'1 . Sharat Chandra Rachuri v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 Writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice of revocation of building permission dated O3112t2024 issued u/s. 174(4)(10) of the Telangana Municipalities Act,2019 bythe 2nd respondent inrespect of the petitioners' property admeasuring 200 Sq. yrds bearing Plot No. 129, H.No.6-21012718, in Sy. No.55 and 56 l'laghavendra Nagar, Jillelgucta, Balapur (M), Rangareddy District in a routirre manner without mentioning any reasons while orally informing that that the sar.re is rejected on the ground that the petitioners did not enclose the 'No objection cr>rtificate'/ Clearance Certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) Authority along with the application as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being co 1trary to the settled principle laid by this Hon'ble Court in Hyderabad Potterie,; Case reported in 2001(3) ALD 600, orders in W.P. No. 12798 of 2021 znd also in catena judgements of this Hon'ble Court apart from being in violati,>n of the provisions contemplated under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 rrnd T.S- bPass Act, 2020 and consequently set aside the same directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application without insisting on a No Ctbjection Certificate'/ Clearance Certificate from the ULC Authorities or Revenue Au:horities and release the sanction plan for the construction of the building in the prolrerty. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circ rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file the additional affidavit along with c ocuments and pass such other order or orders. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ:mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Notice of revocation of building permission daleti O3-12-2024 issued uls. 17a@)(0) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 20 19 by tl're 2nd respondent in respect of the petitioners' property admeasuring 200 Sq. yr ls bearing Plot No. '129, H.No. 6-21012718, in Sy. No. 55 & 56 Raghavendra Naga', Jillelguda, Balapur (M), Rangareddy District while directing to consider the peritioners' application without insisting for 'No Objection Certificate'iClearance certii'icate from the ULC authorities or from the Revenue Authorities pending the <lisposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. V M M CHARY Counsel for the Respondent NO 1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent NO 2 : S. RAVINDER REDDY S.C FOR MUNCIPAL CORPORATION Counsel for the Respondent NO 3 TO 5 : T GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER .----- '-:.&ffim!7 \:"-:;,.-"V THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8656 OF 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) The writ petition is filed by the petitione:'s seeking the following relief: "...pleased to issue Writ, Order, or directiol more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus c eclaring the Notice of revocation of building permission dated 03.12.2024 issued u/s. 174(4X10) of the'l',rlangana Municipatities Acf, 2019 by the 2ndrespondent inrt spect of the petitioners property admeasuring 200 Sq.yrds bearing Plot No.l29, H.No.62l0/27/8 in Sy.No.55 and 56, Raghavendra Nagar,Jillelguda,Balapur(M),Rar,gareddy District, in a routine manner without mentioning an) reasons while orally informing that that the same is rejecte'l on the ground that the petitioners did not enclose the 'No r bjection certificate'/ Clearance Certificate from the Urbirn Land Ceiling ([ILC) Authority along with the applicrrtion as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart frorrr being contrary to the settled principle laid by this Hon'ble Court in Hyderabad Potteries Case reported in 2001 (3) A -D 600, orders in W.P. No.12798 of 2021 and also ir catena judgements of this Hon'ble Court apart from t'eing in violation of. the provisions contemplated unrler the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 and T.S. bPass A ct, 2020 2 and consequently set aside the same directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioners application without insisting on a No Objection Certificate/ Clearance Certificate from the ULC Authorities or Revenue Authorities and release the sanction plan for the construction of the building in the property and pass.. ."

2. Heard Mr. V.M.M, Chary, leamed counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Singireddy Ravinder Reddy, leamed standing counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. D.V. Chalapathi Rao, leamed Govemment Pleader for Assignment, appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

3. Petitioners claim to be absolute owners and possessors of the property bearing Plot No.129, H.No.6-210127l8, admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey Nos.55 and 56 of Raghavendra Nagar, Jillelguda, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, i.e', subject property, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.l234 of 2014 dated 03.01,2014 from the previous owners Mr. YeddulaPedda Reddy and another. It is stated that the vendors of the petitioners purchased the subject property from Mr. G. Sudharshan Reddy, through registered Agreement-cum- General Power of Attomey videdoutment Nos.15588 and 15589 of I i 3 2Ol2 dated 12.12.2012. Mr. G. Sudharshan Reddy, in tum purchased the subject property through registered sale deed bearing document No.2026 of 1995 dated 28.10.1995 which was developed by Ll/s. Gruha Laxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited. The vendors of the petitioners have obtained building permission for construction of ground + one upper floor and sold the semi- constructed building to the petitioners in the year 11014. Further, petitioners obtained building permission in the Tear 2024 for construction of residential building in the subject prof erty.

4. It is submitted that while petitioners were raking steps to construct the building, a show-cause notice vide Notice No.440985/MERP I 039212024 dated I 8. 1 1.2024 was issued calling upon them to explain as to why the building permis sion granted to them should not be cancelled for indulging in mir;representation. Thereafter, impugned notice vide No.440985/MllRPl0392/2024 dated 03.72.2024 under Section 174(4X10) of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 was issued to the petitioners revoking the building permission granted to them vide order dated 10.10.2024. 4

5. It is submitted that impugned revocation order is contrary to law laid down by this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabadt and the order of this Court in W.P. No.12798 of 2021 dated 13.04.2022, and prayed to set aside the same

6. Leamed standing counsel for respondent No.2 placed on record written instructions and submitted that petitioners applied for building permission for construction of residential building in the subject property through TG-bPASS portal. During the verification, it was found that the subject property of the petitioners was falling in Survey Nos.55 and 56 which is a Urban Land Ceiling land (prohibited property) in Inspector General of Registration and Stamps (IGRS) Telangana portal, as such, show-cause notice dated

18.11.2024 was sent to the petitioners to submit No Objection Certificate (NOC) from ULC Department. Petitioners did not submit NOC, hence, the building permission was revoked. 7 . Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this ' 2ool (3) ALD 600 I I I I .1 5 Court in W.P. No.12798 of 2021 dated 13.04.2022. Petitioners therein are the purchasers of the land admeasuring t454.65 square yards in Block 'B' of Raghavendra Colony in Survey Nos.55 and 56 of Jilleleguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, whic,h was subject matter of ULC proceedings in CC.No.J2l9984l76. The writ petition was hled to declare the action of respondent No.3 t lrerein i.e., The Special Officer, Competent Authority, the District Collector, Urban Land Ceiling Wing, Ranga Reddy District, in notif,irrg their plots as surplus as itlegal, void ab initio, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 19!t9 and for other reliefs. The writ petition was allowed by the order dated 13.04.2022,, where, it was held as under :

12. Leamed counsel for the petitioners has p':inted out that the order under Section 8(4) of the Act was issued on

29.04.1989.The declarant Smt. Habeebunnisa Begu m died on 06.09.1987. Section 8(4) order, as per the record was dispatched to all the legal representatives of the declarant. Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum was indicated as expired in the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. Thus, the respondent No.3 cannot be permitted to contend that the death of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum is not in its knowledg e. 1 6 a-,

13. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clearly shown in the order passed under Section 8(4) order dated 29.04.1987 that Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum expired. The notice under Section 10(5) of the Act dated 03.01.2007 was issued in the name of Smt. Habeebururisa Begum, who was dead by then. Section 10(5) of the Act mandates that notices should be given to the land owner and person in possession of the property. This Court in STATE OF A.P., REVENUE DEPARTMENT V. SMT. A. BHARATHI2 held as under: "... Even otherwise it was brought to our notice that the statutory notices under the Act were issued in the name of dead person which is non est in the eye of law ..." The legal heirs of the declarant were parties to Section 8(1) and Section 8(4) proceedings. The respondent No.3 was well aware of the death of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum. However, for the reasons best known, the respondent No.3 has chosen to issue notice under Section 10(5) to Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum (dead person). Thus, the notice under Section l0(5) and consequential order under Section 10(6) are vitiated and held to be void. Further, proceedings of taking over possession under the guise of panchanama dated 12.03.2007 is nonest in the eye of law. ' zooz (+) aLr E:c (os) 7

8. As seen from the contents of the sale deed vide document No.2026 of 1995 dated 28.10.1995, the predecessor in title of the petitioners Mr. G. Sudershan Reddy purchased the r.;ubject property from Mr. Mirza Habeebulla Baig and others- wh o acquired the property through Hiba (oral gift deed) executed by Mrs. Habeebunnisa Begum, who was the original ovmer of the land admeasuring Acs.48-39 guntas in Survey Nos.33, 34,35,36, 55 and 66 situated at ZilullahGuda (Jillelguda), Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. M/s. Gruha Laxmi Cooperative F:.ousing Society Limited was the confirming party to the sale deed dated 28.10.1995. The title of the petitioners over the subject propert) is traceable to original owner Mrs. Habeebunnissa Begum, who is also the declarant/original pattadar of the land of the petitioner in W.P. No. 12798 of 2021. The order passed by this Court in ( I W.P. No.12798 of 2021 dated 13.04.2022 has been rffirmed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the appeal gr,referred by the State in W.A. No.355 of 2023 dated2l.10.2024.

9. There is no rebuttal by the leamed Govemm,:nt Pleader for Assignment that the petitioners herein and petitioner I I { a , W.P. No. 12798 of 2021 are similarly placed, and both of their title is traceable to original declarant - Mrs. Habeebunnissa Begum.

10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned notice of revocation vide No.440985/\{ERP 1039212024 dated 03.12.2024, and consequently building permit order of the petitioners vide permit No.440985/MERp/039212024 dated 10.10.2024 stands restored. There shall be no order as to As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// t.-,.1 SD!P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA EPUTY REGISTRAR .'- t \ To, SECTION OFFICER Urban Development langana. '1 . The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration Department,secretariat, Hyderabad, The State of

2. Meerpet Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary Revenue U L C' Dept., Secretariat, HYderabad.

4. The Special Officer and Competent Authority, The Collector, Urban Land and Ceiling Wing, Rangareddy District.

5. The District Collector,, Ranga Reddy District. RR 3 to 5 are impleaded as per C.O.dt. 't5.04.2025 in lA No. 3/2025.

6. One CC to SRl. V M M CHARY Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI

8. One CC to S. RAVINDER REDDY S.C FOR MUNCIPAL 9. Two CC to The GP for Assignment , High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT] 10.Two CD CoPies M/ DD LS i I i l i I l l HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 q ( oR 1HE STrTa d 11 JuN z$s * D€.S PAT C r-t(-- ' C ( -.] ,-)/ 4 ORDER WP.No.8656 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b