The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Rljection Letter vide Lr No. 009498|GHMC|4723|SEC112023 -BP dated 19-04-2025 which was issued pursuant to the ear ier Shortfall lntimation Letter dated 19-O9-2023, for construction of a residential building consisting of 1 Cellar + 1 Stilt | 5 Upper Floors in land admeasuring 2480 Sq Yards in Plot No. 2, T.S./Sy. Nos. 31 and 32, situated at Bakaram Village, l\,4usheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad District Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PORIKA CHANDANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following: ORDER SC FOR GHMC V l HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12656 OF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamusdeclaring the action ol the Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 2 in rcjecting the Petitioner's building permission through Rejection Letter vide Lr No. 009498 /GHMC/4723 lSgCtlZOZl-Sp dated 19-04-2025 which was issucd pursuant to the earlier Shortfall Intimation Letter dated 19-09-2023, for construction ola residential buitding consisting of I Cellar + I Stilt + 5 Upper Floors in land admeasuring 2480 Sq. Yards in Plot No. 2 T.S./Sy Nos' 3 t & 32, situated at Bakaram Village, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad District (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject Property'). without considering ihe Pctitioner's reply dated 19-02-2025 to the shortiall intimation and orders of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 19865 of 2023 dated 26-Oi -2023, and by repeatedly raising new and extraneous grounds from time to time as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and also in violation of the principles of natural justiceand Article 2l & 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct to the Respondent No.2 issue/grant the building permission to the Petitioner for construction of residential building consisting of I Cellar + I Stilt + 5 Upper floors in Plot No. 2, T.S./Sy No. 3l & 32 situated at Bakaram Village, Musheerabad Mandal, I'Iyderabad District and pass" '"

2. It is stated that the subject property was originally owned by Mr. Haji Mohd. Ibrahim and 18 others, who sold the same to Mr. Gaddam Narayana Reddy S/o Narasimha Reddy under registered sale deed bearing document No.264 of 1958 Fasli corresponding to 1948. Later, the said property was purchased by Mr' C'Mallaiah S/o Mr. C.Venkataiah under registered sale deed bearing document --1 2 No.204 of 1960 lrom Mr. Gaddam Narayana Reddl' Mr. C.\4allaiah constructed structures over the subject property b1, obtaining valid building pernission from the then Assistant Commissioner, Circle-6, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad vide File No908-8/4/l/70 and Permit No.8/19 dated 10.12.1971, and the subjecr property was assigned Door No. I -4-908/tl in his name. It is stated that the existence of shed over the subiect properry was duly acknowledged in the Urban Land Ceiling (UL()) proceedings, wherein the land was recorded as'covered by structures' and being used for a timber depot

3. It is stated that Mr. C.Mallaiah died on 26.12.1979, and prior to his death, he exe:uted a will deed dated,07.02.1979 bequeathing the subject property in lirvour of his wife Ms. Laxmamma and five (5) daughters, namely Ms. Y.Suvama, Ms. G.Rukmini Bai, Ms. B.Nirmala, Ms. N.Anasu'za, and Ms. D.Kavitha. Thereafter, Ms. f.axmamma passed away on 19.()1.2009, and her share devolved upon her 5 daughters. Subsequently, all the legal heirs of Ms. Laxmamma executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and Mr. Vishal Doshi bearing document No.27l of 2020 dated 04.06.2()20. That during the liletime or'Mr. C.Mallaiah, he filed a declaration under Section 6(l) 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'Act 1976') with respect to the subject property; enquiry was conducted and the Special Officer and Competent Authority passed proceedings No.W4294176 dated 12.04.1997 categorically declaring the land as private property and held that the structures on the land along with the abutting land non-surplus land under the ULC Act. It is submitted that during the lifetime of Ms. Laxmamma, she apptied for building permission on

09.04.2001, which was rejected vide Lr.No.F3/I819/2001 dated 16.05.2001. Aggrieved thereby, Ms. Laxmamma filed W.P. No. 3959 of 2002 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 26.04.2002 directing the GHMC to consider her application without insisting No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the District Collector or other revenue authorities. However, as the order was not complied with, Ms. Laxmamma filed C.C. No.l6l0 of 2004, which was closed by order dated 29.12.2004 granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the GHMC's decision by availing appropriate remedies under law. It is submitted that the petitioner and his family members did not have experience in legal matters and due to their vulnerable position, the subject property was given flor development to one Mr. G.C, Shekar Babu under Development r,E,- ;18,. - "-'1 4 Agreement-cum-General Power of Attomey (DAGpA). The said builder, Mr. G.C. Sltekar Babu, without informing or consulting the sisters and without their consent, applied for regularisation of the subject property under G.O. lMs. No. 166, Revenue (Assignment pOT) Department, dated t6.02.2008.

4. It is srrbmitted that the owners/sisters were completely unaware of the builder's application, which was dismissed later on the erroneous ground that the subject property was referred to as .Government reserved for public purposes'. That upon discovering the said fact, the owners ol the subject property filed W.p. No.12855 of 2Ol2 and interim orde - dated 13.08.2012 was passed directing the respondent authorities nct to interfere with the possession ofthe petitioner. The said writ petition was finally disposed of on 09.07.2024 giving liberty to the owners of the subject property to avail appropriate remedies under the law whenever the new cause arose. While so, the owners of the subject property executed a General power of Attonrey in favour of Mr. C.G. Sajj rn Kumar, who thereafter submifted a fiesh application for building pernrission through File No.002159/GHMC/I O71/SECL/2OZ\- BP dated 25.(t2.2023. However, a shortfall intimation was issued yrZe 5 Lr No. 002 I 5 9/GHMC/ I 07 5 I SEC I I 2023 -BP dated 0 1.0 5.2023, calling for clarification on the flow of title in respect of the subject properfy. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 25.07.2023 to the said shonfall addressing all deficiencies as pointed out. It is submitted that despite the comprehensive reply submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 rejected the application vide rejection letter bearing Lr.No.002 I 59/GHMC/075/SEC I 12023 -BP dated 08.06.2023. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed W.P. No.19865 of 2023 before this Court, which was partly allowed vide order dated 26.07.2023 by relying on earlier order dated 20.06.2022 in W.P. No.36387 of 2021; the shortfalls i) and ii) as pointed out were set aside and the petitioner was directed to comply with shortfalls (iii) and (iv). The said order attained finality as the respondents did not prefer any appeal to challenge the same.

5. It is submitted that pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in W.P. No.19865 of 2023 dated 26.07.2023, the petitioner submitted representation dated 18.08.2023 to respondent No.2 enclosing all required documents and complying with shortfalls (iii) and (iv) However surprisingly, respondent No.2, instead of granting building 6 permission, issued a fresh Shortfall Intimation Letter dated 19.09.2023 raising five shortfalls. The petitioner submitted detailed reply dated

19.02.2025 rddressing each shortfall, however, without considering the same, respondent No.2 once again issued the impugned rejection letter vide Lr.No.009498/GLfrvICl4723/SECll2023-BP dated 19.04.2025 rejecting his building application.

6. It is srrbmitted that the shortfall (i) is unsustainable as registration of will deec is optional as per Section 18(e) of the Registration Act,

1908. In re1;ard to the shortfall (ii), it is stated that rhe same cannot be considered zls the petitioner is not a party to the S.L.P. (Civil) Diary No.16389 of 2023 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Moreover, status quo order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not operate as a stay or suspension of the order in W.P. No.36387 of 2021. Shortfall (iii r was with regard to "submission of sketch plan showing the built-up arez, before and after transfer of setbacks", had already been addressed in the petitioner's reply dated 19.02.2025. It is submitted that apart from the five shortfalls, the impugned rejection letter dated

19.04.2025 was passed mentioning trivial grounds such as the requirement that the ramp shall be within the building line, the corridor ..* 7 shall have a minimum width of 2 meters etc., which the petitioner is willing to comply with all such requirements un-der law. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the shortfall intimation letter dated 19.09.2023 and the rejection letter dated 19.04.2025 are contrary to the order dated

26.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P No. 19865 of 2023 and the law laid down by this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector Hyderabad Districtl.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, basing on the written instructions, submitted that the building application of the petitioner will be considered subject to the outcome of the S.L.P.(Civil) No.17904 of 2023 fied by the owner ofthe neighbouring site.

8. Leamed Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Ch. Vinoda.and others wherein it was held as under: "6. . .Further, the order of status quo granted by the Supreme Court either as an interim measure or as part ofthe final order, was only in relation to the possession over the land, that between the parties thereto. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the pendency of the S.L.P. or the direction issued therein, can come to the rescue of the respondents, to press into service the second proviso to Section 6 of the Act, vis-a-vis the land ol the petitioners..." ' (2001) scc online AP 397 -@;..:-l '*UH-.:,r-, ffiHii' 8

9. It is bome out from the record, the subject property 1n W.P. No.363 87 of 2021 forms part of Survey Nos.3 1 and 32 co-related to T.S. No.13/ , 1412, 1413, 19,2511,2512 of Block-A, Ward No.67, of Bakaram Village. The subject property herein is also in Survey Nos.3l and 32. W..). No.36387 of 2021 was filed challenging the proceedings bearing Lr..rlo.E 1/333 I 8512021 dated, 27 .10.2021 where under the District Coll:ctor Hyderabad District declared the land admeasuring 4616 square yards, out of 8263 square yards as Government land and the inaction of the GHMC in processing the building permission of the petitioner therein on the basis of the letter of the District Collector, Hyderabad cated 27.10.2021. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 20.06.2022 setting aside the impugned proceedings therein following the judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries' case (supra) in rt:spect of the subject property therein. The order dated

20.06.2022 rvas affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 06.01.11023 in W.A. No.30 of 2023. Thereafter, status quo ordet dated 11.08.11023 was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1 i'904 of 2023. The status quo order operares inter se parties as held in the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh in Governmenl ofAndhra Pradesh and others' case (supra). The subject I property herein is also sihrated in Survey Nos.31 and 32, Bakaram Village, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad District. Thus, the petitioner is similarly placed as that of the peritioner in W.p. No.363g7 of 2021.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The rejection letter vide Lr.No.009498 IGIIFi4CI 47 23 ISEC t/2023_Bp dated 19.04.2025 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the building application of the petitioner without reference to the shortfall (i) and (ii) of the shortfall intimation letrer dated 19.09.2023, and by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to cos1s. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. SD/. . GOWRI S HANKA H. SI TANT RE //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2 3 4 6 DeveloPment The PrinciDal Secretary tvlunicipal Administration and Urban Oeoartment, Secretariat. T S,HVderabad i;5 a;;;i;ti;r.i, c|.",t"inv'ieriuio tvtunicipal corporati Telanoana State. ff f BJ:iEf ffi Em,'i'H^'ii6^^tt!"f aNJPJ^'fi,D,RBAN DEv;ioPi/EN,.,sne.:liiJiftrFt","JI'lt"tae';il3i33to"rto"' One CC to SRl. G- MADI Two CD CoPies BIU GJP on, Hyderabad, Yy CC TODAY . - - -=::r-:::q.- _ + |-, \ - ,j,,1 ,: .,:,J. . - (.,/' .. ".. /"' -'1" 1- ._. ' 'lti lffi r;' HIGH COIJRT DATED:1tt10912025 ORDER WP.No.12656 of 2025 -''i //.'<; '1; t" l; r2t'- \ . .r. "a/" u ALLOWII\IG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q c6{>\c't5 ;56a: