High Court · 2025

the circumsrances stared in rhe arridavit ,,"0 ,, .,rllil::HH::':#'in ;;'^:-l':1,"'' l'" High court mav be pteased ro direct the Respondenr ; t consider the petitioners application seeking permission fo. conrtrr.t,l: : admeasurins ieB 33.r;*tffi?::#":l"n the petitioners prope,tv '" Jirrersuda (v), Batapur -J:;;j;""'^:_::No. 304(part) in sy No 55 and 56, Rangareddy Distriit without insisting for No objection certificate/ a,"rt''un'ut')' -"'ponden'[ nos 4 "" u'0"' :ilH:H,*triil "ff ::'l':.il,:;;,'1"" 5 i e' Jrom the Revenue ;posar of the writ petition. ; SRI V.M.M.CHARY Counsel for the petitioner Counsel for the Responderlt No.1 : Gp FOR MC'L ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Responde,t No.2 : SRI S.RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR MC Counsel for the Responderrt No.3TO5 : Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the foilowi,rg: ORDER v TIIE I{ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25000 OF 2025 ORDER: (oRAL) This writ petition is filed seeking following relief "to issuc an approl)r'latc Writ Ordcr or Dircction morc particularly onc in thc naturo of Writ of VzrndanrLrs dcclaring the Short Fall Letter dated Iti 0S 202i issued by tlie 2nd respondent against the applrcation of the pctitioncr seeking pennission lbr constr uction o1'a rcsidential building in the petitroners properly adr.neasuring l9tt.33 Sq_ 1,rds. bearing Plot No -)04 part in Sy. No _55 and 56 Jillclguda (V) Balapur Revenuc (M) llangarcddv Disrnct and insisting thc pctitioner to enclosc tl.re 'No objcction cortiilcate'/ Clearance Cerlificatc fiorn tlrc ltespondent nos. .l i, e_ Urban Land Clciling (ULC) ALrthonty allcging rhar sr'. no 55 arcl 56 arc shown in thc prohibitecl list uf SLrb regisrrars ofllcc as illegal, arbitrary and uuconstitLltional lparl liorr being contrary to law laid do,'vn by this I{on'ble C,.oLrfl in Hyderabad Potteries Case reportctl in 2001(-l) ALD 600 orders in W P No I2798 of 202 I and W I) No li(r56 oi'2025 aparl fi<lm bcing in violation o1'thc pro,".isions conrcrnplatcd under the Telangana Municipalitics Act l0l9 and TE.l3pass Act 2020 and conserlucntlv dircct thc 2nd respronclbnt to consider the pctitioner's a1;plication rvithout insisting on a 'No Objection Cerliflcate'i Cllearancc Ccrrilicatc fiorr the Rcspondent nos. 3 to 5, r'clcasc tllc sanction plaii lor the consh'uction of thc builtling in thc propcrtv and lurthcr direct the 4th rcfund thc rcgularization chargcs paid and pass ordcrs-"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioncr submitted that the matter is squarely covered by order of rhis Coun datcd 13.04.2022 in W.P.No.12798 of 2021 and orders passed by this Court dated

24.04.2025 in W.P.No.8656 of 2025 2

3. 'lhe said submi.ssion is not opposed by leamed standing counsel fbr 2"i respondent and the leamed Govemment pleader for Municipal Adminrstration ancl Urban Development and the learned Government Pleader for Revenuc.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the 2'd relief sought in thc writ petition seeking refund of regularisation charges paid in Lirban Land Ceiling Act vide application No. J/141/156641200g is not insisted and petitioner seeks to withdraw the rvrit petition to the extent of such relief. 5 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting asidc the rmpugned shortfall letter dated 1g.0g.202-5 Consequentlv building permrssron applicatron submitted by the petitioner rn tespect ol subject property shalr be processed without ref.erence to the rmpugned shortf'all notice and without insisting for No objection certificare fiom the tJrban Land Ceiling Authority within a periocl of 2l days after receiltt ola copy of this order. There is no order as [o costs J Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/-C. DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1 I he Princioal Secretary IVlunicipal Administratlon and Urban Development ffi ;,1#fi'L'slJte oir'"ii ng ana, Secretariat Hvderabad

2. The commissioner, Meerpet lt/lunicipal corporation, Rangareddy District' 3 The Sbecial Chief Secretary Revenue U L C Dept ' State of Telangana' Secrebriat, HYderabad 4 The SDecial Officer and Competent Authority' The Collector' Urban Land and Ceitinq Wing, RangareddY District

5. The Principal Secretary' Revenue Department State of Telangana' Secretariat, HYderabad.'

6. One CC to SRI V-M.lvl-CHARY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two ccs to GP FOR rvlcPL ADlvlN uRBAN DEV, High court for the State of TelanQana [OUT] 8 one cc to sRl s RAVINDER REDDY' SC FOR MC [OPUC] 9 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] '10.Two CD CoPies. o with a copv of the order, dated 13-04-2022.in.W P No 12798 of 2021 & E i'r" 4656'dr 2025 dt 24 04 2025to thrs order) 4y (Alon in W. BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:22tUBtitOZs ORDER WP.No.25000 ot' ZO2S ir{E S i4 o\ U ai.''. a;.'+ 1 3 SEP 2025 -" ir '.'t':' '!.- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @, 1 \$ t^ THE HON,BLE SRI ]USTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY w P TI N ,L2 I 20 ORDER: the proceedings in the action of the This writ petition is filed to declare CC. N9.l2l9984/76 as abated, lapsed and respondent No'3 in CC. No. 82/9984/76 notifying and includlng the land belonging to the petitioners comprising of Plot Nos'81' 82' 83 and 84 admeasuring 1454'65 sq' yards in'B'Block of Raghavendra Colony in Sy.Nos.55 and 56 of Jlllelaguda Village' Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad (later numbered as No'12/9984/76) as surplus excegs land under Chapter III of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as void ab initio and non est in the eye of law, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction' It is the claim of the petitioners that they are absolute 2. owners and possessors of the subject land having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document Nos 16060 and 16065 of 1990 from the legal heirs and children of the original possessor and pattadar Late Smt Habeebunlssa Begum' The father of the petltioners gifted Plot No'81 admeasuring 463 sq yards and the petitioner No.2 gifted northern part of Plot No'82 admeasuring 165 sq. yards to the petitioner No'1 under document Nos 3114 and 3115 of 2007 dated 27.02'2OOl respectively Since then' thepetitionerNo'lisinpossessionandenjoymentoftheproperty. 2 The subject property admeasuring 1454.65 sq. yards was originally owned by late jmt. Habeebunissa Begum. She was the pattadar oF Sy.Nos.33 to 36 of Jillelaguda Village, which was under the possession of tenants, namery, chira Malamma and six others. The ownership rights in respect of the entire rand in sy.Nos.33 to 36 was transfe -red to the tenants in terms of compromise as per the decree dated 30.08.1979 in CRp.No.873 of lg7g. After the death of Habeebunnisa Begum, the ownership of the land in Sy.Nos.55 and 56 was mutated in the names of the petitioners, vendor Mirza H;rbeebullah Baig and eleven others, who were legal heirs of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum. The mutation proceedings were issued rn their favour vide proceedin gs No,B/20/Lg89 dated

21. 03. 1989.

3. Smt_ H; beebunnisa Begum filed declaration vide CC.No.B2l9984 /,,6 under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ,the Act,). Her four sons and two daughters atso filed dectarations vide CC./No.82 /9985/76 to B2/999O/76 clainting equal shares along with their mother as per Hiba for the errtire extent of land admeasuring Ac.49.04 in Sy.Nos.55, 56, 3I to 36 of Jillelaguda Village, as the compromise was not effected n CRp.No.g73 of l97g between the pattedar and tenants by the rime of firing of their decrarations. whire the J proceedlngs were pending before the respondent No'3' Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum died on 06'09'1987'

4. The respondent No.3 (Special Officer, Competent Authority' Urbah Land Ceiling) dlsposed of CC'No'82/9984176 lo 8219990/76 by a common order dated 29'04'1989 rejecting the claim of the childrenofsmt.HabeebunnisaBegumandthecompromisedecree in CRP.No.873 of 1979 holding that the compromise was effected afterthecommencementoftheActandcomputedthetotalextent of thb land in Sy.Nos.55, 56 and 33 to 36 to the holding of late Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum. It is stated that the respondent No'3 has pointed out in the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act dated 29.04.1989 that the declarant, Late Habeebunnisa Begum' hasfiledobjectionson22.04.lgSS,whichshowsnon-applicationof mind as the declarant died on 06'09'1987' The respondent No 3 in held that the declarant is entitled for the order at clause (f) of land as Per G.O'MS'No 733 dated exemption of Ac.5'00 31.10.1988, which was issued under Section 20(1) of the ULC Act' 1976. Having regard to G.O'Ms'No 733, the legal heirs of the declarant sold the plots as per approved layout and executed registered sale deeds on 05.12'1990 in respect of the subject property in favour of the petltioner No'2 and the father of the petitioner No.1. There is a recital In clause 9 of the sale deeds to 4 the effect that the land is exempted under G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1988

5. The petitioners have constructed three shops and a house with tin roof in plot No.B1 bearing H.No.6 _204/34/A/7 and the said house has ele(:tricity connection and the peUtioners have been paying property tax. whiie so, it is stated that in the year 2014, the officers of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 surprised the petitioners holding that th.y are in ilegar possession of prot Nos.81 to 84. The petitloners ,/,/ere threatened that they would be evicted if they do not file appli:ations and pay requisite fee for regularizing their plots under G.c.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008. Due to pressure exerted by the oFficers, though the land being covered under G.O.t\4s.No.733 dated 31.10.1998, they paid an amount of Rs.7,36,926.50 to the ULC Authorities for regularization vide applications No.;t6379, 26380 dated 19.O2.ZO!4 and 25.02.20L4 vide DD. Nos.061, t8,1724 and 1726.

6. In the meenwhile, the petitioners came to know that a letter No.)/2759/2073 dated 24.03.2017 is addressed from the office of the respondent No.3 to No.2 requesting the Government of Telangana G.O.Ms.No.947 dated 02.08.2008 a otting 18000 sq. meters (Ac.4.13 guntas) on paper to APHB without giving boundaries or creating sub divisionar records respondent to withdraw 5 showlng the allotted land has no vacant land on ground and the entire land in Sy.Nos.33 to 36, 55 and 56 of lillelaguda Village are covered by pucca structures' The GPA of the petitioners applied for building permisslon. However, the respondent No'4 refused to receive the application and insisted for NOC from the respondent No.3 and further stated that the subject survey numbers are included in the list of the prohibited properties as surplus land' The petitioners obtained copies of the proceedings under the Act vide application under the Right to Information Act and came to know that the order was passed under Section 8(4) of the act and notification under Section 1O(5) of the Act was issued on

03.01.2007 in the name of the declarant, who died on 06'09'1987 to hand over the surplus land. Similarly, notification under Section 10(6) was issued on 06.03.2007 in the name of the dead declarant in spite of being aware that she is not alive.

7. Dr. l. Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the submitted that the impugned proceedings are void ab ''tlo notification under Section 10(5) of the Act was issued against a dead person. The panchanama proceedings purporting to have taken possession of the subject vacant land contradicts the entries in the! revenue record, whlch shows that the land is converted into plots in the year 1986 itself as per the pahanies for the year 1985- 87 and 1987-88. The letter dated 24'03.2017 of the respondent 6 la nd is only on site. It is proceedings were conducted on No.3 states th.t the land has been made into plots and structures exist on it and there is no vacant land. The panchanama purporting to take posses;sion of the vacant paper as no a proforma panchanama cr3ated on f2.03.2007 by filling in the blanks without giving sub divir;ion sketch of the surprus rand and the retainabre land of the declarant. The map attached to the panchanama does not give the measurements by giving the horizontar and verticar angles between the points as per Survey and Setuernent of Boundaries Act, 195g clearly demarcating the surplus land and the retainable land. The procedure prescribed under Section 17 oi the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules under the Act was not followed before taking a leged possession. The impugned proceedings are contrary to the law laid down by this Court in SYED HASHIM v. STATE OF Up (wp.No.20113 of 2010 dared 10.01.2020) ; sTATE OF UP v. HARI RAI{r and N. LINGA RAO v. THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND (:OMPETENT AUHTORITY2. B. In the counter filed by the respondent No.3, it is stated that Late smt. Habeelunnisa Begum and six others have fired statement under Section 6(1) of the Act declaring an extent of 7,gA,699.g7 sq. meters for computation of their holding. After due verification, the draft statem€nt under Section g(1) of the Act and notice under ' (2oll),1 scc 280 '20t7 (4) AI_T 9 1 Section 8(3) of the Act was issued on 31'06'1987' Late Habeebunnisa Begum and others were provisionally determined as surplus holder to an extent of 198700'58 sq' meters in Sy.Nos.33, 34, 35, 36, 55 and 56 and the declarants were allowedtoretainlo00sq.eachmetersunderSection4(1)(b)ofthe Act. The declarants filed objections in which the main objection was that the judgement and decree dated 30'09 179 in CRP'No 873 of 1979 should have been accepted and that all the declarants are entitled to keep their speclfic (7) holdings as they are owners and possessors of their own shares The objections submitted by the declarantswerenotaccepted,finalordersunderSectionS(4)ofthe Act and final statement under Section 9 of the Act was accordingly issued on 29.04.1989 declaring Smt' Habeebunissa Begum as surplus holding to an extent of 7,g7,700'58 sq' meters' Appeal was filed by the declarants under Section 33 of the Act and the same was dismissed on 10.07.1997 Thereafter, notification under Section 10(1) of the Act and declaration under Section 10(3) of the Act were published in Gazette No'169 dated 11 09'2022 and Gazette No.401 dated O-1 .12.2006 and notice under Section 10(5) was issued on 03.01.2007 to hand over the surplus land' The same was affixed on the door by the enquiry officer in the presence of witnesses, as the declarant was not residing in the address and whereabouts of the declarant were not known' Thereafter' 8 the proceedlngs under Section 10(6) of the Act were issued and enquiry officer had taken possession ol the surplus land duly conducting the panchanama on 12.03.2007.

9. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the declarant Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum executed a power of Attorney on 05.10,1981 in favour of her son Syed Muzaferuddin yaheya. The legal heirs of the declarant, basing on the gift deed and GpA executed the Extension of Agreement of sale deed in favour of Gruhalaxmi Co-tperative Housing Society on L4.O7.IgA8. As seen from the proceedings of the MRO, Saroornagar an Fjle No.A/6329/t994 dated t}.O4.tgg7, it is observed that the name of M/s. Gruha Lakshmi Co-op Housing Society Limited is rncorporated in the possessicn column i.e. in column No.13 of pahani and in column No.22 it is incorporated as plots. The said society has made plots on the Iand situated in Sy.Nos.55 and 56 in Balapur Village of Saroornagar Marrdal and sold the same to several individuals. As the lands in question attracted by the provisions of the Act and fall under the l- yderabad Urban Agglomeration and are lands, any transtctions over the lands, mutation orders pattadar pass books and title deeds issued, if any, without obtaining permission under Section 26 of the Act are nu and void under Sections 5( 3) and 10(4) of the Act. vacant issued, 9

10. It is stated in the counter affidavlt that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.947 dated 02'08'2008 allotted the surplus land in Sy.Nos.33, 34, 35, 36,55 and 56 of Jillelaguda Village' Saroornaqar Mandal, to an extent of 18,000 sq' meters to the A'P' Housinq Board for optimum utilization of the land in the best publlc interest over to APHB duly conducting panchanama on su rplus land sketch out of total and handed without anY

04.08.2008 sq. meters admeasuring CC File No.l/9980 to 9990/76' Later, having found discrepancies in 7,97 ,7OO.5B declared as surplus in theallotmentregardingsub-division,boundaries,therespondent No.3 issued letters dated 23'03'2077, 2l 'O8 '2071 ' o4'o9 20L7 ' 17.01.2019 and 06.01.2021 addressed to the CCLA with a request to recommend the Government to expedite the actlon for cancellation of G.O.Ms.No.947 dated 02 08'2008 so as to enable the respondent No'3 to process the pending applications in terms of G.o.Ms.No.T4TdatedlS.06.20oS.Applicationsforregularization were submitted by the petitioners in terms of G'O'Ms'No'747 dated

18.06.2008

11. It is further stated that the uLc Repeal Act' 1999 was adopted in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 2T.03.200sandasperSection4therein,allproceedIngsUnderthe Act would abate, if actual possession was not taken by the ULC authorities by 27'03.2008' The possession of surplus land in the l0 instant case \^,as taken over by ULC authorities on 72.03.2007, which is much beFore the Repeal Act came into force. The petitioners;, being third party to the proceedinqs, have not raised any objr:ctions at the time of issuing orders under Sections 8(1) and 8(4) and publication oF Gazette Notification under Sections 10(1) to 10(6) )f the Act and taking over the possession of the rand while conducting panchanama. The petitioners do not have /ocus standi to question non-service of notice on dead persons i.e., land holder and declarrant.

72. Learned (ounsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the order under Se:tion g(4) of the Act rvas issued on 29.04.19g9. The declarant :;mt. Habeebunnisa Begum died on 06.0g.19g7. Section 8(4) ord:r, as per the record was dispatched to all the legal representatives cf the declarant. Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum was indicated as exp red in the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act' Thus, the re'jpondent No.3 cannot be permitted to contend that the death of Smt Habeebunnisa Begum is not in its knowtedge.

13. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clearly shown in the order passed under Section g(4) order dated 29.04.1987 that Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum expired. The notice under section 10( 5) of the Act dated o3.oi.2oo7 was issued in the name of Smt. hlabeebunnisa Begum, who was dead by then. i1 Section 10(5) of the Act mandates that notices should be qiven to the land owner and person in possession of the property' This Court in STATE OF A.P., REVENUE DEPARTMENT v' sMT' A' BHARATHI3 held as under: ".,. Even otherwise it was brouqht to our notrce that the statutory notices under the Act were issued in the name of dead person which is non est in the eye of law "" The legal heirs of the declarant were parties to Section 8(1) and Section 8(4) proceedings. The respondent No 3 was well aware of the death of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum' However' for the reasons best known, the respondent No'3 has chosen to issue notice under Section 10(5) to Smt' Habeebunnisa Begum (dead persqn). Thus, the notice under Sectlon 10(5) and consequential order under Section 10(6) are vitiated and held to be void Further' proceedings of taking over possession under the guise of panchanama dated 12.03.2007 is nonest ln the eye of law'

14. The next issue, which arises for consideration ls whether the petitioners have got locus standi to challenge the impugned proceed ing s.

15. It is the case of the petitioners that their vendor purchased the lEnd under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos 16060 and 16065 of 1990 dated 06.12'1990' The sale deeds were r zooz.(+) et-r ::+ (os) t2 registered as the subject land was exempted under G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31.10.1998. The sale deeds were registered without raising any objection. --hus, the respondents are estopped from contending that the pet,tioners do not have tocus standito file this writ petition.

16. In T. MURALIDHAR RAO v. STATE OF A.p.4 an issue regarding locus standi of the petitioner, who purchased land under sale deed dated 2g.05.199 by availing exemption under G.O.Ms.No.733 Cated 31.10.1998 came up for consideration and it was held under ln paragraph Nos.79, g0 and g1: "79. In th() instant case, by the date the sale was effected by Smt. B. Suguna Rama Rao of the two plots in favour of Smt. Y. Sharada Devr by 28,5.199g, proceedings under Section 10(1) alone had been issued on 31.12.1982. Notice under Seciion 1O(3) of the Act came to be issued on 14.5.1999. Therefore, sale by the declarant Smt. B. Suguna Rama Rao n favour of Smt. y. Sharada Devi on 2g.5.199g was before the conclusion of proceedtngs under Chapter-Ill of the Act lnd such sale was exempted and permitted by G.O. [4s. No. /33, dated 31.10.1988. 8O. I hav: already noted that the sale deed dated 28.5.1998 (:ontains specific recrtal in clause (10) that the vacant land admeasuring 5074 square yards purchased by the declarant Smt. B. Suguna Rama Rao was in the peripheral a.ea under G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31_10.19gg and hence availi,rg exemption granted therein she already sold 3900 square yards to others and through this sale deed dated 28.5,j999, she was transfernng g74 square yards to '20t? (3) ALD 706 13 Smt. Y. Sharada Devi. As stated above, in P S Rao (28 supra), the Supreme Court held that as long as proceedings under Chapter-Ill of the Act are pending, the landholder can avail the exemption under Section 20 of the Act, even after vesting and the exemption would have the effect of taking the land out of the purview of the Act Therefore, the said sale deed dated 28.5.1998 cannot be said to be null and void and consequentty the sale deed in favour of the petitioners executed on 22.8.2009 also cannot be said to be null and void. 81. In view of the above finding, I hold that the petitioners would certainly have /ocus to file the writ petition when the petitioners were informed that the subject land was declared as surplus land under the Act"' The judgment in MURALIDHAR RAO'S case (3 Supra) was confifmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W A' No 871 of 2Ol7 vide Judgment dated 03.08' 2018. t7 Section 10(5) of the Act reads as under: "(5) Where any vacant land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (3), the competent authority may, by notice in writing, order any person who may be in possession of it to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the State Government or to any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the notice. "

18. In W.P. No.19652 of 2OO7, issue No4 and the decision therepn, respectively, are as under: "Whether before taking possession of the surplus land' the respondents were under an obligation to issue 14 notices to the petitioner society and their members under the provisions of the ULC Act, who claim to be in possessj(n and persons interested in the land? If so, then wh,rt would happen to the orders passed by respondent lJo.2 under the provisions of the ULC Act?,, "Hence, i: is held that the petitioner society and their members, who were in possession of the land and persons interested therein, were entifled to issuance of notices urrder the provisions of the ULC Act, and taking over possession oF the land, without notices to them, violates the principles oF natural justice, and as such, the orde-s passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, affecting r:he rights of the petitioner society and their members in the Iand in question, cannot be sustained and are li;rble to be set aside.,,

19. The petitioners are admittedly in possession of the property and it is even the case of the respondent authorities that applications of the petitioners for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 1g.06.200g is under process. By virtue of the Repeal Act, as possession of the property was not taken in accordance with aw, the proceedings stood abated under section 4 of the Repeal A(.t, which was adopted by the erstwhile State of Andhra pradesh on 27.03.2008.

20. In the lig rt of Mr. Harender per shad, the above discussion, the contention of learned Special Government pleader, that the petitioners do not have locus standi and that the sale deeds of 15 the petitioners are in violation of Section 5(3) of the Act is without any merit. This Court holds that the petitioners are aggrieved and interested persons, as they claim of being in possession of the propdrty on the strength of the sale deeds and their interest is advetsely affected due to impugned ULC proceedings'

21. In view of the above observatlons, the writ petition is allowi:d. The proceedings issued in File No'CC l/9984/76 bY the respdndent No.3 under the Act relating to the orders passed under Section 8(a) dated 29.04.1989, Section 10(1) dated nil'09'2002' Sectibn 1O(3) dated 05'12'2006, Section 10(5) dated 03'01 2007 and $ection 10(6) dated 06'03.2007 issued in the name of the dad declafant is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to reiund the amount of Rs.7,36,916,/- paid towards regularization by the petitioners. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closeU. There shall be no order as to costs' April \3, 2022 DSK B, VIJAYSEN REDDY, ' THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE B. YIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITIO NN0.8656 0F 2025 oRDER: (oRAL) The writ petition IS filed by the petitioners seeking the followirrg relief: the Notice "...pleased to issue Writ, Order, or direction more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring of revocation of building permission dated issued u/s. 174(4)(10) of the Telangana 03,12.2024 Mdnicipalities Act, 201 9 by the 2ndrespondent inrespect of th( petitioners property admeasuring 200 Sq'yrds bearing Pldt No.l29, H.No.62l0l27l8 in Sv.No'55 and 56, Raghavendra Nagar,Jillelguda,Balapur(M),Rangareddy District, in a routine manner without mentioning any reasons while orally informing that that the same is rejected on the grdund that the petitioners did not enclose the 'No objection cettificate'/ Clearance Ceflificate from the Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) Authority along with the application as ill@gal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being coftrary to the settled principle laid by this Hon'ble Court in Hjderabad Potteries Case reported in 2001 (3) ALD 600' orilers in W.P. No.l 2798 of 202 I and also in catena ju{gements of this Hon'ble Court aparl from being in viQlation of the provisions contemplated under the Teiangana Municipalities Act 2019 and T'S' bPass Act, 2020 2 and consequently set aside the same directing the 2nd respondent lo consider the petitioners application without insisting on ir No Objection Certificate/ Clearance Certificate from the ULC Authorities or Revenue Authorities and release the sitnction plan for the construction of the building in the proper y and pass. . .,,

2. Heard Mr. V.M.M. Chary, leamed counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Singireddy Ravinder Reddy, learned standing counsel fbr respondenr No.2 rnd Mr. D.v. charapathi Rao, rearned Govemment Pleader for Assignment, appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

3. Petitioners claim to be absolute owners and possessors of the propefiy bearing plot No. 129, H.No.6_210i27lg, admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey Nos.55 and 56 of Raghavendra Nagar, Jillelguda, Balaprrr Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, i.e., subject propc(y, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing documenl No.l234 of 2014 dared 03.01.2014 from the previous owners NIr. yeddulapedda Reddy and another. It is stated that the vendors c,f the petitioners purchased the subject property from Mr. G. Sudharshan Reddy, through registered Agreement_cum_ General Power of Attomey vdedocument Nos.r55gg and r55g9 of 3 2012 dated 12.12.2012- Mr. G. Sudharshan Reddy' in turn purchased the subject propefiy through registered sale deed bearing documentNo.2026ofl995dated28.10.1995whichwasdeveloped by M/s. Gruha Laxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited' The vendors of the petitioners have obtained building permission for construction of ground + one upper floor and sold the semi- construpted building to the petitioners in the year 2014' Further' petitioners obtained building permission in the year 2024 for construction of residential building in the subject property' It is submitted that while petitioners were taking steps to 4. construct the building, a show-cause notice vide Notice No.440985iMERPlo3g2l2o24dated18.||.2024wasissuedcalling upon them to explain as to why the building permission granted to them should not be cancelled for indulging in misrepresentation. Thereafter, impugned notice vide No'440985/M8RP1039212024 dated 03.12.2024 under Section 174(4X10) of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 was issued to the petitioners revoking the building permission granted to them vide ordet dated l0'10'2024' 4

5. It is submitted that impugned revocation order is contrary to larv laid down by this Court in Hyderabad potteries private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabadr and the order of this court in W.P. No.12798 tf 2O2t dated 13.04.2022, and, prayed to set aside the same

6. Learned sranding counsel for respondent No.2 placed on record written instructions and submitted that petitioners applied for building permission for construction of residentiar buirding in the subject properry trrough TG_bPASS portal. During the verification, it rvas fbund that the subject propeny of the petitioners was falling in Sun,ey Nos.55 zrnd 56 which is a Urban Land Ceiling land (prohibited property) in Inspector General of Registration and Stamps (IGRS) 'lt:langana portal, as such, show_cause notice clated 18.11.2024 was sent to the petitioners to submit No Objection Certificate (Noc) lrom uLC Department. petitioners drd not submit NOC. hence. the brrilding permission was revoked.

7. I-eamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in this wrt petition is squarely covered by the order of this ' zoor 1:1aLo ooo 5 CourtinW.P'No.12798of2021dated|3.04.2022.Petitioners therein are the purchasers of the land admeasuring 1454'65 square yards in Block 'B' of Raghavendra Colony in Survey Nos'55 and 56 of Jilleleguda Village, Saroomagar Mandal, which was subject matterofULCproceedingsinCC.No.J2l9984ll6.Thewritpetition was filed to declare the action of respondent No'3 therein i'e', The Special Officer, Competent Authority, the District Collector, Urban Land Ceiling Wing, Ranga Reddy District, in notifliing their plots as surplus as illegal, void ab initio, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 and for other reliefs. The u'rit petition was allowed by the order dated 13 '04 '2022' where, it was held as under :

12. Leamed counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the orrler under Section 8(a) of the Act was issued on 29.04.1989.The declarant Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum died on 06.09.1987. Section 8(4) order, as per the record was dispatched to all the legal representatives of the declarant' Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum was indicated as expired in the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act' Thus' the respondent No.3 cannot be permitted to contend that the death of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum is not in its knowledge' 6

13. As pointed out by the learned counsel fbr the petitioners, t is clearly shown in the order passed under Section 8(4) order dated 29.04.19g7 that Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum expir.ed. The notice under Section l0(5) o1- the Act dated 03.01.2007 was issued in the name of Smt. Habeebunnis,r Begum, who was dead by then. Section I0(5) of the Act mandates that notices should be given to the land owner and person in possession of the property. This Court in STATE OF.{.P., REVENUE DEPARTMENT v. SMT. A. BHARATHI2 held as under: "... Even otherwise it was brought to our notice that the statutory notices under the Act were issued itr the name of dead person which is non est in thrr eye of law ...', The legal heir.s of the declarant were parties to Sechon g1l) and Section 8,'4) proceedings. The respondent No.3 was well aware of the rleath of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begurn. Horvever. fbr the reasons best known, the respondent No.3 has chosen to issue notice under Section l0(5) to Smt. Habeebunnisa tsegum (dead person) Thus, the notice under Section l0(5) and consequential ,:rder under Section l0(6) are vitiated and held to be void. Further. proceedings of taking over possession under the guist: of panchanama daled 12.03.2007 is nonest in the eye of law. ' zooz (a) elr:aa (os) 7

8. ,As seen from the contents of the sale deed vide document No.2026 of 1995 dated 28.10.1995, the predecessor in title of the petitioners Mr. G. Sudershan Reddy purchased the subject property from Mr. Mirza Habeebulla Baig and others who acquired the property through Hiba (oral gift deed) executed by Mrs. Habeebunnisa Begum, who was the original owner of the land admeasuring Acs.48-39 guntas in Survey Nos'33, 34,35,36, 55 and 66 situated at ZilullahGuda (Jillelguda), Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. M/s. Gruha Laxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited was the confirming party to the sale deed dated 28 10'1995' The title of the petitioners over the subject property is traceable to original owner Mrs' Habeebunnissa Begum, who is also the declarant/original pattadar of the land of the petitioner in W.P. No.12798 of 2021. The order passed by this Court in W.P. No.12798 of 2021 dated 13'04.2022has been affirmed by the leamed Division Bench of this Court in the appeal preferred by the State in W.A. No.355 of 2023 datedZl.10.2024. g. There is no rebuttal by the leamed Govemment Pleader for Assignment that the petitioners herein and petitioner 1n 8 w P' No. I 279 8 of 2021 are simirarry praced, and both of their title is traceable to original declarant - Mrs- Habeebunnissa Begum.

10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned notice of revocation vicle No.4409g5/MERp 1039212024 datei 03.12.2024, and consequenrly building permit order of the petitioners vide permit No.4409g5/MERpr03g2r20z4 dated 10.10.2024 stands restored. There shall be no order as to costs. As a seqrrel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the wnt petition stand closed April24,2025. MS B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J