High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lnd.ia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No 3 in rejecting the application 1o. H524000045'19 dated 30-10-2024 fot conversion of the agricultural land admeasuring 2240.50 Square Yards comprising of BB2 Square Yards in Plot No. 26 984.50 Square yards in Plot No. 16 170 Square yards in PIot No. 15 and204 Square yards in Plot No. 25, in Survey No. 159, situated at Narsingi, Gandipet Mandal. Ranga Reddy for non-agricu ltural purpose under the 7/. provisions of tlre ,\( t No 19 of 2O2O as illegal and arbitrary arrd contrary to the provisions of the A r No 19 of 2020 and in violation of the Article '14 and 300 A of Constitution of InJir and consequently direct the Respondent No 3 to issue proceedings for r:O - version or the land in respect of land adn ea suring 2240'50 Square Yards cortrts ng of BB2 Square Yards in Plot No. il6 984.50 Square yards in Plot No. 1i 1 ;'O Square yards in Plot No. 15 and 20'1 {:;quare yards in Plot No. 25, in Sit "ey No. '1 59, situated at Narsingi, Gandip':t IVlandal. Ranga Reddy for non-r(lr ( I tural purpose under the provisions ofthe,\c No 19 of2020 lA NO: 1 OF 202f; Petition .rrc r: Sr-.ction 151 CPC praying that in the circun.rstances stated in the affidavit fiiel n siuppo( of the petition, the High Court rra','be pleased to direct the Resoc,rrir:nt No 3 to reconsider the applicatron no -'1S2400004519 dated 30-'10-202,1 irespect to the conversion of the land adnrezrsuring 2240.50 Square Yards corr5 risrng of 882 Square Yards in Plot No. 26; 984.50 Square yards in Plot No 1a,170 Square yards in Plot No. 15 and 20'4 {:;quare yards in Plot Nq. 25, in Str '.'ey No 159, situated at Narsingi, Gandipr:t lVIandal, Ranga ffeddy for non-agr r; rltural purpose under the provisions of the Acl No 19 of 2QtS pending disposa ()l 'he Wr't Petition Counsel for the Pr:titiorrer: SRl. MALIPEDDI SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the fl,:sporrdents: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Y' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI{AR R.EDDY UIRIT PETITION No.127Ol of 2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of -the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: ". . .. to issue a utrit, order or direction more particrlarlg one in nature of Wit oJ Mandomus decloring the action of the respondent No.3 in rejecting the application No.HS24OOOO4S19 dated 30.10.2024 for conuersion of the agicultural land admeasuing 2240.50 Square Yards comprising of 882 Square Yards in Plot No.26; 984.50 Square gards in PLot No.16; 17O Square yords in Plot No.l5 and 204 Square gards in Plot No.25 in Suruey No.159 situoted at Norsingi, Gandipet Manda[ Ranga Reddg for nonagicultural purpose under the proui.sions of the Act No 19 of 2020 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the prouisions of the Act No 19 of 2020 and in uiolation of the Article 14 and 3OO A of Con stitution of India and consequentlg direct the respondent No.3 [o issue proceedings for conuersion or the land in respect of land admeasuing 2240.50 Squctre Yards compising of 882 Square Yards in Plot No.26; 984.50 Square gards in Plot No.16; 170 Square yards in Plot No.15 and 204 Square gords in Plot No.25 in Suruey No-159 situoted at Narsingi, Gctndipet Manda| Ranga Reddg for nonagriculturol purpose under the prouisions of the Act No 19 of 2020....'

2. Considered the submissions of Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3. It is stated that the petitioners are the owners and possessors land admeasuring 2240.5O Square Yards comprising 2 of 882 Squa., yards in plot No.26; 9B4.SO Square .rarrls in plot No.16; 170 grr1.rar-e yards in plot No.15 arrd 204 Sq-irrr< yards in Plot No.2 5 rr S -rrvey No. 159 situated at Narsin gL, Gandipet Mandal, l?z.Lr L I a Reddy, having purchased thr: sarne through registered s.a ,' rlg6d bearing document No. 10r54 or 1rc 19 dated O4.O9.2019 f - _m its lau.ful owners. It is further stilled that the petitioners I Lave obtained building pr:rmis:;ic n No.BA.No. )f\/ .021-22, dated 30.O4.202I a;-rd r:orLstructed building slrr< 11v' i.-r accordance with the sanctionec plzn. It is further statel tlLat under the Revised Buikling I?r les, the petitioners a t.c rerluired to mortgage 1 0ol, of thr: pro ::o r;ed total built up ?tr2( in favour of the Hyderabad Vetr.opolitan Developmen t r\ uthority (HMDA) with an undertaking t ,rat they would consl r tc t tn accordance with the sanctione,l p an, and executed sirnirr : rtortgage deed vide document No.!)Ii7 of 2O2l dated 11.()1.,lr Il l, and further, the Hyderabacl tvl:tropolitan Developmenr r\ utlLority (HMDA) obtained additional X Iortgage Deed in resp(','. of NALA Act, 2006 vide documenr, \o.9SB of 2O2l dated )1.2021 by mortgaging an additionaL [jo.,, in the proposed tctal lrUilt up area. It is further stated tllat the additional rn( r ' ga ",e deed is varid till the IIM t ,q issues Occupancy rlrr tillcate and thereafter, the morlgtg,r deed wtla:eraw ....: .yI 3 executed by the petitioner automatically becomes invalid for enforcement. It is further case of the petitioners that after issuance of the Occupancy Certificate dated 23.O3.2024, they have submitted application to the authorities to release lO%o of the total built up area under Mortgage Deed and 5% of the total built up area under Additional Mortgage Deed, whereas the additional 5% of the total area was not released stating that they have to obtain No Objection Certihcate (NOC) under the NALA Act, 2006 as a conditional precedent for release of mortgage deed. It is stated in the said circumstances, the petitioners submitted an application No.HS24OOO04519, dated 30.10.2024 for issuance of the proceedings to enable the petitioners to obtain the release deed from the HMDA, but till date no action has been taken by the respondents

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondents having verified that the nature and classification of the lands granted building permission and they have also collected layout regul arizalion charges and other charges payable to the local authorities but they are insisting to obtain NOC under the provisions of NALA Act, 20O6 for releasing mortgaged property. It is further submitted that without 4 (- considerirlg , 1r : provisions of the NALA Act, 2O05, tlrr. a cplication submittec tt.. Jte petitioners was rejected without rrs;sir;ning any valid reasotrr; anil the orders impugned in the rvrit pe.tition are not incons;o r-r: tcc u,ith the provisions of NALA Ac1, il rlir;charging the statut,)r.v rnr:tions and the same is tiable to be set erside.

5. As pe: !,,rctron 6 of the NALA Act, 2006, if an\ :rg..icultural land has t,ecn pu._ to non_agricultural purpose rvil[1y111 .rbtaining the permrr;s ic,:: as; required under Section 3, the l;rnd shall be deemed tc h:re, teen converted into non-agricrultr r r zrl purpose and upon sr,:'': ,leemed conversion, the competen. rtrthoritv shall imposr. r .ine of 500/o over ald above the converriio e tax for the said lanrl :r terified under Section 4 in such mattner as may be prescnbe.d. t\ careful reading of the said l)ro\ 1s lo r rvould reveai tha t i , 1:ersons who have not obtal_red ::o,.rversion permission fc,r I on,,,ersion of agricultural land to non aqricuitural land are liertrk br penalty of 5o% as conversion tax .nrr in the event of the 'pp icants complying with the sard r:c ndrtion, inevitably, 11-r,: . :spondents shall pass appropriate ord _.rs on the conversion rrpg J i :at ion.

6. Since tl-r: petitioners have obtained building perrnission and paid 5o/o 01 r1e total built up area under Addition:ri M crtgage 5 Deed, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for granting permission under the provisions of the NALA Act, 2006 without assigning valid reasons in not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside.

7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if respondent No.3-Tahsildar is directed to examine the claim of the petitioners for granting permission under the provisions of the NALA Act, 2006, and if the petitioners are found not eligible, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners. If the petitioners are willing to pay the penalty amount as per Section 6 of the NALA Act, 2006, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the same in accordance with law.

8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed S /.T. TIRUMALA DEVI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 tariat, Building, The Principal Secretary, Revenue, Department, S T.S..Hvderabad Districl z tr'""'oi'.i'-Li6iIt.ctor, Ra nga Reddy District Ranga.Reddv District' 3 The Tahsitdar, cum Lo,ni'Sli-n'"-S'iitrar, 4. ffi;'6b to sRl. MALIPEpDI sRlNlvAS-REDDY,.Aflvocate [qPycl ; il; Eds, t" cp ron nEvEr.ruE Hyderabad [OUT] 6. Tivo CD CoPies q.V "irign -CinO ip.i MandaI Ranga Reddy court for rhe State of Telansana at i I I I i I \ HIGH COUR]' DATED:2514,412025 ORDER WP.No.127A1 of 2025 DISPOSING IOF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *--T 3Dl I .--=1= -, rf- i 14 l' {\\ 2u5 ;.i ..i '..- - , ''?- . -:;/ -.i' -a---' €