The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2to4: SRI M. DHANANJAY REDDY, SC Counsel for the Respondent No.S: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER ) rN rHE HrcH .orxl FOR THE STA TE OF TETANGANA THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTTCE B. VUAYSEN REDDY BETWEEN Nalla Jayshankar Goud AND ffi;fl{ffiHy*:?,., ..,.RESPONDENTS ORDER: The writ declare the 2023 dated ZB.O2 building application L77.33 sq. yards in Mandal, Medchal - Ma order dated 25.06. 2019 and Wp.No.L22 is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to order vide No.4S7\B/T1S/CRS/K\Z\GHMC/ passed the respcindent No.3 rejecting the the petitioner for his land admeasuring .No.236, JeedimeUa Viltage, euthbullapur District, as being contrary to common 1 passed by this Court in Wp.No.1956 of of 2O2O and in violation of Article L4, 2t and 3004 ofthe of India. i l\ 2

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the open land admeasur lng L77.33 Sq. Yards, Sy.No.236, at ]eedimetla the same under regi*ered sale deed bearing document QuthbullapurMandal'Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict'havingpurchased the vendors of the petitioner Village, 26'07 'zot8; No.16789 lzoBsdated havepurchasedthesaidlandunderregisteredsaledeedbearing document No'6796 of 2015 dated 01'06'2015 from the previous owners, namely' H' Subhadra and H' Ramchander Rao' It is stated that the petitioner applied for layout

3. regularizationforthesubjectplotvideApplicationNo.C/GHMC/ 03562812020dated27.og.2o20.Later,thepetitionerappliedfor sanction of buirding permission. The respondent No'3 rejected the applicationvideshortfallLetterl-...116.3/C25l22|54|zoLedated t7.lz.2[t| stating that the proposed building space falls in Sy.No.238 12, Z3glL to 23918 of Bhagya Lakshmi Colony' Subash Nagar, leedimetla' Quthbullapur as per the layout but not under Sy.No.236 as per the document produced by the petitbner' It is statedthattheoneoftheresidentsofthesaidareafiledRTl applicationdated0l.02.20lgtotheGHMCseekinginformationto furnish a copy of Bhagya Lakshmi Colony Layout' Reply was received from the GHMC stating that the Bhagya Lakshmi COlOny Layout is not available with the office. \ \ 3

4. It is stated that after receiving the shortfall letter dated L7.!2.20L8, the petitioner submitted representation dated 2L.06.20t9 to the respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry along with Tahsildar, Quthbullapur, regarding boundaries of petitioner's open plot, which falls in Sy.No.236 and grant building permission. Upon such representation, the respondent No.4 sent a letter vide Lr.No.1160/rPS/Clr-25/G,HMC/KZ|2OL9 dated 29.06.2OL9 requesting the respondent No.5 to furnish survey report along with sketch plan duly showing the land of the petitioner, whether the site falls in Sy.Nos.236 or 23812, 23gl1 to 238/8 of Jeedimetla Village of Quthbullapur Mandal.

5. It is stated pursuant thereto, survey was conducted by the surveyor of Revenue Department along with rown Planning officers of GHMC and furnished a repoft atong with sketch plan to the respondent No.4 vide Lr.No.B/773/2OL9 dated 27.OB.ZOtg, categorically stating that plot of the petitioner is falling in Sy.No.236 and thus, the objection raised by the GHMC in rejecting building perrfiission of the petitioner is untenable. The respondent No.3, despite the report dated 27.08.20L9, tried to interfere with the possession and erected a sign board and further went on construction of a compound wall around petitioner's plot contemplating that the plot is falling in Sy.Nos.238/2, 239/t to 239/8 as per lay out of Bhagya Lakshmi Colony Subash Nagar, 4 Jeedimetla, Quthbullapur Mandal which is illegal and shows the malafide intention of the authorities.

6. It is stated that the petitioner filed Wp.No.1955G of 2019 to declare the rejection of the building permission application vide shortfall letter No.3/C25/22154/2Ot8 dated L7.L2.2018 as iflegal and for a consequential direction to the GHMC to consider building permission of the petitioner in the light of the clarification given by the respondent No.s dated 27.O8.2OL9. Interim order was passed in the writ petition as under: "In those circumstances, in order to identify the subject tand by metes and bounds and to find out whether it fa s in Survey No.236 or any other Survey Number, fresh survey shall be conducted by the respondent authorities by issuing a notice to the parties concerned: including the petitioner, within two (2) weeks from today and report to this Court,,.

7. That pursuant to the interim order, survey was conducted by the respondent No.5 and report dated Z9.LL.2OL9 was submitted stating that the subject land is situated in Sy.No.236 but not in Sy.Nos.238/2, 239/L to 8, Jeedimetla Village, euthbullapur Mandal. However, the respondent No.3 did not grant permission and passed rejection order vide Lr.No. lf PS/KPZIGHMC/Z}2O dated t1.O6.2O20. The said rejection order was challenged in WP.No.12261 of 2O2O, which was heard along with Wp.No.19556 of 2019 and common order 25.06.2021 was passed setting 5 aside the impugned letters dated 17.L2.20tA and 11.06.2020. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 were directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner for building permission and pass necessary orders by taking into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner and also the report of the Tahsildar and by affording an oppoftunity of hearing to the petitioner.

8. It is stated that puEuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent No.3 on OL.O7.2OZl to consider application for building permission in the light of common order of this Court dated 25.06.2021. However, despite this Court making clear observations in the common order, the application of the petilioner was not considered. Thereafter, a Contempt Case in CC.No.493 of 2022 was filed. During the pendency of the contempt case, this Court directed the respondent No.5 to conduct a survey duly demarcating the plot of the petitioner and superimposing the same with that of the layout and file a report along with the combined sketch showing both the location of the plot of the petitioner and also the open space earmarked as plot.

9. It is stated that pursuant to the said order, the Mandal Surveyor conducted survey in the presence of petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner and submitted report vide file No.B/773/ 7 6 i ZOL} dated 08.08.2022 categorically stating the subject land falls in Sy.No.236 of Jeedimetla Village. In the contempt case, counter affidavit was filed by the respondents stating the building gpplication of the petitioner vide Proceedings No.12261/TPS/KPZI GHMC/2OZL dated 08.09.2021 is rejected and accordingly, the contempt case was closed. Thereafter, challenging the said proceedings No.12261/TPS/KPZ|GHMCI2O2L dated 08.09.2021, the petitioner filed WP.No.45728 of 2022, which was disposed of by order dated 26.L2.20222 directing that the respondents shall visit the subject site in the presence of petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, specifying how the physical features are not tallying as per the registered document. That in compliance of the said orders passed in WP.No.45728 of 2022, the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 was passed by the GHMC stating that "during the physical inspection on ground, it is obsenred that the alleged site claimed by the petitioner is part of GHMC, which is abutting to two existing roads. It is also further to submit that the plot in existence in around the site alleged are taltying with the layout and also the park in existing of the alleged site. As verified with reference to the document of the applicant, the physical features are not tallYing."

10. In the counter filed by the respondents No.2 to 4, inter alia, it is submitted that as per the directions of this court in the order \ \ I 7 dated on 28.02.2023 in WP.No.45728 of 2022, the respondents have conducted inspection of the land of the petitioner in his presence on O7.O2.2O23 wherein in it was observed that the site under reference is falling under GHMC park area, which is in bxistence and under the possession of GHMC. As per the report of the Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, the petitioner's site is falling in Sy.No.236 of Jeedimetla village, but as per ground position and with reference to available record of the GHMC with respect to Bhagya Lakshmi Colony Gramapanchayat layout, the petitioner's site is falllng in Sy.Nos.238/2, 239/L to 23918 of Jeedimetla village which is earmarked as park and as per the available records of GHMC, the said land is earmarked as Park space which is under the possession of GHMC.

11. Ms. B. Rachana Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order dated

28.02.2023 is arbitrary and contrary to the record. The respondent authorities are changing their stand from time to time and for extraneous reasons. When the report of the Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, says that the subject plot of the petitioner forms part of Sy.No.236, the question of GHMC contending that it is not tallying with the ground position does not arise. The GHMC cannot decide title. Since there was dispute regarding location of the site of the petitioner, survey was conducted by the Tahsildar, who is a 8 r competent authority, which concludes that the site of the petitioner is in Sy.No.236. Thus, the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. L2. Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, Iearned standing counsel for GHMC, submitted that there is serious dispute with regard to the titre and boundary of the plot of the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to approach competent civil Court. Several writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner and rejection order was passed duly considering the directions issued by this court. As there is dispute with regard to title, the GHMC does not have any alternative but to reject the build ing permission. Discussion and Analysis:

13. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 28.O2.2O23 reads under: "During the physical inspection on ground, it is observed that the alleged site claimed by the petitioner is part of GHMC, which is abutting to two existing roads. It is also further to submit that the plot in existence In around the site alleged are tallying with the layout and also the park in existing of the alleged site. As verified with reference to the document of the applicant, the physical features are not tallying." L4. The respondents have not placed before this Court any record to demonstrate that the plot claimed by the petitioner is part \ I I I 1 9 of layout of Bhagya Lakshmi Colony and that it vested in GHMC' The report of the Tahsildar dated 27'08'2OL9 addressed to the respondent No'4 clearly states that "As per the location sketch prepared by the Sun/eyor which reveals that the applicant plot is falten in SY.No'236 of leedimetla Village. A copy of the Location sketch prepared by the Surveyor is enclosed herewith for taking necessary action'"

15. affidavit The report of the Tahsildar is filed at Page No'60 along with Location Sketch at Page No.61. The survey sketch plan shows the plot of the petitioner is in Sy'No'236' The averments in the counter and the Plan are not is no assertion in the do not say that surveY report in accordance with law' There prepared counter affidavit filed by the respondents No'2 to 4 that the survey plan is challenged by them' Moreover' pursuant to the directions of this Court, survey was conducted and when report along with the survey plan is filed, the same is not challenged till now'

16. It is unfair and arbitrary on the part of the respondent authorities to contend that the plot claimed by the petitioner is not tallying with the layout and is a park' It is borne out from the record that there is a dispute with regard to location of the plot of the petitioner, for which survey was conducted and when the plot is clearly demarcated and survey plan reveals that it is in Sy'No'236' t I I \ l0 the respondent authorities, who have limited jurisdiction, cannot be permitted to contend that it is park. The dispute regarding location of the site stood resorved through the survey report, which is binding on the respondent - GHMC unless it is challenged through due procedure under raw. So rong as the report is not chailenged, it has to be treated as varid in arr respects and binding on the respondents. In view of the above, the writ petition is ailowed. L7 ' The impugned order dated 2g.02.2023 is set aside. The respondent No.2 rs directed to consider the building application of the petitioner without reference to the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 and without taking any objection with regard to the title of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of twenty one (21) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The misceilaneous petitions pending, if dDy, shail stand 3 closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// To, SD/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (e- SECTION OFFICER Bund Road, Hyderabad Pept, Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad.

1. Ihe.Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development 2. The Commissioner,.Gredter Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Tank 3 The DepulV Co4missioner, GHMC, Quthbultapur Circle, Hyderabad. 4. The Assistant city Planner, Quthbullapur circlb No.25, GHlvlc, Hyderabad. 5. The Tals_ildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District. 6. one cc sRr K.RAV| MAHENDER SC FOR GHMCIOP"UCI 7. One CC to SRl. MOHD BASEER RIYAZ Advocate-[OPUC] L Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRAT|ON AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ,l:!igh court for the statg of relangana, at Hyderabad tourj I e. one CC to SRI. M. DHANANJAY REDDY, Sq tPPUCl 10.Two CCs to cP FbE iEVfNUe High Court forihe State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

11.Two CD CoPies B BS I / l. CC TODAY q'o lJ- 'q, * * Fro .$ s H + ( { HIGH COURT DATED t1011212025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.9236 of 2023 ALLOWING'THE WRIT PETITION WITI-IOUT COSTS a \g \'