High Court · 2025

Sri. Bombadi Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Shanker Reddy, Aged 50 years, Occ. Business,R/o. Anqaram Village, Gummadidala mandal, Sangareddy District. ,..PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Princrpal Secretary Panchayat RaJ Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

2. The District Panchayat. Officer Sangareddy District at Sangareddy. 3. The Executive Officer, Grama Panchayat Annaram Village, Gummadidala Mandal, Sangare-dfl y District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Artiele 226 oI 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 more particularly are in lhe nqturg of writ of Mandamus declaling the questioning the action of the Respgn{ent No.3 in issuing impugned ordgr vide Lr. No.GPAl22Bl2019-20, Dt. 23-09-?019 tq pancelled tfte permission granted to construct a Function Hall in Sy. No.252, ?61 situate{ at Annaram Village of Gummadidala lri,landal, $angareddy district vide permission No. G.P102212018-19, dt. 1'l-01-2019 which is wholty illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and without jurisdiction and violative of the fundamental rights guarantged Under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the impugned proceedings of the Respondent No.3 .,f lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition undt. Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed rrr support of the petition, the High Court rra i be pleased to suspend the operal crn of the impugned orders vide Lr. No GP A/j12812019-20, Dt. 23-09-2019 passed try the Respondent No. 3 to cancelled the per mission granted to construct a Pc.tit r:ner's Function Hall in Sy. No. 252, 261 srtur ted at Annaram Village of Gumrad Cala lvlandal, Sangareddy district pepding rlis rosal of the writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Between

1. The State o Telangana, Rep. by its Principal gecretirry Panchayat Rai 2 The Distr ct Panchayat, Officer Sangareddy District at Sane,arr)ddy. Departrrert. .':r-.c.etariat, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERSflTESPONDENTS AND

1. Sri. Bombadi llanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Shanker Rqddy, Aged 50 years, Oco, Business R/o r\nnaram Village, Gummadidala mandal, Sarrg;lr:eddy District.

2. The ExecLrtiv,,: Officer, Grama Panchayat Annaram Villzrge r, Gr-rmmadidala Mandal Sier ng a.eddy District. ....RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT IRESPONDENT (Respondent No.2 is not necessary party in this petitiorr) Petition unde Section'15'l CPC praying that in the circurrsrances stated in the affidavit filed in :;upport of the petition, the High Court rray be pleased to vacate the interir,r c,'iers dated 26-09-2019 passed in LA.no ' 12)19 in W.P.NO 2149812019 and djs niss the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PALLE SRIHARINATH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Reripondent No.3: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY SC FOR GRAM PANCFiAYI\T The Court made the following: ORDER r ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT P TITION No.2 1498 of 2019 This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 3'd respondent in issuing the impugned order vide Lr.No.GPA/228l2019-20 dt.23.09.20t9 cancelling the permission granted to the petitioner to construct a Function Hall in Sy.Nos.252 and 261 situated at Annaram Village, Gummadidala Mandal, Sangareddy District, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned Standing Counsel for the Gram panchayat and perused the record.

3. Petitioner contends that he is the owner and possessor of land in Sy.Nos.252 and 261 to an extent of Acs.3.34 guntas and Acs.2.00 guntas, respectively, totaling to Acs.5.34 guntas, situated at Annaram Village, Gummadidala Mandal, Sangareddy District; that it had applied for permission to construct a function hall in the land admeasuring Acs.2.15 guntas, out of total extent of Acs.5.34 guntas; and that after due verification, the 3'd respondent had accorded permission vide proceedings No.G.p/022l2018-19 dt.11.01.2019. 2

4. Petition,.r - further contends that pursuant to l.h: said permission granted, he hr rrl started construction of the function hall arrd after completion of 95o/o of th: work, the 3'd respondent issued a shou/ ca lse notice vide Lr.No.GPA/:20!,,!)_01,9-20, dt.14.09.2019 alleging that th,: 'unction hall is constructed w thout obtaining technical approval from HIvlt A tnd also without converting tht, land from agriculture to non-ag ricu lture; th;rt the petitioner submitted l"is :lxplanatlon on 16.09.2019 stating that aftr:r drre verification of document:; or'l'i the 3'd respondent has accorded perrris:;ion vide order dt.11.01.,20 19, and that the 3'd respondent without :onsidering the explanation sL t)mitted by the petitioner, has passed the intpr rgned order and the present W. I Petition is filed challenging the same.

5. Learnec :ounsel for the petitioner mainly contends thlt the petitioner submitted exp anation to the show cause notice issued by thr: 3'd respondent stating thal fr. obtaining NALA conversion and also t,) )btain technical approval frcrm -lMDA, he requires some time and requested thi:3d respondent not to take arv further steps but the 3'd respondent withc,ut considering the request made by the petitioner, had issued the impugned proceedings dt.23.09.2i11.9 .irncelling the permission of the petitioner, lvlrich is untenable.

6. A cnunt:r-affldavit has been filed by the 2nd respond,:nl on behalf of all the responden s, denying the averments made in the petiticn, contending that the subject ar J is situated in the limits of HMDA and as pr:r riections 18 and 19 of the Hl'ID,1 Act, 2008, all development powers of land i re vested with the 3 HMDA authorities; that the subject construction permission was granted to the petitiOner 0n 11.01.2019 without there being any land conversion certificate and approved layouu that on noticing the same, a memo dt.14.09.2019 was issued by the 3'd respondent; that though the petitioner requested some time to submit the said documents, however, continued with the construction work, despite sfafas quoorders dt.26.09.2019 passed by this court pending the writ petition, for which, a contempt case vide SR No.33528 of 2OI9 was filed by the 3'd respondent; and that the petitioner has obtained the permission by misrepresenting the racts and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. /, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2,,d respondent submits that the petitioner while on one hand requested time, on the other hand, proceeded with the construction, without there being NALA conversion and technical approval from HMDA and that apart, violating the order of status quo granted by this Court on 26.09.201g pending the writ petition and therefore, the 3'd respondent issued the impugned order and thus, the action is justified in law. B I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. As per Sections 18 and 19 of the HMDA Act, 2008, all developmeni powers of land are vested with the HlvlDA authorities and no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out for the area under metroporitan 4 authorities ,^/it ri)ut obtaining development permission io n the HMDA ,a authorities.

10. Sinrc, it : apparent on the face of the record that ftr the purpose of constructic)n of : Function Hall in Annaram Village, whicl^ ,all; within HMDA jurisdictior, Lhe retrtioner is required to obtaln conversion of the land from agriculture tr r :rn-agriculture along with development perri jsion from the HMDA authorlt :;. However, on behalf of respondents, t has not been explained ;rs t r how the 3'd respondent had accorded p:rmission vide proceedinq:; :it. 01.2019, if the petitioner is required to tek.: permission from HI\4DA. Cons de'.irq the above, this Court having granted ar rrrder of status quo on 26.0!.2. I :9 to be maintained by both the pafties, th: 6retili6ngp 6eU;6 not have ccntin (rd with the construction activity in violation oF the said sfafus quo otder and t,)rr,i contend that all of a sudden, the 3'd rt:sp ondent having issucd thc , r pl r rco order.

11. In riie,r,i r' the above, the Writ Petition is disposcd o ' directing the petitioner to sl bm t the required documents to the respond:nt authorities within 30 days f rom the date of receipt of a copy of thi: c rder. On such submission, the -espondents are directed to consider the sail (locuments and take action irr ar,:crdance with law, as expeditiously aS poss hle. Till such time, the status qL,o lt)nted by this Court on 26.09.2019 shall stand :xtended. It is further made' c L:ar- that till production of NALA conversio r :ertificate and technical aplrro ir1 from the HMDA authorities, the petitio ler shall not ,f' 5 undedake any construction activity and shall not put to use the construction already made.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as [o costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI EPUTY REGIST SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J

4. E

7. BM BS vAcATrCrN COURT HIGH COURT DATED:28105t2025 ORDER WP.No.2149ff of 2019 .'1:: _1a,r: .a J r\i c c 0 4 ,iuN 2!6 :, :1 O DISPOSING ,OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ('o