Mr v. Ravi Kiran Rao learned Senior Counsel appearing for

B. Bandameedi Madhu, S/o. Sri Bandameedi Buchaiah, Aged about 24years, Occ Agr;culture. R/o. H-No.1-12411 , Magpul Gramapanchayati and Mandal, Nizamabad District, Telangana State.

9. Nizamabad Urban Development Authority (NUDA), Rep. by its Commissioner, Opp. NTR Statue, Yellammaguda, Nizamabad 503 001, Telangana State. 10.The Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, O/o The Municipal Commissioner, Opp. NTR Statue, yellammaguda, Nizamabad 503 001 , Telangana State. (RR9 and 10 impleaded as per Court Order dated 24.07.2025 in l A.No 212025) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, thr: High court may be pleased to issua a writ order, orders or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of the writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of he respondents, more particularly. the {ith and 6th respondents in not canceling the provisionar buirding permission order vide fire No. 004088/Gp/00ooirABpr2c25, dated 13to6r2o2s which has been obtained by the 7th and gth respondents by praying fraud and misrepresentatiorr, thereby undertaking iflegar and unauthcrzed constructions by encroaching into the petitioner's property to an extent of Ac 0.04 gts., out of to an extent of Ac. 0.3t)V2 gts., in Survey No. 457 situated at Mur;pal Gramapanchayati and Mandar, Nizamabad District, is being arbitrary, iregar, perverse, contrary to the Panchayati Flal Act as weil as Municiparity Act, besirres being vioration of Article '14, 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of India and c.nsequenfly direct the official respondents to forthwith, cancer the provisionar buir,iing permission order vide File No 004088/GptoooolilA}pt2025, dated l3ro6r2o2sgranted in favourof the Bth respondent which was obtained by praying fraud and m isrepresentation and demorish rlegar and unauthorized construction whicr- was undertaken by encroaching into tre petitioner's propedy to an extent of-Ac. r.04 gts., out of to an extent of Ac 0.30114 gts., in Survey No.457 situated at Mug:al Gramapancl-rayati and lvlanda l. Nizamabad District. l.A.NO:1 oF 2025 Petrtion Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents. to forthwith, cancer the provisionar buirding permission order vide fite No 004088/Gp/00006/rABpt2o2s, dated; .1 3-,06-2025 which has been obtained by the 7th and Bth respondent by playing fraud and misrepresentation ;rnd demorish the ilegar and unauthorizec construction which was undertaken by encroaching into the petitioner,s property to an extent of Ac. 0.04 gts , out of to an extent of Ac. 0.30y2 gts., in Survey No. 457 situated at tVlugpal Grarnapanchayati and Mandar, Nizamabad Distrrct by taking into consideration of petitioner,s representations dated; 09_05 2025, 29_05_2025. 02-07 -2025 and O3,tO7 t2O2S. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI BONDEMPALLY RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5 : G.P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 : M/s. V.ROHITH Counsel for the implead Respondent No.9 : NIZAMABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NUDA) Counsel for the implead Respondent No.10 : SRI V.SATYAM REDDY The Court made the following ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSE]{ REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20195 oF 202:) ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seek ng to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly respondent Nos.5 and 6, in not cancelling the provisional building permission order vide File No.004088iGP/00006/IABP|2025, dated t3.06.2025, which has been obtained by respondent Nos.7 and 8 by pla.,,ing fraud and misrepresentation, thereby undertaking illegal ard unauthorised constructions by encroaching into the petitioner's property to an extent of Ac.0-04 guntas out of Acs.0-30 Yz gtntas in Survey No.457 situated at Mugpal Gram Panchayat and Mandal, Nizamabad t)isrrict, as being illegal and unconstitutiona[. \

2. Heard Mr. B. Ramulu, leamed counsel for the petitioner; leamed Govemment Pleader lor Panchayat Raj appearing for r espondent Nos. 1 J learn,:d Govemment Pleader for Revenui appearing for respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5; Mr. K. Pradeep Reddy, eamed Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, appearing for respondent No.6; Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. V. Rohith, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and g; Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for Nizamabad \. -E 2 Municipal Corporation, for respondent No. l0; and perused the material available on record.

3. Leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that respondent Nos.7 and 8 have applied for permission to construct a building of G+2 upper floors in the land admeasuring 500 square metres, and the same was processed by respondent No.6. That as the plot area of respondent Nos.7 and 8 is more than 300 square metres, building permission could not have been granted by respondent No.6. The application should have been made through TG-bPASS to respondent No.9 - Nizamabad Urban Development Authority (NUDA). In the instant case, respondent Nos.7 and 8 were granted building permission by respondent No.6 and the mortgage deed was executed, by respondent No.8 in favour of respondent No. 10, which is cdntrary to law

4. Leamed Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. V. Rohith, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8, fairly submitted that in view of the admitted legal position and lapses committed by respondent Nos.6 and 10, the writ petition may be allowed.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The building permission vide File No.004088/GP/O0006|IABP12025, dated I I /. 3 13-06-2025, granted to respondent Nos.7 and g is set ,rside. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 are at liberty to apply for fresh building permission in accordance with [aw. As and when such application is f led, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to object such application and thereafter orders shall gs, passed in accordance with law after hea.ing the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8. No order as to costs. As a secluel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR \, sEcTtoN oFFtcER

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathi Raj and Ru la relopment Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderatrad.

2. The District Collector. Nizamabad District. 3. The District Panchayati Officer, Nizamabad District, Telrngana State. 4. The Tahasildar IVIagpul Mandal, Nizamabad District, Te:langana State. 5. The Deputy Tahasildar, tVagpul lt/andal, Nizamabad Di:;triot, Telangana State.

6. The Panchi)yati Secretary, Magpul Gramapanchayati and [t/andal, Nizamabad District, Telangana State.

7. The Commrssioner. Nizamabad Urban Development Arthority (NUDA), Opp. NTR Statue, Yellammaguda, Nrzamabad 503 001, Telargana State. B. The Commissioner, Nizamabad ttilunicipal Corporation, O/o The Municipal Commissiorrer. Opp. NTR Statue, Yellammaguda, Nizarnabad 503 001, Telangana State.

9. Two CCs tc GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 10 Two CCs tc GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL I)EVELOPMENT, High Court for thr: State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 'l 1. One CC to rSRl BONDEI\4PALLY RAIMULU, Advocate [OPUC] 12.One CC to NlZAtt/ABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUT HORITY (NUDA), Advocate (OPUC)

13.One CC to tvl/s V ROHITH, Advocate (OPUC) 14.One CC to liRl K PRADEEP REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 15. One CC to llRl V SATYAN/ REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) '16 Two CD Cooies To SA BS HIGH COURT DATED:1 210812025 .....; -41t at. - ,/.toY ( ..\ .-,, .. .\. t\ .\ l' t ')r. 15 liEP 2025 * DE." ar ('!r( ,rl o n' ORDER WP.No.20195 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.