Kethireddy S-rilatha v. part of Mini Singirrore Colony

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VENUMADHAV Counsel for the F es;pondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN IJRBAN DEV Counsel for the Res;pr:ndent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Gourt made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITIO N No.9785 oF 202s ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner sqeking to declare the revocation orders passed by respondent No.2 in Notice No.453927/POCHlO692t2O24, dated Ot.O2.2O2S, without giving opportunity of hearing to her, as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the rand admeasuring 280 square yards, equal to 234 square meters, in plot No.72 in Survey Nos.73 parl, 14 part, 75 part, 76 part and g3 part of Mini Singapore Colony, Annojiguda Village, pocharam Gram Panchayat, now in pocharam Municipal Limits, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (now in Medchal Malkajgiri District), having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.6552 oI 2004, dated 12.05.2004. She submitted the application dated 25.11.2024 to TG-bpass for building permission. vrue permit No.453927/POCHl06g2t2024, dated 25.11.2024, the petitioner was accorded permission for construction of Stilt for parking + 1 upper floor.

3. lt is submitted that the show cause notice dated 24.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner cailing for her explanation within seven days as to why her building permission shall not be revoked for I I i I I I 2 production 01' false statements and misrepresenlation cf facts. The petitioner ras submitted expIanation to the shor.r, ca use notice. However rvitrcul considering her explanation anl r,t,itho.rt giving an opportunity oI lrearing to her, the impugned order d;tted 07.02.2025 was passecl r':voking the building permission.

4. Hr:ard 1\1r. K. Venu l/adhav, learned counsel for tl-re petitioner, and Mr )ut:zr Krishna Reddy, learned Sta"ding ( )ounsel for Municipalitir;s appearing for respondent No.2, a1d t,erused the material availabie on record.

5. L<".arn ed counsel for respondent No.2 Munic;ioalil / submitted that during p<x;l. verification after building permiss on wa:. granted, it was founc t'rat in Survey Nos.73 to 76 and 83, whereirr the, petitioner's plot is situatec, there is a civil dispute, as such, shour c;lusr, notice was issued anrl thorerafter the impugned revocation order raras passed.

6. Learnt:,J counsel for the petitioner submittr:d that though the petitioner has :;.rbmitted reply/explanation to the shclv ceruse notice, the same hasr rot been considered and it is merrel,t stirted in the impugned rr;v:cation order that the reply of the petrtionr:r is found unsatisfacto"y. Further, the petitioner was not given an opcortunity of hearing. I 'i I I .r. J

7. ln view of the above, without entering into the merits of the case, but for the reason that specific reasons have not been pointed out by respondent No.2 in the impugned revocation order, the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not been referred to and that pendency of the civil suit in the above survey numbers is not the ground on which the revocation order is passed, in the opinion of this court, the impugned order suffers from vioration of principres of naturar justice. B. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned revocation order. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for passing fresh orders pursuant to the show cause notice dated 24.12.2024, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. SO/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTR^AR I/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Secretariat Buildings, The State of Telang ana, H Mandal, Medchal Malkajsiri District

1. The PrinciP al Secretary to the MuniciPal Admin 2. The Commissioner, The Pocharam Muni cipality, Pocharam ProPer and 3. OneCC to Sri K. Venum adhav, Advocate I 4. TwoCCsto GP for Municlpal Administration Urban DeveloPment, High Court ana, at HYd erabad [OUT] for the State of Tela Krishna Redd y, SC for Mun icipalities[OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Putta 6. Two CD CoPies n Department, oPUCI TJ PSK. M - ':. .-:' '-)' A tiN ?$S \1 l I C) :.) o C) 2t :,'' HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:27 t0il2025 I I i I I I I I ORDER WP.No.9785 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CI]STS ( ,\ I