The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances state_d in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more so, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in insisting the petitioner to produce NoC from ULC Department for plot No.82-A in Sy.No.60, 11 to ll, al RaghaveMra Colony, Kondapur, through the shortfall letter dated 2g.Ol.2O2S, though the same is unsustainable as the ULC Act itself repealed and therefore, the same is arbitrary, illegal, unlawful contrary to law and consequentially to direct the 2N respondent herein to process the building application of the petitioner without insisting for production of NOC from the ULC Departrnent. lA NO: 1 Ot 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct 2nd respondent herein to consider for granting building permission and sanction for Plot No.82-A in Sy.No.6O,71 to 77, at Raghavendra Colony, Kondapur to the petitioner without insisting the NOC from ULC Department, during the pendency of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. VASANTF{A RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC counselfor the Respondent No.3: GP FoR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER n THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE LIIXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY ORDER: This writ petition is liled aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in insisting the petitioner to produce No objection certificate from urban Land ceiling Department for granting permission for construction, as arbitraqr, illegal and contrar5r to law.

2. Heard sri G.va.santha Ra5rudu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned standing counsel fot 2nd respondent and learned Assistant Government pleader for 3'd respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the property admeasuring 3oo sq.yards, bearing Plot No.82-A in Sy.No.6o , T l to TT at Kondapur village, serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District, having acquired t.l.e same through registered Sale Deed vide I Document No.7559 of L997. The petitioner submitted application seeking permission for cpnstruction of residential building vide online application No.c/cHMC/0s4T L9 /2o2o, dated o6.Lo.2o2o. However, the 2'd respondent vide shortfall letter dated 2g.or.2o2s \\ \ 2 has raised objections including a requirement to get No Objection Certificate (for short AIOCJ from Urban Land Ceiling Department (for short t LC Department).

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has complied with all the objections except NOC from the ULC Department. He would also submit that The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, L976 (for short 'the Act, 19761 is repealed and therefore, provisions of the said Act, Lg76 are not applicable to Survey Nos.6O, 7l to 77 of Kondapur Village and therefore, respondent No.2 cannot insist for production of NOC from the Urban Land Ceiling Department.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that this Court in similar circumstances i.e. in WP.Nos.271OO of 2O2l and 2934.8 of 2O2L has directed the GHMC authorities to process the application for permission of the petitioners therein for construct:ion without insisting for NOC from the ULC Department, and thus prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent would submit that as [)er own ad.mission of the petitioner, the subject plot is part of unapproved layout and that the application submitted by the petitioner for regularization is pending. He would further / / r 3 submit that in tlre Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court has directed the GHMC authorities to process the application of the petitioners therein without insisting for the NOC, however all the other objections shall be complied with. He would further submit that in the short fall letter dated

29.07.2025, the respondent authority apart from raising other objections, specifically raised €u1 objection rega-rding the non- regalarization of the subject plot.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 would further submit that against the Judgment dated 28.03.2017 passed in W.P. No.21580 of 2OO8 and batch, which was relied upon by the petitioner, the Government preferred an appeal in W.A. No.166 of 2018, and the same is still pending. Hence, he prayed to pass appropriate orders.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of plot bearing No.82-A in Sy.No.6O, 71 to 77 at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District, admeasuring 3OO sq.yards. Admittedly the petitioner submitted application seeking permission for construction and respondent No.2 vide short fall letter dated 29.07.2025, raised certain objections including production of NOC from the ULC Department. \\ \\ 4 I

9. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 has taken a specific plea that in the short fall letter dated 29.07.2025 apart from taking objection for production of NOC from the ULC Department the respondents have also taken several objections including, non regilarization of subject plot and that the petitioner has to comply with the said objection.

10. It is relevant to note that vide common Judgment dated

28.O3.2OLT in WP.No.21580 of 2008 and batch, ttiis Court held that the 'urban land ceiling proceedings initiated in respect of the lands covered in WP.No.2158O of 2OO8 have lapsed as the respondent authorities failed to take physical possession of the subject lands as on the date on which the repeal Act was adopted and as such, there is no need for the petitioners ttrerein to seek regularizirtion of the subject lands.

11. The subject lands in the said writ petition, includes the lands of l(ondapur village. Though the writ appeal vide WA.No. tr66 of 2018 is filed challenging the said order, there are no interim order as on today. Vide proceedings dated 16.08.1983, the then HUDA had informed that the lands in Survey Nos.63 and,7L to 77 of Kondapur are in residential zorle. The petitioner herein has **/ o 5 already applied for regulaftz,atton of subject plot under Layout Regularization Scheme. The subject land in the present writ petition is in Sy.Nos.6O,7L to 77 of Kondapur Village. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no need for the petitioner to obtain clearance certificatelNOC from the ULC Department for processing petitioner's application seeking building permission.

12. In view of the above discussion, this Writ petition is disposed \ \ of directing respondent No.2 to process the application No.C/GHMC(OS47 19 12020, dated 06.10.2020 submitted by the petitioner for building permission without insisting for production of Clearance Certificate/NOC from the ULC Department, and pass necessary orders thereon by taking into consideration the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by tJ:is Court in WP.No.21580 of 2OO8 and batch, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that any order likely to be passed by the official respondents shall be subject to the final orders to be passed by this Court in WA.No.166 of 2Ol8 and batch, and the petitioner herein shall not cLaim any equities in case any adverse orders are passed against her in the said writ appeal. In case of any alienation, the petitioner shall inform the purchaser about the CI. 6 pendenrry of the litigation and t].at the building permission is subject to the final orders rikely to be passed in wA.No. 156 of 20L8 a'd batch. Any arienation made by .*re petitioner is arso subject ro the result of the said wA.No.166 of 2org and batch. 13. Accordingly, the writ pe no order as to costs. tition is disposed of. There shall be Miscellaneous petitions pending, if €rny, shall stand closed. K. sD/- ASS

4. One CC:to Sri G Vasantha Rayudu, Advocate tOpUCl ---.-""'" LvrL'vJ 5. Two CCs to Gp fnr firrrniai^^r ^'-- .'. . " 1"ry I,1? "?'r5?i,l[315] %l',m'g';I5 1ALff 6, One-CG Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, SC foTGHMCtOpUCJ ' Iyo"nFr?i?rBlirnt 8. Two CD Copies for Revenue, High courr for the state or reransarr, ", , n D e ve ro p m e nt, H is h co u rt ,, '' TJ TJ #. / / :-. - HIGH COURT DATED i1011012025 "/ n I ORDER WP.No.:23986 of 2025 Tl-iE s ( 2 5 ifn ?rlni ::.- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOLIT COSTS :' \ : I €