The 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 a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that a)Order of the 2nd respondent titled as T'S'b pass rejection letter in file No. 00368/ BP/ HMDAi 0765/ SMD/ 2024 dated04'05'2024 as illegal and arbitrary and is suffering from non application of mind' b)That the petitionersareentitledtobegrantedB.P.astheirapplicationiscompliantinall respectsincludingsetbackssituatediprescribed/required.c)ThatrelectionIof Building permission by order dated 04.05.2024 is violation of Article 14' 21 ahd 300A of the Constitution of lndia' 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 direct the respondents no.1 & 2 to forthwith reconsider the Building Permission application of the petitioner without reference to existing abutting road width but based on abufting road width as per the master plan pending disposal of the Writ Petition. counserrorthePetitio""'':"Ti,t:l',}5X?="*rXthT*"^t*Y*ttt' Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SMT.D.MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3&4 : SRI S.ABHAY KUMAR SAGAR, SC FOR MUN]CIPALITY The Court made the following: ORDER --=y // ORDER: THE HON,BLE SRI ]USTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petitio n No.18252 of 2024' This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: 'It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that: a) Order of the 2nd respondent titled as "TS-bPass rejection letter" in file No.00368/BP/HM DAI 07 65ISMD 12024 dated 04'05'2074, as illegal and arbitrary and is suffering from non-application of mind' b) That the petitioners are entitled to be granted B-P as their application is compliant in all respects including setbacks situated/prescribed/ required. c) That rejection of Building Permission by order dated 04'05'2024 is violation of Article 14,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India' d) and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case '

2. Heard Sri M.surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel' representing Sri Vijay B.Paropakari, learned counsel for the petitioners' learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Smt' D'Madhavi. learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No'2, and Sri S'Abhay Kumar SagBr' learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos 3 and 4 and perused the record. 2 Contention of the l's: 3 The l't petitioner claims to be the owner oF land admeasuring Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.1 situated at Bonguluru Viilage, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.anga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed, vide Document No.2264/2003 dt.03.06.2003; that out of the said land, an extent of Ac.0.13 guntas was acquired by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for laying Outer Ring Road (ORR), vide proceedings; dt.25.05.2007; and that the ls petitioner is now left with balance land admeasuring Ac.0.27 guntas e{uivalent to 2521.16 square metres. 4' The ['t petitioner further contend that intencJing to construct a commercial building consisting of two cellars, one ground floor and five upper floors, with a height up to 24 metres along with 2n" petitioner as developer, had approached the 2nd respondent and submitted an application on 22.02.2024 for grant of building permission by preparing the drawings as per the Master plan notified by the 1,r respondent in relation to the setback norms prescribed by uploading the !,ame on the development portal prescribed under the TS_bpass Act, :2020. 5. Petitioners further contend that on making of the saicl application and submission of the drawings under Single Window Mechanism prescribed uncler the Ts_bpass Act, the said application was processed and the petitioners were called upon to pay a sum of Rs'93,906/- including therein a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards application fee; that they had paid the aforesaid amount on 08.04.2024; and that on payment of the fee prescribed, the petitioners'application was assigned with File No'003698/ BP/HMDA/0765/SMD 12024 dated 04.05'2024' It is the fudher case of the petitioners that on payment of the 6. prescribed fee and the assignment of file number, the 4th respondent had inspected the subject site, on 20.04.2024, and found the application and the drawings of the proposed construction submitted to be in accordance with the building rules notified.

7. petitioners also contend that after the 4th respondent causing inspection on 20.04.2024, the petitioners were called to the office of the 2nd respondent on23.04.2024, whereat the petitioners had submitted their explanation with regard to the existing width of the road of nine metres being an impediment for considering the sanction of building permission by showing that as per ORR Master Plan, the road towards south side of petitioners' land is shown as 30 metres; and that the petitioners have left setback required for proposed 30 metre width road as required under the oRRMasterPlan;andthattherequirementoflBmetreWidthroadin respect of building having height above 24 metres up to 27 metres or 12'2 metres in respect of building having height above 21 metres and up to 24 metres, as prescribed under G'o'Ms'No'470 dt'b9'07'2008 being 4 t sufficien'y met, requested the authorities to consider tne ouiroing ii permission application submifted by the petitioners. B. Petitioners further contend that the respondents_authorities, without taking into consideration the master plan notified, whereby the existing road of 9 metres width is required to be widened to 30 metres, have erroneousry rejected the buirding permission apprication submitted by the petitioners, on the ground that the proposed site is abutting to existing 9 mr:tres road, without considering the fact that the widening of the road as per the Master plan from existing g metres to 30 metres is the responsibility of the respondents_authorities, in particular the 2d respondent; and that the petitioners have no control whatsoever as to when the respondents_authorities undertake such exercise of widening/laying of 30 meter road.

9. It is the Fufther contention of the petitioners that nohvithstanding the fact that the respondents-authorities though having notified the Master plan with 30 metres wide road, while having not undertaken the said work, however are applying the norms prescribecl irr the master plan notified by crairnrng that the buirding permission apprication submitted by the petitioners does not meet the requirement of the minimum width of the abutting road' in respect of high rise buirdings of 18 metres and above in height. 5 i0. Petitioners furtfler contend that notwithstanding the fact that the respondents having not taken up the formation of Master Plan Road yet' I I the petitioners themselves had set apart the area in their land for the respondents to undertake the work of widening of the road up to 30 metres in future and had prepared the building plans by excluding the said area; and that the same was explained to the 2nd respondent authority by appearing on being summoned on23.04'2024'

11. It is also the further contention of the petitioners that while as per theTelanganaBuildingRules,2012(forshort,'theRules')notified'vide G.O.Ms.No.168 MA & UD dt.O7.O4.2OL2, the minimum width of the existing road is 12.2 metres, in respect of high rise buildings up to a height of 24 metres, in the comprehensive Master Plan for one kilometer belt on either side of proposed ORR Growth Corridor (ORRGC) and Special Development Regulations issued, vide G'O'Ms'No'470 MA & UD dt.og.07.2008, the minimum width of the abutting road in respect of the buildings having height above 18 metres has been specified excluding the word 'existing', since, the laying of roads as per the Master Plan covering the ORRGC is to be undertaken by the 2nd respondent'

12.Thus,thepetitionerscontendthattherespondents-authorities' having failed to undertake the implementatlon of Master Plan of development of the roads within the oRRGc, or seeking to penalize land owners like petitioners by denying the grant of building permission even 6 though they had ser apart the tand required for rhe propos"O *iouning Jiil the road by the 2nd respondent authority. 13. Thus, it is contended that the action of respondents in rejecting ther building permission application clearly amounts to thel respondents- authorities depriving the petitioners of enjoyment of their property, which action it is contended is highry iregar, arbitrary and in vioration of Articre--. 300-4 of the Constitution of India. n n s n

14. Counter-affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent is filed. 15. By thr: counter_affidavit, it is contended by the 2nd respondent that the Government had prepared a comprehensive Master plan for one kilometer belt on either side of the Ring road called as Outer Ring Road Growth Corrirjor with Special Development Regulations, as approved, vide G.O.Ms.No.470 dt.04.07.2008; and that the petitioners,subject site falls within one kilometer belt of the ORRGC. 16. The 2n,, respondent further contended that as per Clause 3(i) of G.O.Ms.No.470 dt.04.07.2008 and its amendments, the minimum required road width for commercial buildings is 1g meters at all locations, *h.r"u, the proposed site of the petitioners is adjacent to existing 9 meter road, and as such, the building permi ssion application submitted by the petitioners was rejected. . , k / 7

17. By the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that as per Metropolitan Development Plan - 2031 for Hyderabad Metropolitan Region along with the Land Use Zoning and Development Promotion Regulations' as notified' vriy'e G.O.Ms.No.33 dt.24.01.2013, the requirement of minimum abutting road width as specified in G.O.Ms'No'470 dt'09'07'2008 has been made applicable, in respect of one kilometer belt area of ORRGC' which is notified as Special Development Zone (multipurpose use zone); and that since, the subject land of the petitioners is characterized as falling in Special Development Zone, permission could be accorded only if the existing width of the road is 18 metres'

18. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that since' the existing width of the road is only nine metres, as against the requirement ofminimumwidthoflBmetresforcommercialbuilding,theauthoritiesby the impugned proceeding have rejected the proposal and thus' the impugned proceedings does not call for any interference' ReDlv of the Detitioners to the counter:

19. In reply, the petitioners contend that no distinction is made betweenhighriseandcommercialbuildingintheBuildingRules'orinthe Comprehensive Master Plan. Petitioners further contend that the respondents by the counter-affidavit have not denied the specific case pleaded by them of the proposed 30 metres road, as per ORR Master Plan T 8 and that n()n-consideration of the proposed roacl of 30 ,"JuU ., *,. il lill Master Plan, while issuing the impugned proceeding rejecting thh building permission shows clearly the mechanical approach adopted and non_ application of mind by the respondents. 20. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that sin#aIORRGC was notified in the year 2008, as affirmed further, ziCeG.O.Ms.l,t#33, the respondents-,authorities ought to have considered the proposecl i,vidth of the road, for consideration of the building permission, and t,lus, the rejection oF the petitioners application is vitiated. ;l; r n h c u I t.t :'il

27. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. rri r I ,,r

22. Admittedly, the subject land of the petitioners in respect o[ which building permission has been sought for by the petitiqnErs for construction of commercial building consisting of 2 cellars, one gr.und and five upper floors is fa'ing within one kerometre bert on either sicre: of the oRR, fails under speciar Deveropment zone as notifi94, vide G.O.Ms.No.470 dt.09.07.2008.

23. By the afr:resaid G.O. issued, the area which is within one kiilmeter on either side of the edge of the ORR ,Right of Way (RoW), is copsidered as Special Development Zone of the ORRGC as defined under Rq(ulation 2(v) of the speciar Devetopmenr Resurarions annexed to c.o.prsilillfi.czo. llll 9 As per Regulation 3 of the Special Development Regulations' in the Special Development Zone, permissible uses of land are specifled as (i) Residential (ii) Commercial (iii) Social Infrastructure (iv) Institutional (vi) Work Centres excepting Industries and any other non-polluting hazardous use not specified. While specifying the permissible uses of the land in the Special Development Zone, insofar as commercial use is concerned' it has been speclfied that commercial activity shall be allowed at all locations only on roads of 18 metres width and above'

24. A reading of the comprehensive Master Plan of ORRGC would show that the proposed ORR to the extent of area covered by one kilometer stretch on either side of the proposed ORR is passing through various areas, which were falling in extended HUDA area like Brahmanpally' Koheda, Pasumamla Tharamathipet, Bacharam, Thimmaiguda, Gowrelli and VadaguPalle villages'

25. The fact of one kilometer area/belt of ORRGC covers villages as noted herein above, it would be highly improbable to assume that the existing width of the roads in the said villages would meet the requirement of the width of the road as specified in G'O'Ms'No'470 dt'09'07'2008 for any one to undertake developmental activities'

26. Further, it is also to be noted that the ornission of the word 'existinq' while specifying the minimum abutting road width in ;r ]l 10 been omitted. G'o'Ms'No'470 in juxraposition, to the use cr the said -"r, ]iJilll{1 G'O'Ms'No' r68 rends credence to the contention of the petitioners thrfrt since the 2.d respondent is in the process of deveiopment of the ORR fls werr as the one kirometer bert area of .RRGC incruding the formation ,oi the roads as per the Master plan passing through villages as noted hereinabove the word ,existing,has 27. Further, while it is the specific case of the petitioners that as pdl the Master pran a 30 metres wide road is proposed ancr the said fact ndl being considered while processing the buitding permission applicatidth submitted by the petitioners, the respondents by the counter-affidavit did not deny the said claim of 30 metre road being proposed in place of the.___ existing nine metres road, as per Master plan apprsyg6. However, the respondents have only considered the existing road and stated that as thq road is less than 18 metres, the petitioners are disentitled to see[, consideration of their application. ___

28. The respondents by stating that existing width of the road to be Of-'.-.* _ 9 meter, did not mention anything as to whether the proposal to widei;ll the road to 30 meter is in force or dropped. If the proposal to widen thdl road to 30 meters as per master pran is active/rive, then such work is td; be undertaken try the respondent onry and it is not for the c.t.zen to takerii up the work of formation of public road as per the r the respondents craim or Master pran road .r r. .",::;;;. .,.",},]lililll - - IL then only respondents could have taken the objection to the requirement i of road width specified in G.O.Ms' No'470 not being met'

29. On the other hand if the proposal of Master plan road is in force' therespondentsarerequiredtoconsidertheapplicationofthepetitioners for grant of building permission in the background of the Government orders as noted hereinabove and its applicability by taking into consideration that it is the respondents who are required to acquire the land for formation of 30 metre wide road from the edge of the RoW. As the respondents-authorities have not shown to this Court of the respondents-authorities initiating action for acquiring the land for the aforesaid purpose, refusing to grant permission solely on the basis of the existingwidthoftheabuttingroadasninemetreswithouttakinginto consideration the duty cast on the respondents to take up the proposed widening of the road up to 30 metres, would only go to show that the action of respondents-authorities is in the nature of penalizing the applicants seeking building permission, like the petitioners' For the failure of respondents undertaking development activities as per the Master Plan' refusal to grant building permission, in a way amounts to the respondents depriving the petitioners enjoying their property including its development' whichactionoftherespondentsisinviolationofArticle300-Aofthe Constitution of India. t2 ._-q.

30. Further, the contention advanced by the respondents permission can onry be granted by taking into consideration the existi gr width of the road is to be accepted, no construction can come up in thp subject area,, as most of the ORRGC area passes through villages anf, - -- thereby, defeating the purpose for which the aforesaid Regurations qrp ,i,$iililllll, issued.

31. It is trite law that no person can be deprived of the proper$T without authority of law. Thus, development oF property for economi,: growth is one of the key facet of enjoyment of property and it is settf[[ position of law that though right to property is not a fundamental righ[, but continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300_A of ttlp,__ constitution of India. (K.T.ptantation private Limited and Anotherr v/s. State ofKarnatakl). ||

32. For the reasons indicated above, this Court is of the considereH view that the impugned proceeding rejecting the building permissioh application made by the petitioners solety by considering the existili.b_.-.__, width of the road of nine metre, without taking into consicreration tflh proposed width of thb road of 30 metres or without ,Jenying the craim Hf the petitioners of the proposed 30 metre wide road, crearry amounts th -* the respondents-a uthorities seeking to deny the petitioners or their rigHt '1zort1 s scc t llili/rililI .-,ii (-!r 13 llililii il , lt I rl tlr, ;i ll:t:::l 'l oF enjoyment over the subject properry including its development, thereby violating Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

33. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dt.04.05-2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents-authorities to reconsider the building permission application submitted by the petitioners, having regard to the Metropolitan Development Plan 2031 as well as the proposed width of the road as per Master plan notified. Having regard to the fact that the application submitted by the petitloners on

22.02.2024 was rejected by the respondents-authorities under the impugned proceeding dt.04.05.2024, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed to reconsider the aforesaid application in the light of the directions contained hereinabove within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

34. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

35. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.L. LAKSHMIBAIitLI TArlr ReOtStnl,ft AS ECTION oFFlcllifl to',r . rn" Principar secreta ry' Mu n'9P1#Ig?i:*fl"'Sg,:t3:Dgv'erooment' State of Telangana' Hyderabad.

2. The Metropolitan Commissioner/ Planning Officer' Devetooment Authonry, b;;;;' i"G;ii iomPler,s ahieeva Reddy N aga : -R;;;, 5;i;il.iNaga''' iliE#;;t" iltJerabab' *'"lt:"3::::* 3. The Commissioner' Adibatla Municipality' Adibatla' 'Hvderabad Metro llllT ll i,. J.r

4.TheAsstCityPlanner,AdibatlaMunicipality,Adibatla,R.R.District. Ire.ry- I ,F, li{llliili Telangana. [OUTI

5. One CC to SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKAR|, Advocate. tOpUCl 6. Two ccs to GP FoR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High court for the state o{- / 7. One CC to SMT.D.MADHAV|, SC FOR HMDA. IOPUC] 8. 9ne CC to SRI ABHAY KUMAR SAGAR, SC FOR MUNtCtpALtTy/MC. loPUcl

9. Two CD Copies. BSK CH? l'l'll HIGH COURT DATED:31101t2025 il(,trl , aI;,i : -i4 \ ^\\ k q ?'i ii't 2:7 J, ORDER WP.No.182S2 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS d\.vi \*\- [\! I flIIIilil