The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR MCPL ADMN UFI lAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REt Dy, SC FOR MCPL WRIT PETITION NO :24048 0F 2025 Between:

1. Sri.Tatikonda Venkata 3,:?ofll3r,9X, t;l,^go9,,, sangareddy oirtri.i fJ"ndra . Siva Bala lVurali Krishna, _:l o. Sri. Tatikonda a3 v""i,'oltl"sJl".,- nt H rrro r+_aro+t)lr, colony' Phase-2' a"u"' ig;d;, 'i;;"";plr, - x'.isr1,,-,s"J,ooi,'iis y",o oi.l e,;ilHi/"Yfi1[:l?..?,r,8"!,?,,,o*liiXll 2 9Tt Tatikonda Rajlsree, W/o.Sri.Tatikonda cotony, phr*_zl ril,Li]i.sior, n., . npur, sansareddy l,o;,,[tnfsr"rdra AND 1 ili||.i,Jfl!i,"fr,r,1",3?g;li- Rep. by its principar TS. -sc retary, rvunicipar revetopment Departmeht, secr rtiiai],nvjffi5jl .,.PETITIONERS

2. The Ameenpur lVurricipality, Rep.by its Commissir Sangareddy District. TS. ner. Ameenpur, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia 5,r circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hiiy pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more ) the nature of Writ of A,4andamus declaring the action of the Re s issuing the No. 42 49921 AlttlEE/ O 82 1 I 2O2 4 dt.27 I O 3 I 2O2S a s i ltega t, a rbitra ry lmpugned Revocation Notice RESPONDENTS :ying that in the r Court may be rrticularly one in pondent No.2 in vide Notice rnconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Article 21 , 14 and 3004 of Constitution of lndia, besides violation of the law laid down by this Honourable Court in Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Collector Hyderabad District, K.pavan Raj Vs Ir4CH and A.Shalivahana Reddy Vs GHIr/C and Consequenfly set aside the same, by directing the Respondent No.2 not to interfere with the construction activities of the Petitioners lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petrtion 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 operation of the lmpugned Revocation Notice No.424992lAltlEEl0821l2O24 dt.2710312025, by directing the Respondent No.2 not to interfere with the construction activities of the Petitioners pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH.JAYAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDy, SC FOR MCPL The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER TIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAN(} tNA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSI] { REDDY WRIT PETITTO N Nos.24030 AND 24048 Ol t_2,025 DATE OF COMMON ORDER: 15-12-20:5 W.P. No.24030 OF 2025: Between: Mrs. Chinthakunta Lakshmi Radha W/o. late I hinthakunta Venkata Srinivasulu ... Petitio ler AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Adrninistration and Urban Developrnent Dt:1 artment, Secretariat, I{yderabad, and one ( [ ) another. ... Respor dents COMMON ORDER: Since common issue is involved in both the ri it petitions, with the consent of the both sides, they are being d s rosed of by this common order

2. W.P. No.24030 of 2025 is taken as lead case fir disposal of these writ petitions 2

3. Brief facts in W.P. No.24030 of 2025 are as under:

3. I . This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned revocati on noLice v i cl e Noti ce No. 425 024/AMEE/0 8 23 I 2024 dated

04.04.2025, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14'

21. 300A of the Constitution of [ndia'

3.2 It is claimed that husband of the petitioner' late Mr. Chinthakunta Venkata Srinivasulu, was the absolute owner of the Ptot bearing No.l5 adnreas uring 207 '97 square yards in Survey Nos.1035 and 1036 situated at Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No'4355 of 2023 dated

18.05.2023. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner applied for building permission and he was issued provisional building permit order vide pemit No.425024lAMEElO823l2024 dated

10.08.2024 under Sections 17 4(2) of the Telangana Municipalities Act2019(forshor1.Act20l9,)forconstructionofStiltforparking + two (2) upper floors. After post verification of title on J

30.08.2024, work commencement letter was nor issued to petitioner's husband.

3.3 It is stated rhat as per Section t74(9) ol-tl e Act 2019, permission is deemed to have been issued after exlt ry o1- twenty one (21) days fi'om the grant of provisional building p:rmit order. As work commencement letter was not issued no . provisional building permit order was revoked, the provisional bui ding pennit order dated 10.08.2024 has attained finalirv under Sct:t on 174(10) of the Act 2019. The petitioner's husband comrnence( he building construction within six 16) months as per condition Jo.5 of the building permit order by laying slabs and brick t ork. The Municipal authorities inspected the site and oth:. sites on

31.05.2025 and again on 05.06.2025 and directed thc reririoner,s husband to stop construction in the subject propefiy, clc::ite having deemed building permission. As there was interferer e i,r ith the construction activity, the petitioner,s husband fited W. ) No.15679 of 2025, wherein, order dated |0.06.2025 was passed b1 this Courl directing respondent No.2 not to interfbre with construct on activity undertaken by petitioner's husband in the subject proprr v, without .- 4 following due Process of law However, he was directed to make constructlon strictlyinaccordancewiththebuildingpemitorder dated 10.08'2024

3.4 It is stated while things stood thus respondent No'2 issued impugned revocation notice dated 04 '04 '2025 stating that husband submitted an undated rePlY to the show- 2025 and the same was rejected as the Petitioner's

12.03 cause notice dated unsatisfactory

3.5 Learled counsel lor the petitloner submitted that neither the Petitioner nor her husband received show-cause notice 12.03.2025 nor they have submitted any reply to the same ln the meanwhile' the petitioner's husband died intestate on

23.O7.ZOZ5,and the petitioner succeedecl to the subiect property

3.6 l'eamed counsel Lbr the petitioner further submitted that impugned revocation notice is issued stating that the subject property falls under the vicinity of the GovemmentAJrban Land Ceiting (Uf'C) land' The revocation notice is contrary to the law Iaid down by this Courl in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited ) v. Collector, Hyderabad Districtl. The revocaticr notice does not disclose any details and the extent of lr r d u'hich is alleged to be covered under the Governnrerr /fJLC land The petitioner was not given any notice whi[: issuing the revocation notice

3.7 lnterim order dated 13.08.2025 was 1z ssed by this Cou( in W.P. No.24030 of 2025 taking note of thc submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioner that rr tire structure was constrllcted as per the sanctioned plan and r r11' tinishing works are left to be completed. The petitioner r,, as pernrittcd to carry out finishing works in the subject propefty ui hout rnaking any additiona[ floors or structures.

3.8 Learrred counsel for the petitioner re i:d upon the ordel passed by this Court in W.P. No.273i9 cf 202 I dated

26.10.2022 and submitted that this Court in catenrL ol decisions held that the Municipal authorities are only concer red rvith the primcr ;fltcie title and cannot refltse or revokc he building permission on the ground dispute with the Govemmc I . ' :oo t (i) eL.o ooo 6

4. Heard Mr. Ch. Jayakrishna, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No'2.

5. [t seems from the record that provisional building permit order was granted to the petitioner on dated 10.08'2024 under Section fia(\ of the Act 20 19. As seen {iom the photographs (under Ex.P4) entire building has been completed. 'fhe irnpugned revocation notice is passed under Section ll4(4) (l 0) of the Act

2019. As per Section 17a(8) of the Act 20 19, veriflcation of title has to be done within twenty one (21) days lrom the date of issue of permit order. However, after eight (8) months impugned revocation notice was issued. Though, it is stated that in the impugned notice that show-cause notice dated 12'03'2025 was issued to the petitioner, and reply has been received there is no reference to the reply in the impugned notice nor copy of reply is placed on record.

6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner neither show- cause notice was received nor reply was submitted, and there is no - 7 rebuttal by the leamed standing counsel for respondt:r t No.2 to the said submission. The revocation is on the ground hat proposed site of the petitioner is under the vicinity of the Go'' mment/UlC land and the llte was triggered to revenue depaftnr rnt. Furthcr, there are no details mentioned i.e., proceedings un( er which the subject propefty was declared as Government/ceiling ;urplus under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976

7. This Court in Hyderabad Potteries's case (s,r rra) held that building permission cannot be refused on the sole I i sis of entries in revenue records and the Municipal authorities car not insist for any objection cerlificate to be obtained fronr the revenue authoritics. 'l'hc Municipal authorities are only c,r rcemed with prima.facie title. Further, the petitioner has complete r construction of buitding pursuant to the building permit order date I 10.08.2014 and interim order of this Court in W.P. No.24030 c I 2025 datcd

13.08.2025

8. In vieu,of the above, the impugned revocatior notice dated

04.04.2025 not only suffers from the violation ot rrinciples of !- 8 natural justice but also contrary to law laid down in Hyderabad Potteries's case (supra),, and thus liable to be set aside' g. Accordingly,, the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned revocation notice vide Notice Nos'42 50241 AMEEl0823l 2024 dated 04.04.2025 and 424992IAMEE/0821/2024 dated 27 .03.2025. However, this order shall not come in the way of RevenuefuLC authorities in taking action against the petitioners' by lotlowing due process of law' There shall be no order as to CoStS. Asa sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicatiotrs' if any' pending in these writ petitions stand closed' //TRUE COPY// -SD/.C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT RJ€ISTRAR SECTIOffiOFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipat Adminis[ation and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana'

2.TheCommissioner,AmeenpurMunicipality,Ameenpur,SangareddyDistrict, TS. ,,

3. One CC to SRI CH.JAYAKRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR IVCPL [OPUC] 5.TwoCCstoGPFoRtVcPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies BSR BS D HIGH COURT DATED: 1511212025 cC TODAY COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.24030 and 24048 ot 2025 t. i! I : :. THE S t4 \ ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIOIIS, WITHOUT COSTS .)(- \