Thangudika Koteshwara Sharma Alias lt/amidipalli Koteshwara Sharma v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF TUANDAMUS declaring the action of 2nd respondent in cancelling building permission vide Permit Order No. 461596/VEMU/058812024 dt. 12112t2024 without assigning valid reason is bad, illegal, arbitrary, void, against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Telangana f\Iunicipalities Act, ZOlg and violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia consequently direct the 2nd respondent to restore the Building Permission No. 461596 / VEMU/ 0588 / 2024 dated 1211212024 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 order dated OgtOOl2025 passed by the 2nd respondent in Lr. No. G1t72912025 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VEMUGANTI MAHESH KLJMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRt PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR MC The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2LZ8 OF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is f,rted by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No2 in cancelling his building permission v ide permit No.46 I 5964/EMU/ 0588 /2024 dated 12.12.2024 without assigning any valid reasons, as being i[[egal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Telangana Municipalities Act, 20lg (for short 'Act 2019') and violative of Articles 14, lg, 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of India, and consequently, direct respondent No.2 to restore' his building permission vide permit No.4615964/EMU 1058812024 dated

12.12.2024.

2. Heard Mr. V.Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Municipality; and perused the material on record.

3. It is claimed that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the premises bearing municipal No.9-8-32 (Old No-9-2- 69), admeasuring 230.39 square yards in Gramakantam situated at 2 Bhemeshwaralayam Veedhi, Vemulawada Torvn and Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District having acquired the same from his adoptive mother about fofty (40) years ago. It is stated that the said house was constructed in the subject property about sixty (60) years ago and now it is in a dilapidated condition. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner was recorded as occupier and possessor in respect of the subject property since 1970 and he had been paying the property tax regularly. The petitioner obtained building permission through self-certification through TS-bPASS vide application No.461596/ VEMU/058812024 dated 12.12.2024 in respect of the subject property. That when the petitioner proceeded with the construction of the building pursuant to the building permission dated 12.12.2024, on 24.02.2{t25, some persons claiming to be the officials of respondent No.2 interfered with the construction activity undertaken by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P. No.6692 of 2025 before this Court and the order dated

05.06.2025 was passed directing respondent No.2 to serve a copy of the show cause notice within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the petitioner' !r,as directed to submit explanation to the said show cause notice within a period of ( "' a J two (f) weekthereafter. Further, respondent No.2 was directed to consider the same and dispose of the matter within a period of two (2) weeks thereof.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the above order passed by this Court, the petitioner was served a copy of the show cause notice dated 19.05.2025 to which explanation dated 28.05.2025 was submitted by him stating that old H.No.9-8-32 was inherited by him by way of succession from his ancestors. After their demise about fifty (50) years back, the subject property was mutated in the name of the petitioner, however, nespondent No.2 passed the impugned rejection order dated 09.06.2025 without assigning any reasons. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned rejection order suffers from non-application of mind and there are no reasons assigned. Despite the name of the petitioner being recorded as occupier in respect of the subject property several years back, the impugned rejection order has been passed. As such, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Municipality, basing on the written instructions, submitted that the petitioner 4 obtained building permission in respect of the subject property through TG-bPASS online system; the verification team inspected the site and verified the title of the petitioner. [t rvas found that the petitioner does not have ownership rights over the subject property. Thus, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and subsequently, the impugned rejection order was passed. It is further stated that respondent No.2 Municipality is ready' to issue building permission to the petitioner if he submits fresh application by duly enclosing the registered documents relating to the subject property.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that registered documents are not mandatory. The subject property has been acquired by the petitioner from his adoptive mother and it is an ancestral property. There is an old dilapidated building existing in the subject property for more than 60 years.

7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the information received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2OO5 vide Lr.No.A/l631 2024 dated 25.11.2024 informing him that the subject property is recorded in his name since 1981. The extract of the property tax assessment of Gram Panchayat in respect of the subject 5 property is also enclosed along with the said information' The property tax assessment in respect of the subject property reveals the name of the petitioner as the owner. In the opinion of this Court, the stand taken by respondent No.2 that the petitioner is required to submit registered ownership documents cannot be sustained as it is not mandatory under the provisions of the Act 2019 in the cases where the property is acquired.by the applicant through his ancestors' \ \ There is no necessity to submit any registered document as such and it would suffice to produce necessary proof/documents to show that the property is inherited through ancestors' , t

8. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject property was acquired through his ancestors and from his adoptive mother is not supported by any valid document. According to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, there was an oral adoption and it was not documented' Such issue cannot be decided in writ petition. The petitioner is given liberly to institute appropriate suit before the competent civil Court to declare himself as legal heir/owner of the subject property. As and when, decree is passed in such suit, the petitioner may approach respondent 6 No.2 and seek for building permission. Such application shall be disposed of by respondent No.2 in accordance with law.

9. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed oL There shall be no order as to costs. As a srequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The- Principal Secretary, fi/unicipal Administration, Secretariate Building, Saifabad - Hyderabad.

2. The [Vunicipal Commissioner, The vemulawada Muncipality, vemulawada Town and N/andal, Rajanna Sirisilla District.

3. one cc to SRl. VEMUGANT| MAHESH KUMAR Advocate [opUC] 4. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY SC FOR tMC [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

6. Two CD Q6rpies KKS W \ \ I HE .SIz1 ( -lt ?L 2E ilol, zffi l} paTC uf (' * HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 ORDER WP.No.21718 of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS PI o