Bll.X3'g"*i:',InT?:i.f,l?eY'-'Sfli:+f l!fu i v. l.TheStateofTelangana

Petition unrl,:'gs511s. 151 cpc praying that in the circurs,tances stated in the affidavit fileC i. support of the petition, the High Court nrar,, be pleased to suspend the impurl'sd Revocation Notice No.42 l5 oTtNZpTlo,)_agl 2024, dated 16_ 01-2025 issued br the respondent No.2 incruding the direction to the respondent Nos 2 not to interrre re vrith the with the construction over his p ot Bearing No.34, admeasuring 200 I .Sq.yards., in Sy.No.100 revised Sv.No 100 8,, Situated at Nizampet Villa.qe, ?achupally Mandal, Under Nizampet Muni;ipat Corporation, Medchal- Malkajgrir I)is11;61, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the petir:ioner: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDOy counser for the Rer;,ondent No.1: cc rcin'ivlcFi'abr,a* * uRr3A N DEV counser for the Res;irona.n,.io.i' sir'iwii,"[irlnrua neoov, sc FoR MPCL The Court made the .ollowing: ORDER /..... HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16002 oF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in revoking his building permission vide revocation notice No.42 lsOlNZPTlO2ggl2Oz4 dated 16'01'2025 in respect of the Plot No.34, admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey No.l00 (revised Survey No'100'B'), situated at Nizampet Village' Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District' without any valid reason, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional'

2. Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Municipality; and perused the material on record' Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

3. the owner of the subject property bearing Plot No'34' admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey No'100 (revised Survey No'100'8" situated at Nizampet Village, Bachupally Mandal' Medchal-Malkajgiri District having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.16343 of 2024 dated 22'06'2W5" The petitioner submitted application vide No'4215 O7lNZPTtO2g9l2O24 dated 29'07'2024 fot 2 building pen ri ;sion before respondent No.2; building pellission was accorded 1o tire oetitioner and accordingly he started constrrrction in the subject procert r'. Leamed counsel submitted that short, i:ause notice dated 03.01.2 )l 5 rvas issued to the petitioner calling up,rrL h,nr to submit his explanatio t as to why his building permission carurot be revoked within a pelic<l of seven (7) days as he obtained the buildin,; permission by misreprese'rrr a,tion of facts. In the show cause notice. Lt j s stated that there is le6;al ,1i;pute with regard to the property of the pe -iti,rner and the petitioner neerl:, to submit legal opinion from the Municipal Standing Counsel. 1'lLc p:titioner submitted his explanation on 10.01 2025 to the said shou,caus< notice. Thereafter, the impugned order datec 16.01.2025 under Section I 7 4(4)(10) of the Telangana Municipalities ,A.r:t, 201 9 was passed revok n : r-he building permission granted in far our of the petitioner rr i h the following remarks: "the subnt;tted ov'nership documents thr.' thc site legal dispute. The applicant nte),ubmit legal opinion frc'nt l,lS'C Hence, the proposals may be recornn,e,nded. Basing on the ab('\'(, t't'tnorks of Section Head and Sectiort O1/i:et, the file is rejected. " 3

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submitted that show cause notice does not point out what is the legal dispute based on which building permission is sought to be revoked' Further, if legal opinion is to be obtained by respondent No.2 Corporation, thei are at liberty to do so but they cannot insist the petitioner to obtain legal opinion from the Municipal Standing Counsel. Thus' the show cause notice and the impugned revocation order are vague'

5. As seen from the record, the vendor of the petitioner purchased the subject property from the previous owner under registered sale deed bearing document No. 3925 of 2020 dated 14'02'2020 who in tum purchased the same from her predecessor-in-title under registered sale deed bearing document No.14271 of 2006 dated 20'04'2006' The petitioner applied for Layout Regularization in respect of the subject I property and vide proceedings dated 09'04'2025, the subj ect property was I , regularized. The show cause notice and the impugned revocation order do not specifically point out the reason for revoking the building permission accorded to the petitioner' Assuming that there is legal dispute, the same needs tq 'be specified ,in the show cause notice/ revocation order. Without giving any deiails of the legal dispute, \ 4 show cause rctici: should not have been issuecl to rhe. petitioner. Thus, the sh.^'' , :ause notice and the impugned revocatiorr rrrd er are liable to be set asii[r:

6. In the cir: umstances, this writ petition is allowed. The shorv cause notice datt:cl 0\ 01.2025 and the impugned revocation order vide revocation rro'ir e' No-421507N2PT1029912024 dated 16.01.2025 are accordingly se r Lside. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to iss:e fresh show cause notic,: b., ziving specific details of the dispute wirh re gard to the title and docunllnts of the petitioner and pass orders in ac.or.dance with law. There shai be no order as to costs. As a seq ri I thereto, miscellaneous applications, if .rrv, pending in this writ petitio:r ;r and Qlosed. SD/- MOMINA MEHAR ASSISTANIT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SEC TION OFFICER To District. 1 . The Prinr;ipa l;ecretary (MAUD), Secretariat, Hyderabad Stat:: o{ Telangana i. iii; d;;i":s,tcner, rui2a'mpbl rrilntiiparcorfor'ation, lVledcral.Malkajgiri 3. 5il.C.C tC SITI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY' AdVOCAIE [C)FU(;] . ; i;; dd.j,i:;' ron rracpi-AovrN a UnenN DEV, Hish cou't for the state s. 6.;CCi; ii.ii'lirrA fuisrirln deoov, sc FoR MPCL [oruc] 6. Two CD CoPie s of Telanqan;r at Hyderabad. IOUTI PSK PSK HIGH COURT DATED:13101i12025 I3C TODAY ORDER WP.No.16001l of 2025 l.' 1 ti: s ra, 14: , I \ I : ,, -'? ' \, li ,liit,t 26 r !,i t: { fai\ ALLOWING I'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS )