The High Court · 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 direct the Respondent No.2 to release the building permission to the petitioner for the premises bearing No. 6-1-102 (Part), Padma Rar ',Jagar, Secunderabac in the interest of Justice, pending disposal of the writ pet t ( 1. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NYAYAPATHI PRASHAN'- Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN t URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI G.MADHUSUt,I IAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.42567 of 2Ol5 This writ petition is Iiled to declare the action of respondent No.3 in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for construction vide Lr.No.36 563 I 25 / 05 / 20 12, dated 1 5. 1 2.20 I 5, as illegal and arbitrary ald to set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri Nyayapathi Prashalth, iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of premises bearing No.6- 1- LO2/G, 6-I-102/H and 6-1-10211, situated at Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad (for short 'subject property'), having acquired the same under fuilI deed' dated 11.08.1989 executed by the petitioner's mother; that the petitioner's mother submitted application dated 25.05.2012 seeking permission for construction and the respondent Corporation addressed a letter dated

19.06.2012 informing the petitioner that a complaint has been submitted by the Polbal Hanuman Temple against the construction and therefore, the file has been sent to head office for 2 - decision. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner file < Wp.No. 1632 ot 2015 arrd this Court vide order dated 11.O2.2O1! disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.! to consider the application submitted by the petitioner and F rss appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the cla c of receipt of a copy of the order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner woulcl urther submits that respondent Corporation addressed anotlr :r letter dated

23.06.2015 informing the petitioner that in p _ -suance of the orders passed by this Court in Wp.No. 163 /, /2015, dated 11.02.2015, petitioner's application has been er rmined and in view of complaint petitions received from the r rembers of Sri Polbal Hanuman Temple, petitioner,s applicat on has been forwarded to the Tou,n plalning Section, Head Otj ce for taking a decision. Subsequently, one more letter dated I 7.08.20 15 has been addressed by respondent No.3 to the petitione - informing the petitioner to produce original documents of o snership, link documents, layout plan, NOC of Joint Collectr r, Hyderabad, within a period of three days, to take necessar5r ac.r )n. Ultimately, the application submitted by the petitioner was rej::ted vide letter dated 15.12.2015 on the ground that the peut oner has not 3 submitted the documents sought for in the letter dated 17.08.2015.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequently, petitioner got issued legal notice dated 21. 12.2ors calling upon the respondent corporation to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permission, within a period of seven days from the date of the notice, failing which he would approach the Court initiating legal proceedings. However, the respondent Corporation did not process the application submitted by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the sarne present writ petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Corporation is required to exarnine only pima facie tille and possession of the applicant, and cannot enquire into title disputes relating to subject property, while granting permission. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to produce the documents as sought for by the respondent Corporation in its letter dated 17.08.20 15 and the respondent Corporation may be directed to process the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time frame. 4 -

7. Learned Standing Counsel for responde tt Corporation represented that the respondent Corporation w,r rld process the application submitted by the petitioner, upor submission of documents as sought for by the respondent Corpc r ation vide letter dated 17.08.2015, provided reasonable time is granted to the respondent Corporation.

8. Considering the submissions made by learnt', counsel or the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel [or respondent Nos.2 and 3, the writ petition is disposed of with z iirection to the petitioner to produce the documents as sou11 rt for by the respondent Corporation vide letter dated 17.08.2C 5 and on such submission, the respondent Corporation shall e.x,t nine the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accorrl rnce with the GHMC Act, 1955 and Rules made there under. t he respondent Corporation shall complete the aforesaid exercise ., /ithin a period of six u,eeks from the date of submission of dor:r rments by the petitioner. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall s tand closed. //TRUE COPY' To,

1. The Principle Secretary, Municipal Administrati Secretariat, Hyderabad. t \\v iD/-A.V.S. PRASAD bt purv REqISTRAR- ;ECTION OFFICER nrl I l1[3n Development,

2. The Commissioner. Greater Hyderabad fvlunicipal Corporation, Havino its -. ii i:, ,!v a office at Municipat Comptex, frn't UrnJilorO]'ii"vfi"rrOr,j Ptannerffown ptanning Section, Secunderabad Division, / ]::r*r".r,;OCity

4. One CC to SRI NyAyApATHI PRASHANT, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to SRt G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC tOpUCl 6. Two CCs to GP FOR tVCpLADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for rhe State 7. Two CD Copies of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED: 20t11t2025 =--::: .t ORDER C)o 0 IJ ?il?i I I WP.No.42S67 of ZOlS \,\i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 10