegations made by the 2"d and 3.d respondents in the speaking ordor dated 75.02.2025. Therefore, speaking order is in violation of principles of rratural justice and arso procedure raid down under the Telangala State Building permission and Self Certification System Act, 2O2O (for Shr.rrt .,TS_ bPASS Act,'). ,lhe petitioners have a-lso placed relii,urce on the principre raid down by this court in smt. I.aritha Srikrish \,. fhe State of Telangana, rep.hy its Principal Secretary, MA & UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad: and Mothul<uri praveen Kumar v. State of Telangana2 lhus, according to the petitionerr3, fhs impugned speaking order is illegal and contrary lo the principle lai,l dcrwn in the said judgment. ApprovaJ I. w.P- No.16456 0'2021, decided on 1'l 012022 '. w.P. No.3l86l o.2014, dccided on 25112024 I t) (L,J W.P No 6a92 ol202s '7 g. Thr.rs, petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of plot Nos'39 to 49 admeasurin g lal4squarb meters under a registered sale deed in Sy'Nos'743' 747' 748' 749; 750 under a registered sale deed bearing document No'7430 of 2Ol2' plot Nos'50 to 53 admeasuring 748 square yards under a registered sale deed document bearing No'7431 of 2ol2 dated 31.12 .2012 arfi plot Nos.54 to 6r admeasuring 1080 square yards und'er a registered' sale deed bearing document No'7432 dated 3l'12'2012' They have obtained the aJoresaid 25 building permit orders dated 1O.O7.2O23' They have filed some of the copies of the said building permit orders' Perusal of the same would to commence reveal that the Petitioners have constructron on or before O8'O|'2O24 and' complete the salne on or before O8'O7 '2026'

10. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that they have commenced construction on or before 08'01'2024' 3.d respondent has submitted' a representation dated I I 8 ' .P.Na 6892 ot 2;;;

9.O2.2Ct24 k) the 2 have obtaued ,n,'o convertin tt"o"tdent alleging that petitioners : sard building permit or-ders by 3 ttLe larrd earmarked for the purpose of open space intr op,:n plots in the aforesaid sun mis-representation and suppression of ;::"-n"l requesteci 2nd respondent to take actio petitioners *qrr- iau Lrorl against the 2nd representatior::, i 1. On r ece ipt of the said respondent has; issued hearing notice dated 06.1t .2024 to the petitioner.s Petitioners have submitted reply to the said notice ln 28.11.2024. Though the petitioner.s are claiming thzLt they have submitted explalation ,lated 28.11.2024 to the hearing notice dated 06. 11.2024, they have not filed proof of submission of said reply/explanzLtic,l to the 2,d respondent. Accordir.Lg to the petitione rs they have submitted a_ll the link documents. As per the speaking order, 3.d respondent has submitted representations dated 19.07.2C,24 and, 21.0t.202s. l{L,J r .P'No 6892 oI2025 (-) I 9 l.2.The aforesaid building permit orders were issued rrnder TGb-PASS Lct' 2o2o' According to the petitioners' they have uploaded a1l the relevant ***::t::::": have made self-certifrcation Therefore, 2'd respondent has to consider prima-facie title and possession of the petitioners over the subject property' Ttrey cannot consider other aspects' ln support of their contention' they have placed reliance on the aforesaid judgments' and 'self-declaratton'

13. There is no dispute that petitioners have obtained subject building permit orders dated 08'O7 '2023 for construction of house. The same are under TG-bPASS Act, 2O2O. Thereafter, 2nd respondent has to conduct post verihcation with regard to the documents subrnitted by petitioners within 21 days from the date of said building permit orders. In Smt. Lalitha Srikrishr, this Court held that twenty one (2 1) days period mentioned in Section - 7 of the TG-bPASS Act, 2O2O is directory, not mandatory. ,, \'/ ./ I 10 tt O.r..U'rr r rfrj

14. As tr,er Section - 7 (11) of TS_bpASS Act ard TS- bPASS Rrrles made thereunder, 2na respondelrt shall complete the ,cost verification wrthin 21 davs Failure to do so, it irrncrunts to deemed permission petitioners ha,ze to inform 2nd respondent stating that they are proceeding with the construction based on deemed permission provision. They have not obtained work commr:ncr:ment letters to proceed with constrtrction pursuant to th,: said building permit orders. Aclmirtedly, petitioners har.r: not submitted any letter to the 2.d Thereafter, respondent stating that they are proceeding with the ) construction basred on deemed provision.

15. As dis;cus;sed supra, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.7452 o' 2025 challenging the hearing notice. They have not :nentioned that 2'd respondent dii: not furnish copl ol the representation dated 19.07 .2024 submitted by 3'd respondent. In fact, petitioners di<1 not IeqUeSt the 2'" respondent to furnish copy of ttre Without seeking coPY of the said representa$ln /i1 i1 KL,J of 2025 w P.No'6892 representation' they cannot btarne the 2^d respondeot that he has not furnished copy of the same' Without seeking copy of the said representation' ttrat they have subrnitted explanation'on They are contending that they have submitted all the iink documents during the hearing conducted by the 2"d they are claiming 2a'Il2O24' resPondent' J t6. Perusal of aforesaid sale deeds would reveal that M/s. Kamala Nehru Co-operative Housing Society Limited was the owner of the subject property' Petitioners,vendor, B. Venkat Reddy is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot Nos'39 to 49 in the aforesaid survey numbers admeasuring 1850 squa-re yards basing on the unregistered agreement of sale executed by M/s. Kamala Nehru Co-operative Housing Society Limited. Basing on the said un_ registered agreement of sale, he has executed the aforesaid registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.7430 etc. Therefore, 3.d respondent has submitted a I i I I i I I I I , i I l i, i i I 12 !l p.^b.68e2 or#ii ( represenlaticn dated 19.OT.2024 to Znd res;pondent naffating the aforesard facts arrd requesting 2d responder t to take action against the petitioners.

17. ,:-)f 2O2S In thi. earlier wdt petition i.e., W.p.No.1452 they have ra,lsed all the aforesaid contentions. On consideration rtf the contentions of both the petitioners p and 2"d rer;pondent, vide order dated 21.o1.2o2s this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the 2"d respondent to call the petitioners for a fresh hearing. Petitioners shall produce all relevant documents to contest the n,rtice. Petitioners relied on the s,:cond pa-ragraph o[ tbe impugned notice which revea-ls that a few permissirns were granted to the petitioners in rcspect oftheSunleynumbersandconstructionspresentlyare going on. Th,:refore, this Court made it clear that pending the hearing, none of the parties shali proceed with constnrcti()n or with disturbance to possession in the meantirre until the respondents arrived at a hnal conclusion. TkLis Court also directed 2'd respondr:nt to KL,J ol2o2s $r.P.No.6a92 13 conclude the hearing within O4 weeks frorn the date of hearing to be fixed as directed' This Court dso has already fixed considered the fact lhat2'drespondent hearing date before 3i'OI'2O25' Therefore' petitioners cannot raise fresh grounds now in the present wnt petition stating thal 2nd respondent issued speaking order without issuance of show cause notice etc' ' Petitioners did not raise the said contentions in the earlier round of litigation' Therefore' they cannot contend the same now' I

18. The impugned speaking order dated l5'O2'2O25 is 252 (1) of the an apPealable in terms of Section Telangana Municipalities Act, 2O 19'

19. Though petitioners contended' that the speaking order dated 15.02.2025 is in violation of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and TG-bPASS Act, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of ttre \. \ 1 i r I 1l : 14 *." *. UUr, or#iJ ( vlew thitt lmpugned Ti rerefore, speaking order datecl L:;.02.2025 notice to petitioners /rnd after m compliance with the order was Passed after issuing hearing _he petitioners dated 21.0 1..ZO2S in W.p.No. 1452 of 2024. petitioners hirve to prefer an appeal chaljeng:lg the speaking rrrdr:r dated 15.O2.2025 before the Regiona_l Director-appeLlate authorify concerned 20. Learne d c:ounsel for the petitioners would s;ubmit that 2"d rer;pondent cannot consider the title dir;putes and the dispulcs with regard to the agreement oi.sia_le is to be decicled before the competent civil courr and authorities ()an.not decide. There is force in the said contention ,tf learned counse.l for the petitioners. Respondent No.2 and this Court can't consider disputed/conrpli,:ated questions of fact in the prt:sent writ petition. 'I'he said principle was also laid dow-n by the Apex Court:n State of U.P. v. Ehsan3.

3. 2023 Livelaw (sc t 88' I KL,J ot 2025 $,/ P'No'6492 i5 2l- h the light of the said d'iscussion' inclined to i"t"'t"'" with *" "n:*'::r::: j::: this Court is not without expresslng "t:":" rs.o2.2o2s' [berty to the this writ petition is d'isrnissed grantrag - petitioners to prefer an appeal challenging the order dated 15'o2 '2025 beforethe Regional Director' appellate authority concerned raising all the grounds which they , h^rr" raised in the present writ petition before the Appellate Authority as it is for the Appellate Authority to consider. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTYREGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, Ad voca te [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI M.KRISHNA, SC FOR MPCL [OPUC] Two CD Copies To 1 3 4 PSK. BS $ J HIGH COURT' DATED:06/ fBt2Lzs CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.G892,tf ?-O2S : r::- l;- iT, \ t 1r a- i.) ? 1 1CI1t I l't. C) \i.. ':)," DISMISSING I'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS orf.oPtd t * t- Y:-/ | { 1Q