High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus, declaring the lmpugned Revocation Letter vide Notice No.494309/DUND/023912025, dated 05 06.2025, issued by the respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice and against all settled principles of law, and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 lmpugned Revocation Letter vide Notice No. 494309/DUND1023912025, dated 05.06.2025, issued by the respondent No.2, and thereby direct the respondent No.2 herein not to interfere with the construction activities of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring 150 Sq. Yds., situated at StreeURoad No.10, Locality. GLC Cribs, Survey No. 170/3, Mallampet (V), Dundigal-Gandimaisarrima (M), Medchal-Malkajgiri (District), Telangana, which is being carried out as per the Building Permit Order daled 24.03.2025, pending disposal of the marn writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NIDUMOLU NAGALAXMI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC EOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETTTION No.16756 OF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is hled by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 ih issuing the revocation order vide Notice No.494309/DLIND/02392025 dated 05.06.2025, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

2. Heard Mrs. Nidumolu Nagalaxmi, Ieamed counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.2.

3. It is claimed that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 150 square yards in Survey No.l70/3 situated at Street/Road No.10, Locality: GLC Cribs, Mallampet Village, Dundigal Gandimaismma Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.26826 of 2023 dated 05.10.2023. Petitioner applied for building permission through TG-bPASS vide application No.494309/DUND1023912025 dated 24.03.2025 by 2 .i submitting all relevant documents for construction of Stilt for parking and two (2) upper floors residential building, and he was granted instant approval. petitioner waited for statutory period of twenty one (21 ) days to commence the construction of building. Thereafter, he commenced construction in the subject property. 4 It is submitted that after about sixty (60) days, respondent No.2 issued show-cause notice vide Notice No.494309IDUND /023912025 d,ated 24.05.2d25 informing the petitioner the below findings: "the site is not traced out locality and verified the submitted documents some shortfalls. Submit latest EC and Market Value and layotrt copy with master plan extract certificates. Hence the proposals are rejected.,, It is submitted that on receipt of show_cause notice dated 24.05.2025, petitioner submitted alr relevant documents and informed respondent No.2 that site of the petitioner was not inspected by any officials. 5 It is further submitted that as petitioner was not able to upload his reply to the show-cause notice in online portal, he has submitted 3 I / his explanation to respondent No.2 orally, thereafter, impugned revocation order dated 05.06.2025 was passed revoking the building permission issued to the petitioner.

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned revocation order is illegal as ofhcials of respondent No.2 have not visited the property ofthe petitioner. It is submitted that adjoining property admeasuring 120 square yards owned by M/s. Sri Vinayaka Realtors and Developers was'sanctioned building permission under Ex.Pl3, letter of approval for commencement of work under Ex.P14, and building is under construction. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the schedule of the property in registered Agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document No.644 of 2024 dated 06.01.2024, wherein, the subject property of the petitioner is shown as southem boundarv.

1. Thus, according to leamed counsel for the petitioner when adjoining plot was sanctioned building permission, the action of 1 4 respondent No.2 in issuing show-cause notice and subsequently the revocation order is arbitrary and without application of mind.

9. Leamed standing counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that petitioner has not fumished proper documents and reply to the show-cause notice dated 24.05.2025. ff Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, and considering that adjoining property of the petitioner was sanctioned building permission, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned revocation order issued by respondent No.2 vrde Notice No.494309/DUND1023912025 dated 05.06.2025. Further, the petitioner is directed to give detailed explanation to the show-cause notice dated 24.05.2025,, by furnishing all his title documents and also the documents of adj acent land owner i.e., IWs. Sri Vinayaka Realtors and Developers. On receipt of such explanation, the concerned offrcials of respondent No.2 are directed to inspect the subject property of the petitioner, and orders shall be passed by respondent No.2, by giving opportunity of hearing to them. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of twenty one 5 (21) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. JAYASREE EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER rban Development tion an van, Secretariat Building, The

1. The Principal Secreta Department (l\4AUD), State of Telangana, Hyderabad. D Municipal Administra r. B.R.Ambedkar Bha

2. The Municipaltommi6sioner, Dindigal Municipal Corporation, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

3. One C0 to Sri Nidumolu Naqalaxmi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Municipdl Administration Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telanqana, At Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC lo Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, SC for Municipalities[OPuC] 6 Two CD Copies To, TJ BS t-:ri I I r:;r,r 2[il5 '.t.,. ), ''li ::i HIGH COURT DATED:19 t06t2O2S ORDER WP.No.16756 of 2OZs ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ lur-