The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 a The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary', tVunicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner The Deputy Commissioner, Kapra Circle-1 , GHtr/C, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o'f 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 lrr'landamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in revoking the instant approval vide Lr.No. 327336/GHMC116697l2O23 dated 08-1 'l-2023 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in Lr.No.327336/GHIVC/1 6697 12023 dated 08-1 1 -2023 pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: D Padmaia. Wio. D.Jitendra Kumar, Aged about 51 years' Occ Vffi;;,-il/b. il.r.ro. s-e-sr, lndira Nagar, t\'4eerpet Village, (Jppal Kapra Circle, lMedchal-tValakigiri District Stamp Mandal, ..PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 5 The State c,f Telangana. Rep. by its Principal Secret'rry'. Ivlunicipal Administratiorr and Urb-an Development Department. secretarlat. Hy0eraDao TheGreaterl-lyderabadltlunicipalCorporation,TankBund,Fly'derabad'Rep' by its Commisstoner The Deputy Commissioner, Kapra Circle-1, GHIvlC, Hyderabad TheCommis:;ioner,UrbanlandCeiling,ChandraviharComplex,Nampally' Hyderabad. The District Collector, tvledchal-Malkajgiri District' ...RESPONDENTS/PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 ...RESPONDENTS Petition unde,r section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court ma y' be pleased to implead Respondents 4 & 5/Proposed Respondent Nos.4 & 5 herein as RespondentNos.4&5inW.P.No.10983of2024asrvellasinthe tvliscellaneous Petitions. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI I.V.RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA' SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Proposed Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER I (l ORDER: THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.10983 OF 2024 Heard Sri I.V.Radhakrishn Murthy, learned counsel for petitioner, leamed Govt.Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for 1'' respondent, Sri Srinivasa Rao pachwa, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The petitioner herein is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor ofopen plot No. l0 out of plot Nos. l0 and l l to an extent of 183.33 sq.yards out of 352 sq.yards in Sy.No. 70 situated at Cherlapalii Village (old), Ghatkesar Mandal, Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy District which is within the 2,,d respondent Corporation, on the strength of registered sale deed bearing document No. 10407 of 2021, dated.02.07.2021. She has obtained building permit order dated

14.09.2023. The petitioner has not yet commenced construction. 3.d respondent has issued show cause norice dated 06.10.2023 stating that the land in Sy.No.70 of Cherlopalty Viilage falls in ULC. Seven (7) days time was granted to the petitionet.to submit explanation. She has submitted explanation on 08. r0.2023. wirhout considering the same, 3d respondent has revoked the said buirding permit order dated 14.09.2023 vide letter dated 08.11.2023. Challenging the same, the petitic,rLer herein has filed the pre:ent writ petition.

3. In paragraph No.2 of the writ affidavit, the petitioner (rxplained her title. Accordrng to her, initially, Ms.M.Nikitha D/o M.Srir.ivas Goud was. the absolute ,:wner of the plot Nos. 10 and I 1 to an extent of 3 53 sq.yards formin.q parl of Sy.No.70 situated at Chellapally Village (old) Ghatkesar Manctal. Kapra Municipality, Ranga Reddy Distrii:t, otl the strength of registered sale deed bearing document No.7742 of 2000 dated 28.08.2000. She has sold the said property to Smt. Ch..\rchana @ Archana Chindam w/o Srinivas under registered sale det:d bearing document No.3087 of 2003 dated 13.03.2003. Thereafter, D' Gayathri Reddy, D/o .Tithender Kumar purchased the same under registered General Pou'e r ol- Attorney vide document No.2 I 0 I of :l() 18 dated

31.01.2018 florn Smt. Ch.Archana and M.Nikitha. Thercafler, the petitioner has purchased the subject property under the albresaid registered sale deed. On satisffing the prima facie title and possesskrn of the petitioner over the subject property, 2nd respondent 6as issur:d building perrnit order dateci 06. 10.2023 to the petitioner herein Ever.L then, 3'd respondent has issued show cause notice dated 06.10.20-13 to the petitioner herein stating that the land in Sy.No.70 lalls in UL(1. l'here is L no basis for the said allegation made by 3'd respondent in the show cause 3 notice dated 06.10.2023.

4. Perusal of the show cause notice dated 06.i02.023 would reveal that the 3'd respondent has issued said show cause notice stating that the petitioner has obtained building permit order by way of misrepresentation of facts, but he has not mentioned the alleged misrepresentation of the facts by the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the very show cause notice dated 06.10.2023 is without any basis. Therefore, the revocation letter datcd 08.1q.2023 basing on the said allegation is also without any basis. ! I

5. In the light of the same, the impugned revocation order dated

08.1 1.2023 basing on the said allegation is without any basis.

6. This Court vide order dated 15.06.2024 in W.P.No.25080 of 2022 placing reliance on the principle taid down by this Courl in Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector, Hyderabad Districtr held that respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot insist lor NOC fbr granting permission.

7. In the light of the same, this writ petition is disposed of. The impugned revocation order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the 3'd respondent is set aside. However, the petitioner shall proceed with the ' zoo t1;1 aLo ooo 4 construction stlictly in terms of building permit order dated l't -09.2023, failing which. tioerty is granted to the 3'd respondent to take action against the petitroner herein. However, liberly is also granted to the revenue departmcnt and 2nd respondent to take action a'3ainst thc petitioner herein as per law if the subject propefty is covered by LILC. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequt:nt[y, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.SREERA ASSISTANT f,, \\ -- - "r bEcrl MA MURTHY REGISTRAR ON OFFICER 'l rhp PrincioE,l Secretary, tVlunicrpal Administration and Urban Development Oepart.erit Secretariai, Hyderabad State of Telangana '

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporati'ln' Tank Bund' Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy (lommissioner, Kapra Circle-1 , GHMC' Hyderabad 4. The Commissioner, Urban land ceiling, chandravihar cornplex' Nampally, Hyderabad.

5. The District Collector, Ivledchal-Malkajgiri District' 6. One CC to SRI I.V.RADHAKRISHNA tvlURTHY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SR.l SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA, SC FOR GHI/C) IOPUCI 8'TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLAD[\4NURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] g.TwoCCstoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStatelofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

10. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP 6\ HIGH COURT DATED: 0610212025 ORDER WP.No.10983 of 2024 X€ ti Il 16 s{ ,:)t ) 0 6 fiAF zm5 O4. SPAI t : -_== = -t=? f I I ((.( DTSPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ob s