The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 3 PETITIONER ::?1",:J,,:i'S; gil,,.ij; B,"lBIJilSii:L3ETE.;l{: B"ip"TS3ff; ;1 g;;;.,,,, u:;::y:3:5, ?3s ?; i3 zx iJ,.":111*%1fi #a The District C)ollector, Hyderabad District, at Hyderabad. t e, R oa d, c ou. c o m po u n d a 4 The Revenue Divisional officer' Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS

. Pr.g#on uadg: 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' more particularly one in the nature of WritofMandamus,declaringtheactionofthe2ndrespondentinre]ectingthe building permission application of the petitioner for building construction in respect of open plot situated in Plot No 1/Part' forminq part of Sy-No 66/1' admeasuring 200 Sq'Yds' in the Layout of Vanita Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., situated at Trimulgherry Village' Secunderabad Cantonment' Telangana State, vide online status dated 01 07 2024 and insisting to obtain NOC from the 3rd respondent, as arbitrary' illegal' uniust' contrary to law' contrary to the material available on record, apart from being violative of the Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed under A(icles 14' 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the said reiection and Uirect the 2nd respondent to grant building plan approval and permission in favour of the petitioner for construction of building in respect of open plot situated in Plot No 1 /Part, forming part of Sy'No 66/1' admeasuring 200 Sq Yds' in the Layout of Vanita Co-operative Housing Society Ltd ' situated at Trimulgherry Village' Secunderabad Cantonment, Telangana State' IA NO: 10F m24 Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesslated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased.to direct the 2nd respondent to release the building sanction plan pertaining to the petittoner in respect of open plot situated in Plot No 1/Part' forming part of Sy.No.66/1, admeasuring 200 Sq Yds in the Layout of Vanita Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, situated at Trimulgherry Village' Secunderabad Cantonment, Telangana State, Without reference to the rejection or insisting for NOC from the 3rd respondent' pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M'SURENDER RAO' Sr' COUNSEL' REP' FOR SRI A.MUNEENDHAR REDDY , Counsel for the Res,pondent No.1: Gp FOR MCpL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.R.KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR SCB Counsel tor,6e-Respof,d6irt No.3 & 4: AGp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I u THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO '.J"wnrr$ptltlo N Nos. 22876 and2292 LOF 20.24 coMMON ORDER: In W.P.No.22 876 of 2024, tbe petitioners have questioned the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the building permission application in respect of open plot admeasuring 400 square yards in Block No.l covered by Sy.No.62 (old), Sy'No'66/ 1 (new) situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment, uide onltne status dated 24.O7 .2024. a' In W.P.No.22921 of 2024, the petitioner had questioned the 2. action of respondent No.2 in rejecting his building permission application in respect of open plot admeasuring 20d square yards in Plot No.l/part forming part of Sy'No'66/1, in the layout of Vanita Co-operative Housing Society Limited situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment, uide or.hr,e status dated Ol.O7 .2024 and insisting him to obtain NOC from State Government authorities

3. A common issue arises for consideration in these two wrtt petitions. Therefore, these two writ petitions were heald together and are being decided by this common order'

4. Heard Mr. M.surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel' representing Mr. M.Srikanth and Mr' A'Muneedhar Reddy' Iearned T 2 petitioners in both the writ petitions and v,. counsel for the - 14' .1."' Mr. K.R.Kotesrvzrra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Revenue for respondent l'os.3 to 5 in W.P.No.22876 of 2024 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 in V/.P.No.22927 of 2024. No represer.tation on behalf of respondent I{o. 1 in both the writ petitions. Brief facts of th.e case 5 5 In W.P.No.22876 oI 2024: 1 Facts giving rise to hling of this writ petitic,n brieflv stated are that the petlr-ioners are claiming that they are joint owners and possessors of open plot situated in admeasuring 400 square yards in Block No. I <;cvered by Sy.No.62 (oId), Sy.No.66/ 1 (ntew) situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment and the same was purchased through registered sale deed be:rring document No.2134 of 2O'.2i\ dated 06.72.2023 from verrdors K.Krishna I .their and K.Padmav:rti by paying valuable sale consideration arrd since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

5.2 It is further averred that one Kalika Prasad u'as the owner of the agriculture lirnd admeasuring Ac.6-08 guntas in Sy.No.62(o1d), new Sy.No.66/ 1 situated at Trimulgherry Vi11age, Secunrlerabad Cantonment zrnd he purchased the same from the Government in a 3 public auction in 1352 Fasli (1943) and since then he was in .4.:' .. g ..-. posseiBion ahd enjoyment of the same and his name was entered in the settlement records and that he died on 28.07.1959 leaving behind his hve daughters and one son by name Munnalal. After his death, his son Munnalal hled Revision Petition in File No.P5/3a34/81 before the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad requesting to declare the above said land as patta land. The said Revision Petition was disposed on 21.11.1983 declaring that Kalika Prasad is the owner of the above said land and the same was purchased froh the Government in the public auction and therefore, the said land is not a Government land. Thereafter the legai reprgsentatives of Kalika Prasad have filed suit in O.S.No.1886 of 1989 on the frle of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking partition and allotment of their respective shares. In the said suit, a hnal decree was passed on 05.02.199O and aliotted 1/6m share i.e., Ac.O-34.66 guntas out of Ac.6-O8 guntas, to Gangia Bai who is the daughter of Kalika Prasad. The said Gangia Bai through her General Power of Attorney holder N.Vishwanatham, sold the open plot admeasuring 4OO square yards bearing Sy'No'62(old), 66/ i (new) in favour of Master Chilumala Sunil Anand through registered sale deed document bearing No'2397 of 1990 dated 15.09.1990 and it was rectified on 31'1O'1991' The said i I I 4 Chilumala.Sunil Anand sold the above said open plot to S.Anand .1 :, -' Babu and P. S--rrlhakar Reddy through registered sale deed bearing document No.1ll3 1 of 2006 dated 23.06.2006. In turn they have sold the above :iaid land in favour of K.Krishna and K.Padmavathi through regisl-ered sale deed dated 04.02.20O8. Thereafter the petitioners have purchased the above said land from them through registered sale deed dated 06. 12.2023.

5.3 It is lurther averred that the petitioners' vendors have applied buildingl permission for construction of Ground plus .two floors before respondent no.2. Respondent. No.2 sought clarification fronr respondent No.5 regarding the nzrture of the said open plot. Acc,rrdingly respondent No.5 had issued'1ettt:r dated 2l.ll.2ol3 bzrsing upon the report submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey stating that the above said plot falls under Sy.No.62(old), tt6 / 1 (new) situated . at Trimulgheery Viliage, Secunderabad :rnd as per the revenue records, thc said land was recorded as patta iand. Pursuant to the said clarihcation, respondent No.!) through letter dated 22.O3.2olzl informing the petitioners venrlors that the building applical.ion has been approved through resolution No.37(01) dated 26.02.2014 and calling upon 1-hem to pay Rs.2,5O,90O/- towards development charges and Rs.S,OOO/- towards conservancy fee within ..5 i , 5 ! l I from the date of receipt of the letter and also comply with the requiec{fients-offain water harvest pit in the said open plot'

5.4 It is also averred that their vendors have approached respondent No.2 through letter dated 12'06'2015 stating that they could not pay the above said development charges and conservancy charges in time due to hnancial and health problems and now they want to pay the said amount and requested to release the buiiding plan' Accordingly' respondent No'2 considered the request made by the vendors of the petitioners and the vendors of the petitioners have paid the development/betterment charges of Rs.2,5O,900/- and conservancy fee of Rs'5'000/- on 15'06'2015' On such payment' respondent No'2 had reieased th6 preliminary sanc[ioned building plan in favour of the vendors of the petitioners on20.O6.2015throughletterdated24'O6'2Ot5'subsequently'the vendors of the petitioners could not proceed with the construction of building due to financial problems and sold the' same to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners have jointiy submitted application before respondent No'2 for mutation of their names in respect of the said open piot After due verification of the records' respondent No.2 mutated the names of the petitioners in the records and issued proceedings dated' 06 'O3 '2024 and the petitioners paying vacant property tax' In the mean*nl1:n" T 6 n petitione{*..appliedjo fhe Airports Authority of India for gra nt of No Objection Cerl-ificate (for short'NOCJ for height clearanc<: for the proposed builclirg construction in the said open plot Accr:rdingly' the Airports Au:hority of India has granted NOC dated Oa 01'2024 for height '3learance' Thereafter the petitioner slrbmitted application through online on 06 04 '2024 before respondent No'2 for grant of building permission and plan for construction of the ground+ first+ second l-1oors bv paying building with Stilt + requisite fee.

5.5 It is furtrer averred that when they checkcd the 'status of their building permission application in the official web site of respondent No 2, they came to know that their ap'plication was rejected on 24.07.2024, basing on the objection raised by the revenue authorities vide letter No' B/359/2024 dated 19 07 2024 ' Questioning the said rejection order, the petitioners have filed the present writ Petition. In W.P.No .2 2921 of 2O24t 6 6.1 The petitioner claimed that he is owner of the open plot No. 1/part, forrning part of Sy'No'66/ 1 admeasr-tring 200 square yards in tht: layout of Co-operative Housing Society Limited Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment having purchased the same vide registered document bearing No'10i6 of ,ia .*,.-..::*{f,.iEi 7 2022, dated 02.06.2022. It is further averred that originally one rdiLiill'ias.tt iirri trr. owner of the agriculture land to an extent of Ac.6-08 guntas in Sy.No.62(old), new Sy.No'66/ 1 situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment and he purchased the same from the Government in a public auction in 1352 Fasli (1943) and he died on28.07.1959. After his death, his successors have hled suit in O.S.No.1886 of 1989 on the frle of tlle I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking partition of the above said property, wherein hnal decree was passed on 05.02.1990. Pursuant to the same, the legal representatiies of Kalika Prasad sold part of the said land to Vanita Co-operative Housing Society Limited situated at Trimulgherry /illage under different registered sale deeds. The said Society formed a layout in the said land and sold the plot in favour of P' Jhansi through registered sale deed bearing document No 1323 of 1991 dated 18.06. 1991 and the said Jhansi executed the registered gift settlement deed bearing document No' 1703 of 2008 dated 27 .ll.2OOa in favour of her daughter namely P.Rani' Thereafter P' Rani sold the above said property to Maddela Praveen Kumar through registered sale deed bearing document No'813 of 2O19 in Book-I dated 2O.O4.2Olg through her GPA holder' The said Maddela Praveen Kumar @ Maddela Praveen Kumar Goud died intestate on 08.05.2021 leaving behind his wife, daughter and son' ? I I 8 6 The abov,e.saicl persons through their registered Agreement of Sale .1 ' 4" ':.t Cum General Power of Attorney (AGPA) holder nameh' Kankati Parandamuh.r sold the above said property to the petitioner through registered sale deed bearing document No.1O1(> of 2022 daLed O2.O6.2t)22 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of t.ee said Property.

6.2 It is alsr averred that the petitioner subrnitted application through online on O3.O4.2O24 for grant of building permission before respon,lent No.2 for construction of residential building consisting Sl.ilt+ ground + flrst + second floors ,rn OS.O'+.ZOZ+ ay paying requisi'-e fee and also submitted all the relevant documents. When the peti [ioner checked the status of the buildfng permission application in the hrst week of August, 2024, he came to {now that the building permission application is rejected o:t O1.O7.2024 and in the comnLent's column, it is sta ted that "As t.he State Government i aterested is involved in the land matter Hence, requested to obtain NOC from the State Government authorities and resubmit the building plan". Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 7 . Submis:;ions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners:

7.1 Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners have purchased the property through registered sale deeds from rightful \. qqt+t{*-, I 9 owners by paying valuable sale consideration' Hence' respondent No.?*itf"not E.,tit6a to reject the application submitted by the petitioners for construction of building in the respective properties on the alleged ground that the revenue authorities raised objection and also directing the petitioner in W'P'No'229 2L of 2024 to obtain NOC from the State Government and the same is contrary to law' 7.2 He further submitted that respondent No'2 has granted favour of the petitioner's vendor in building Permlsslon 1n W.P.No.22876 of 2024 ort' 24 'O6 '2015 after following due procedure ort 24.06-2015 but due to the financial problems' they coild not construct the house and they alienated the said property in favour of the petitioners' Subsequentiy respondent No'2 i*ued mutation proceedings in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners have paid the property tax from Ol 'O4 '2O2g ' Hence' respondent No'2 is not entitled to reject the application for construction of building on the alleged ground that the revenue authorities raised objection and the same is contrary to their own Proceedings dated 24.06.2015 and also orders o[ the Commissioner of Survey' Settlement and Land records dated 21' 1 1' 1983 ' 7 .3 He further submitted that the subject land fa1ls within the civil area and respondent No.2 has arready conected property tax and issued proceedings on 02 Ot 2024 ' Hence' respondent No'2 is I 10 o u .+' not entitled to contend that the subject propert5r is outside the civil area. He also submitted that respondent No.2 without giving no[ice and oppor[uniy to the petitioners and without giving any reasons rejected the building plan applications submitted by the petitioners and the samr: is gross violation of the principles of natur.al justice and also con trary to 1aw. Respondent No.2 is not having any authority or power to insist the petitioners to obtzLin Noc from the concerned Stirte Government authorities and also not entitled to reject the apolication on the ground of objection raise<l by the revenue author Lties

7.4 In support of his contention, he relied upon the orders passed by the erstwh e High court of Andhra pradesr{, Hr..derabad 1 a ,) 4 Tahir N.Khambati and others v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board (W.p.No.l1O9l of 2O06) Smt:. Chandrakala Despande and Another v. The Union of India and 3 Others (W.I'.No. 18251 of 2O2Ol Kus uma Jaipal v. State of Telangana (w.P.No.23691of 2O2Sl T. I(.ishan Rao v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board (W.P.No.IZ2S9 ot 201241 t I

8. Submissions of the learned Standing Counsel appearing oo uaffii or re$oirdent No'2: 8. 1 Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioners have the purchased subject property from unapproved layout' Hbnce,forascertaintheidentificationofthesubjectpiotand boundaries, respondent No'2 addressed a letter dated 02'O5 '2024 to the respondent No.3 requesting the concerned to demarcate the subject plot and forward the survey report and not instated the petitioners to produce NOC from the revenue authorities' Pursuant to the said letter only, respondent No 5 had issued letter rlated 1g.O7.2024 requesting respondent No'2 to cancel the permission an open Plot at p.No'62(old), for construction of building in respondent No.2 rejected the of the petitioners. He further Sy.No.66/ 1)(new). AccordinglY, building Permission in favour submitted that respondent No'2 by exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of Cantonment Act'2O06 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") rightly issued the impugned proceedings and the same is valid under law and the orders, which were relied upon by the petitioners in W.P'No' 1 1091 of 2o1016 dated 19'O6'2OO5' W.P.No.2369 L of 2C/23 dated 3l'O8'20,23 ao'd W'P'No'17259 of 2C)24 dated' 11o.tO.2O24, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the subject property comes outside the purview of the civil area' r' -'"'? , 12 (. v r '-t:., He furrher submitted that the revenue authorities as well as .1 Wakf Board rlre claiming rights in respect of the subject property. Hence, respo ndent no.2 has rightly rejected the building permission ir lavour of the petitioners and they are not entitled the relief by bas:,ng upon the orders passed in the above said writ petitions and the facts and circumstances of thc case are totallv different

9. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing or-r behalf of respondent no.3 to 5 subrnitted that he is adopting the srbmissions made by the learned Standing ,lounsel. for respondenl. no.2. I lO. Learned Sienior Counsel by way of reply submitted that the petitioners anrl their vendors have purchased the proper.t5z from rightful owners through registered sale deeds and in the year 1990-1991, the subject property transferred from one person to another and thereafter, four transactions were ttrken place and registered sale ,Cr:eds containing the boundaries of the property and respondent No_2 is not entitled to seek any clarihcation from the revenue authorit es through letter dated 02.O5.2024 on the ground to ascertain of the boundaries of the property. ICspecially, respondent No.ll has not filed the said document, before this court. I 13 ll.HefurtherSubmittedthatthestandtakenbyrespondent frroer{trrt thiy a;e not rejected the building application of the petitioners, on the ground of non-production of NoC is not tenable under law, especially respondent No'2 rejected the application of the petitioner in W.P.No.22 921 of 2024 to obtain NOC from the State Government authorities' Hence the stand taken by respondent No.2 Cantonment Board is not permissible under law' Analvsis:

12. Having considered the rivai submissions made by the respective parties ald after perusai of the material available on record, it reveals that originally one Kalika Prasad claiming that he is owner and possessor of the agriculture land to art'extent of Ac'6- 08 guntas in Sy.No'62(old), Sy'No'66/ 1 (new) situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment and he purchased the same from the Government in public auction in 1352 Fasli (1943) and he died on 28 'O7 '1959' Thereafter his son namelyMunnalallrledRevisionPetitioninFileNo.P5/3434/81 beforetheCommissionerofsurvey,settlementandLandRecords, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, requesting to declare the above said IandaspattalandandtocanceltheorderspassedbytheRevenue Divisional Officer during the pendency of the said revision petition' authorities namelY Collector, In the said revision petition, revenue I 14 s v -1 Hyderabad, R.D.O., Hyderabad, A.p. Wakf Board and other two pnvate indivi,luals were arrayed as party respondertts. The Commissionerr of Survey and Settlement after clue verilication of the records anC after hearing the contesting parties disposed of the revision petition by its RDO order dated 21.11. i9g3. The operative portion of the c,rder reads as follows: 'l l-rave carefully considered the material before me ancj the arguments of the various ,:ontesting parties. It is clear from the record before me thilt the lancl in question was once an Inam land which was resrrmed by Government (Sherike Khalsa). The moment the land was resumed by Government, which u.as as far back as in 1339 Fasli, the land becamr: Government land and no evidence haJ'been producerl before me to show that these orders were challengr:d or reversed. When the land became Governrrent land, the Inam rights do not subsrst and Govt:rnment were at liberty to auction it as ha<l been dorLe in this case. The revision petitioner was the auc._ion purchaser and the sale was also confirmerl by the Collector as required under thr: provisions of Land Revenue Act and these ordersr also rvr:re neither assailed nor set aside under Section 137 of the L.R. Act auction sale becomes absolutr: in favour of the purchaser as a.gain all other perr;ons. As observed earlier the orders passed by the Collector in 1952 ordering correction of settlement &, l5 records were in violation of mandatorY provisions of . l-.sbltion d? of the Land Revenue Act' and hence they are void' Granting a cerliltcate under the Inam Aboiition Act also is void since the land ceased to be Inam Land' The orders of the Collector conhrming the auction had become final' Confusion has arisen in this case as different parties obtained different orders from difierent forums' None of the forums cared to ascertain the full back ground of the case' and hence contradictory orders have been pa'ssed' Taking an overall view of the situation' the orders of the Collector confirming the auction which are the eariiest ones are valid and should be actedt ' upon' With these observations the revision petition is disPosed off'" In the above said order' it is held that the revision petitioner was the auction Purchaser and the sale was also conhrmed bY the Collector as required under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the order of the Collector confirming aucLion are earliest ones IJ I are valid. successors of Kalika 14. The record further reveals that the Prasad filed suit in O'S'No' 1886 of 1989 on the frle of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad seeking partltlon and allotment of their respective shares' wherein a hnal decree was passed on O5'O2' 1990'-Pursuant to the same' Gangia Bai' who Kul\ka Prasad through her GPA holder was lhe daughter of lat n ''. , .t 16 6 alienated 400 square yards through registered sale der:ds dated 31.10. 1991 irr favour of Master Chilumala Sunil Anand by receiving val;d sale consideration. Thereafter two transactions were taken pla,:e through registered sale deeds orr 23.06.12006 and O4.O2.2OO8. IJre petitioners in W.p. No. 22gT6 of 2O24 have purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 06.72.2023 frr>rn K.Krishna and K.padmavathi 15 The recorC further reveals that the petitioners,vend,lrs have submitted application for sanction of building con-strurtion permission berb-e respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has directed the vendor of the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,900/_ towards develop:nent charges and Rs.5,000/_ towa::ds conservancy fee. Accordingly, they paid the same and respondent No.2 issued preliminary sanction of building pran in favour of the vendor of the petitioners vide g>reliminary sanction dated, 24.06.2015. However, they could not p roceed with the construction and they al;.enated the properl5z in lavour of the petitioners through registert:d sale deed dated 05.12.2023. Subsequently the petitioners have submitted appJic:ation for grant of building perrmissio, and respondent No.2 r.ejected the same on 24.O2.2024 basing upon the letter issued b5. respondent No.5. I, t1 F that resPondent No'2 had

16. It.is- relevlnt---to mention here of vendors of the Petitioners granted building permission in favour t to the registered sale deed dated 24.06 2015' Similarly' pursuan dated 06.12'2O23' respondent No'2 had made assessment ln respect of open plot of the petitioners and issued proceedings dated O2.Ol -2[24under section 76 of LheAct and directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs' 43'200/- per annum towards Annual rental value system (ARV) and they paid the said amounts' 17. The record further reveals that the successors of Kalika Sy.No.62 (old) and prasad alienated the ProPertY covered bY Sy.No.66/ 1(new) in favour of Vanita Co-operative Housi* t*]"1 Limited situated at Trimulgherry Village' Secunderabao Cantonment and also other individuals by executing registered sale

18. In Tahir N'Khambati and others v' Secunderabad Cantonment Board (W'P' No'11O91 of 2006)' the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh while allowing the writ petition directed the respondent Cantonment to consider the application of the petitioners therein for sanction of a layout without insisting the petitioners obtain a NOC from the revenue authorities' Aggrieved by the same, the respondent Cantonment Board filed Writ Appeal No.793 of 2Oo7 and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench I l8 ( of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 05.08.200g .1 Aggrieved by the same, respondent hled S.L.P.(Civil) No.4476 of 2009 and l-he Hon'ble Apex Court dismisse,d the same on O2.O3.2OO9. I- is relevant to extract the orders o1'the Hon,ble Apex Court as follou's: "W e find no ground to interfere as the High Court has only held that for the purpose of considering the application filed by a priva.te applcant for approval of lay out, the Board need not insist upon a no objection certificate from Mandal Revenur: Officer. This order does not come in way of the Board requiring the applicant to produce copies of title deeds or the Revenue extract under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and pattadaf pass Books I'ct to satisfy itself that the applicant is the owner. Nor done it come in the way of the Board issuing approval if otherwise found to be eligible, with an endorsement that the approval sha.ll not be treated ils approval or acccptance of title. In r.iew of the above, the special leave petition Ls dismisse.d. "

19. In Smt. Chandrakala Despande and Another v. The Union of India and 3 Others (W.p.No. 18251 of 2O2O and 8282 <)f 2O2l), this Court while setting aside the rejection order passed by the Cantonment Board, remitted the matter to the authorit5r to decide application afres;h on its own merits and not to insist for N()C. I 19 i whsn'irfspondent 20, lt is relevanl [o mention here that in similar circurnstances No'z rejected the buitding permission in respect of the properry covered in the very same Sy' No' 66/1 and who had purchased the same from Vanita Co-operative Housing Society Limited, approached this Court and filed W'P'No'23691 of 2023 (Kusuma Jaipal v' State of Telangana) and the same was ailowed on 31'08'2O23 and directed the Cantonment board to release buiiding construction permission in favour of the petitioner therein within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of coPY of the order' i' In T. Kishan Rao v'

21. (W.P.No 17259 ol 2024]1' I Secunderabad Cantorrment Board therern guesdoned the the Petitioner Lonment Board in seeking any objec[ons' Hyderabad District for oned the letter issued bY 26.06.2024 directing the from the action of resPondent-Can rePorts, NOC from the District Collector ant of layout permission and also questr e respondenL Cantonrnent Board dated petitioner to produce any objections' rep District Collector' Hyderabad District permission' This Court aliowed the said writ Petitton consideradon the orders of 2 Co-ordinate Ben 19.06.2006 arrd l\'O3'2024 orts, NOC etc' ' for grant of laYout taking into ches dated , 20 (

22. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners during the course .1.' {' -- of he'dffig submitted that pursuant to the orders dated 31.Oa.2O23 passed in W-.1).No.23691 of 2O23, respondent No.2 has granted building permission in favour of the petitione: therein. Hence, respondent No.2 is not entitled to reject the builcting application of the petitioner in W.P.No.2292l of 2024, on the groun<1 of non- submission of NOC especially, the petitioner purchased 2()0 square yards in Plot No.1/part lorming part of Sy.No.66/ l, from \rery same Vanita Co-operative Housing Society Limited and the ordr:r passed by this Court in W.P.No.23691 of 2023 dared 31.O8r.2O23 is binding upon r:spondent No.2.

23. Insofar a s the contentions of the lcarned sta.rhingl counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 had not insisted Lhe petitioners to produce the NOC from rhe State Government authorities and only addressed a lefi.er to respondent No.3 on O2.O;>.2O24 seeking clarification on the ground that the subject property is not having proper boundaries are concerned, respondent No.t2 has not filed the copy of the saicl letter berfore this Court, especiatiy respondent No.2 had rejected the building permission in firvour of the petitioner in W.p.No.2 2921 of 2024 on the ground th at the petitioner has to obtain NOC from the concerned Stat,: Government authorities. Hence, the contention 2l raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No-2 igr.rot t-"i"jlfe the petitioners to produce NOC from the State Government authorities/ revenue authorities and only they sought clarilrcation through letter dated O2.O5.2O24 is not tenable under

24. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.23691 of 2023, dated 31.O8.2O23, and W'P' No' 77259 of 2024, dated, 15.10.2024, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.2 is not entitled to reject the building perrnission application submitted by the petitioner in W'P'No '22921 of 2024 on the ground of non-production of NOC from the State Government authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution I \ \ of India.

25. Similarly the impugned rejection order passed by respondent No.2 in W.P.No.22876 of 2024 on the ground of objection raised by the revenue authorities through letter dated 19 'O7 '2024 is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W'P'No' 1 1091 of 20O6 as well as the orders passed by the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Revision Petition in File No.P5/3434/81 before dated 21'11 1983' , 22 { a r.*t'

26. For,Jtre Io -eqoing reasons, the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions dated l>'4 07 '2A24 and O1.O7.2024, rejecting the building permission applications of the petitioners are liable to be set aside and accordingly' set aside' Respondenl No..2 is directed to consider the buikling permission applications submitted by the petitioners within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order' It Ls made clear that this Court has not expressed any vieu' ir-r respect of title over the subjec:t ProPerties' With the irbove directions, the writ petitions are disr:osed of accordinglY. Nrl crder as to costs Miscellanr:ous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A,V.S PRASAD ASS4qJANT RFGISTRAR \] s\ec--r'ol, oFFtcER I One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE J'SREENIVAS RAO (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) ' - To, 1'ThePrinclpalsecretary,Deparlment.of.Municipal,AdministratlonandUrban Oeretopmenf, Secretariat, S;ifabad, Hyderabad, State of Telanqana'

2. The chief axecutive officer, Secunderabad cantonment Boaro, sardar Patel Road, Cou't Compound, Secunderabad'

3. The District Oollector, Hyderabad District, at Hyderabad 4. The Revenur: Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 5. The Tahsilderr, Trimulgherry lvlandal, Hyderabad 6 1'1 LR Copies 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Lavr, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

8. The Secretr:ry, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, Hvderabad.

9. One CC to SRI tvl.SRlKANTH, Advocate [OPUC] 10 One CC to SRI A.I\,4UNEENDHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 11. One CC to SRI K.R.KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR SCB IOPUC] .eL L il -*:?.Iir' N.- r

12.Two..CgS'to GP*pB MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV' High Court for the State of '' i6ffir6rnrit HY?i:rabad [our] l3.TwocCStoGPFoRREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat HYderabad [OUTI

14.Two CD CoPies BSR I t" , T 7 I I HIGH COUIIT ..*'' * DATED: 04,t0312025 CC TODAil \ t COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.22B76 and 22921 of 2024 ( ,( f, () 1 riE ST4IA. 0 / t'lAii 2025 i, C) * Oi .3 P.1iCq * 'a\l I DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT C:OSTS I t