l\/ohd v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned Rejection Ietter dt. 3O-10-2024 bearing File No. 0'1 15'10/GHMCl529S|CHR2|2O24-BP rejecting the application made by petitioner for according permission for construction in the premises bearing H.No. B-15- 321212, on PIot No. 833 in Sy.No. 134/20, Shastripuram, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar, without properly perusing the documents and conducting physical inspection of the subject property, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and u nconstitutio na I and consequently set aside the rejection letter dt. 3O-10-2024. -7 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c -c umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour rnay be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to accord permission for co struction in respect of the premises bearing H.No. B-1 5-32t212, on Plot No. 83 in Sy.No. 134120, Shastripuram, IVlailorrievpally, Rajendranagar, by suspen irlg the impugned rejection letter dt. 3o-1o-2o24 bearing File No. 01 1510/GHIM1)r5299lCHR2l2O24- BP issued by the 4th respondent herein, pending dispos, I of the main Writ Petitio n. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD ABDUL HAI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI RAPARTHI VENI( I,TESH, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26729 OF 2025 ORDER: (oRAL) This writ petition is fited by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned rejection letter vide file No.0 I 1 5 I OiGLINICI 5299 I CL[R212024-BP, dated 20.10.2024, rejecting his application for grant of building perrnission in respect of propefty bearing H.No.8-15-321212, Plor No.833, admeasuring 462 square yards ln Survey No. 134/20, situated at Shashtripurarn, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Abdul Hai, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Raparthi Venkatesh, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4; and perused the material on record- J The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No. ll6l of 2019 dated 02.02.2019. The petitioner initially submitted application dated 16.02.2022 with respondent No'3 for +c grant of building permission in respect of the subject property, however 1 2 the same was lapsed. Later, the petitioner submitted lresh application dated 19.10.2022 for grant of building permission in r,'spect of buitding permission for construction of building comprising of s lt [or parking + 3 upper floors in the subject property by paying equisite fees of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). As there was celay on the part of the respondent authorities in processing the bui ding application, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5405 of 2025 before this I ourt which came up for hearing on 24.02.2025. On that said date, the l:amed Standing Counsel for GHMC produced a copy of the impugn d rejection letter dated 20. 10.2024 and the said writ petition was dismiss . d as infructuous.

4. Leamed cormsel for the petitioner submitted t at the impugned rejection letter dated 20.10.2024 is arbitrary an l unsustainable. The petitioner rvas given reasonable opportunity tc ;ubmit relevant documents in respect of the subject propefty. Anc rhat the subject propefty was not physically inspected, as such, the ir pugned rejection letter is in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that Market Value Certificate issued by t' e Sub-Registrar, Rajendra Nagar (Ex.P-2) dated 25.02.2025; a copy of rile deed bearing docutnent No. I I 6 1 of 20 19 d,ated 02.02.201 9 (Ex.P-3 ),,, t ima .fctc ie. show -) that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property. Leamed counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.358 of 2024 dated

08.01.2024 wherein it was held that the building permission cannot be refused only on the ground that it is likely to be affected in the proposed master plan.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that apart from objection relating to the master plan, the petitioner is required to prove his title in respect of the subject property. The Market Value Certificate (Ex.P-2) issued by the Sub-Registrar, Ra.jendra Nagar, shows that the subject property of the petitioner is covered by Court stay and included in the prohibitory list ofproperties.

6. This Court in W.P. No.358 of 2024 dated 08.01.2024 held as under:

9. This Court, in WP.No.29024 of 2023, dt.17.10.2023, took note of the dicta laid down by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in G.Usha Rani vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held as under: "It is incumbent on the part of the respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 18 ol the AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, l9l5 in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20 l3 for acquisition ol the land of the petitioncr for road widening and 4 pay compensation to the petitioner. If not, thc nrtitioner would be deprived of her valuable propertl wrthout compensation."

10. This Courl in WP.No.29024 of 2023 further ol,sorved [hat. cven if the master plan is notihcd, the authoritics :z nnot seek 1o deny grant of permission, unless thc proper \, is being shorvn as opcn area in the master plan. I l. In the l)resent case, since it is not shown to t t:, Court of the responclents-authorities initiating any steps to r,:quirc the land of the petitioner being shown as covercd by '.{,rster plan 100 f'ect road, the respondents-authorities cannot Irprive thc petitioner of enjoyment of her valuable propertv bv rnaking construction therein. by refusing to grant building p, :r rnission.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learn d counsel lbr the petitioner that reasonable opportunity of hearing was ,ot given to the petitioner and that Ilx.P-2 and P-3 have not been consi,lt,red. which is in violation of principles of natural justice, this writ petit or1 is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the building iLr rlication of the petitioner dated I 9. 10.2022 without reference to th , objection with regard to the master plan in the impugned rejec ion letter dated

20.10.?022. However, the petitioner is directed to comr,lv with the other ( objecl.ions raised in the impugned rejection letter urd also satis$z respondent No.3 with his title in respect of the subject )r.operty and that the subject propertv is not included in the prohibitory li L of properlies as 5 shown in Ex.P-2. As and when compliance is made by the petitioner, the building application shall be processed by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to all other concemed,/interested persons and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of twenty one (21) days thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- B.R RANI EGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, Municipal. Adminis]r.ation and Urban Development Departmerit, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State ot I elangana'

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Tank Bund' Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-1 1, GHIVC, Raiendernagar' Hyderabad' 4' The Zonal Commissioner, Charminar Zone, GHtr/C, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 5. One CC to SRI MOHD ABDUL HAI' Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHI\4C [OPUC] T.TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADIuNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] M "es B. Two CD CoPies R HIGH COURT DATED: 2610912025 I 'i{ lr I ?Ut ...:. ,j. -tl \:. i'.\ ....,j\.:,.- ORDER WP.No.26729 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \p

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned Rejection Ietter dt. 3O-10-2024 bearing File No. 0'1 15'10/GHMCl529S|CHR2|2O24-BP rejecting the application made by petitioner for according permission for construction in the premises bearing H.No. B-15- 321212, on PIot No. 833 in Sy.No. 134/20, Shastripuram, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar, without properly perusing the documents and conducting physical inspection of the subject property, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and u nconstitutio na I and consequently set aside the rejection letter dt. 3O-10-2024. -7 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c -c umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour rnay be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to accord permission for co struction in respect of the premises bearing H.No. B-1 5-32t212, on Plot No. 83 in Sy.No. 134120, Shastripuram, IVlailorrievpally, Rajendranagar, by suspen irlg the impugned rejection letter dt. 3o-1o-2o24 bearing File No. 01 1510/GHIM1)r5299lCHR2l2O24- BP issued by the 4th respondent herein, pending dispos, I of the main Writ Petitio n. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD ABDUL HAI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI RAPARTHI VENI( I,TESH, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26729 OF 2025 ORDER: (oRAL) This writ petition is fited by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned rejection letter vide file No.0 I 1 5 I OiGLINICI 5299 I CL[R212024-BP, dated 20.10.2024, rejecting his application for grant of building perrnission in respect of propefty bearing H.No.8-15-321212, Plor No.833, admeasuring 462 square yards ln Survey No. 134/20, situated at Shashtripurarn, Mailardevpally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Abdul Hai, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Raparthi Venkatesh, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4; and perused the material on record- J The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No. ll6l of 2019 dated 02.02.2019. The petitioner initially submitted application dated 16.02.2022 with respondent No'3 for +c grant of building permission in respect of the subject property, however 1 2 the same was lapsed. Later, the petitioner submitted lresh application dated 19.10.2022 for grant of building permission in r,'spect of buitding permission for construction of building comprising of s lt [or parking + 3 upper floors in the subject property by paying equisite fees of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). As there was celay on the part of the respondent authorities in processing the bui ding application, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5405 of 2025 before this I ourt which came up for hearing on 24.02.2025. On that said date, the l:amed Standing Counsel for GHMC produced a copy of the impugn d rejection letter dated 20. 10.2024 and the said writ petition was dismiss . d as infructuous.

4. Leamed cormsel for the petitioner submitted t at the impugned rejection letter dated 20.10.2024 is arbitrary an l unsustainable. The petitioner rvas given reasonable opportunity tc ;ubmit relevant documents in respect of the subject propefty. Anc rhat the subject propefty was not physically inspected, as such, the ir pugned rejection letter is in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that Market Value Certificate issued by t' e Sub-Registrar, Rajendra Nagar (Ex.P-2) dated 25.02.2025; a copy of rile deed bearing docutnent No. I I 6 1 of 20 19 d,ated 02.02.201 9 (Ex.P-3 ),,, t ima .fctc ie. show -) that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property. Leamed counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.358 of 2024 dated

08.01.2024 wherein it was held that the building permission cannot be refused only on the ground that it is likely to be affected in the proposed master plan.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that apart from objection relating to the master plan, the petitioner is required to prove his title in respect of the subject property. The Market Value Certificate (Ex.P-2) issued by the Sub-Registrar, Ra.jendra Nagar, shows that the subject property of the petitioner is covered by Court stay and included in the prohibitory list ofproperties.

6. This Court in W.P. No.358 of 2024 dated 08.01.2024 held as under:

9. This Court, in WP.No.29024 of 2023, dt.17.10.2023, took note of the dicta laid down by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in G.Usha Rani vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held as under: "It is incumbent on the part of the respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 18 ol the AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, l9l5 in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20 l3 for acquisition ol the land of the petitioncr for road widening and 4 pay compensation to the petitioner. If not, thc nrtitioner would be deprived of her valuable propertl wrthout compensation."

10. This Courl in WP.No.29024 of 2023 further ol,sorved [hat. cven if the master plan is notihcd, the authoritics :z nnot seek 1o deny grant of permission, unless thc proper \, is being shorvn as opcn area in the master plan. I l. In the l)resent case, since it is not shown to t t:, Court of the responclents-authorities initiating any steps to r,:quirc the land of the petitioner being shown as covercd by '.{,rster plan 100 f'ect road, the respondents-authorities cannot Irprive thc petitioner of enjoyment of her valuable propertv bv rnaking construction therein. by refusing to grant building p, :r rnission.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learn d counsel lbr the petitioner that reasonable opportunity of hearing was ,ot given to the petitioner and that Ilx.P-2 and P-3 have not been consi,lt,red. which is in violation of principles of natural justice, this writ petit or1 is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the building iLr rlication of the petitioner dated I 9. 10.2022 without reference to th , objection with regard to the master plan in the impugned rejec ion letter dated

20.10.?022. However, the petitioner is directed to comr,lv with the other ( objecl.ions raised in the impugned rejection letter urd also satis$z respondent No.3 with his title in respect of the subject )r.operty and that the subject propertv is not included in the prohibitory li L of properlies as 5 shown in Ex.P-2. As and when compliance is made by the petitioner, the building application shall be processed by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to all other concemed,/interested persons and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of twenty one (21) days thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- B.R RANI EGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, Municipal. Adminis]r.ation and Urban Development Departmerit, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State ot I elangana'

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Tank Bund' Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-1 1, GHIVC, Raiendernagar' Hyderabad' 4' The Zonal Commissioner, Charminar Zone, GHtr/C, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 5. One CC to SRI MOHD ABDUL HAI' Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHI\4C [OPUC] T.TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADIuNURBANDEV,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] M "es B. Two CD CoPies R HIGH COURT DATED: 2610912025 I 'i{ lr I ?Ut ...:. ,j. -tl \:. i'.\ ....,j\.:,.- ORDER WP.No.26729 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \p