The High Court · 2025

Petition under Anicle 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 any writ, order or direclion, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly Respondent Nos.3 and 4, in issuing the shortfall intimation dated 21 .09.2O25 vide File No.005878/GH MC/02867/SWBP lSLP2l2025, in respect of Plot No,18 admeasuring 555 square yards (464 square meters) in Sy.No.64, Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, besides being in violation of the provisions of the GHN/C Act and consequently set aside the said shortfall intimation and direct the respondents to forthwith process the petitioner's building permission application daled 21.08.2025 bearing File No.0058781c;HMc/02}67/swBp/sLp2/2025 in accordance with taw. without ) insisting on any further Iayout copy lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the )ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High co r.t may be preased to suspend the operation of the shortfall intimation dated i i ..og.zo25 vide File No 005878/G H l'/c/02862/swBp rsLpzrzo2s, in respect of prot No.18 admeasuring 555'square yards in Sy.No.64, Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, issued by Respondent Nos: and 4, and thereby direct the respondents to forthwith process the petitioner's buirding permission application dated 2i .08.2025 in accordance with law, with:ut insisting on any further layout copy, in the interest of justice, pending dispor;ar of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FoR MUNICTPAL ADMrNrsrRATroN AND URBAN DEVELCPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2to4: SRI G. MADHUSUDAN REDDY, The court made the following: oRDER Sc FoR GHMC HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30842 of 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by rhe peririoners seek ing to declare the action of respondents No.3 and 4 in issuing the shortfall intimation letter vide File No.005878/GHMC/02867/SWBp/SLp212025 dated

21.09.2025 in respect of the Plot No. [8, adrncasuring 555 square yards in Survey No.64, situated at Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Man dal, Ranga Reddy District, AS being illegat, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, lcamed counsel lor the petitioners; Mr. G.Madhusudan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4; and perused the material on record

3. [t is stated that the petitioners are the owners of the subject property having acquired the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.4256 of 2025 d,ated 26.03.2025 from M/s Sri Krishna Pharmaceuticals Limited represented by its authorized signatory That originally, the Govemment of Andhra Pradcsh rcprescnted by thc ,) ---i! District Collector, Ilyderabad sold the subject propert) to N'Us Arandy Laboratories t-irn ited under registered sale deed bea'ing document No.ll88 of 199') dated 08.02.1999. The said sale dee<, rvas executed in fbvour of N4/s Arandy Laboratories Limited who was :he nominee of the successlul bidder/winner by name Mr. Dr. \i.S.R.Murthy S/o V.Chandla Sekhar Rao, who purchased the subject property in the public auction. Subsequentty, M/s Arandy Laboratori :s I-imited got merged with Mls Sri Krishna Drugs Limited as per th,: tnerger ordcr dated 11 1.03.2006 passed by the erstwhile High Corrt of Andhra Pradcsh, IJyclcrabad vide Company Petition No.84 of 2005. Laler, Ws Sri Krishna Drugs Limited got amalgamated with \{rs Sri Krishna Pharmaceuticals l-imited vide orders dated 25.08.20 ') in Company Petition Nos. l4(t and l4l of 2010 passed by the erstwhile High Court olAndhra Pradesh

4. Learned r:ounsel for the petitioners submitte<l that vvith an intention to <lcvclop the subject property, the petition,'rs applied lbr building per.-ission by enclosing all relevant docum('nts. Howevcr, surprisingly, the respondent authorities issued the impugned shortfall intimation lettcr dated 21 .09.2025 stating that the petiti rtrers have not tirrnishcd the approved layout and directed them to subrr it legible copv 3 of the layout duly signed and stamped by the competent authority Learned counsel submitted that the impugned shortfall intimation letter dated 2l .09.2025 is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Govemmcnt of Andhra Pradesh accorded permission to sell certain parcel lands in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts by converting them into plots and conducting a public auction. The auction was conducted on l8'h, [9'h and 29'h of May, 1998 at Indira Priyadarshini Audirorium, Public Cardens, Hyderabad. There is no dispute that the subject property is covered by the HUDA (Hyderabad Urban Development Authority) layout, which is evident from the recitals of the sale deed.

5. Leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that the petitioners were directed to submit copy of approved layout. As and when copy of the layout is furnished, the building application of the petitioners will be considered in accordance with law.

6. In reply, leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the copy of the layout was available in the office of the HUDA and as the layout was developed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, copy ol' the same was not made available to the auction purchaser

7. It is seen lrom the record, the subject property or'the petitioners 4 is part ofthe approvcd layout which is evident from tht: sale deed dated

08.02.1999 (Page No.5 therein). The said sale deed reveals that the layout got approved in Aswini and Bharani in Shait pet Village of Hyderabad District and in Kruthika and Rohini in Madl-apur Vitlage of Ranga Reddy District and the auction was conducted cn l8t1', 19th and 29'h of May, 1998 at Indira Priyadarshini Auditorium, I'ublic Gardens, Hyderabad. The schcdule of property at Page No.6 ,ll the sale deed dated 26.03.2025 also shows that the subject properll fbrms part of Rohini and Madhapur Layout. Thus, the impugned action of the respondent authorities in insisting the petitioner to obtain copy of approved layout is unsustainable.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The irnpugned short shortlalI intirnation letter vrde File No.005878/GHM(- r02867/SWBP/ SLP2/202-5 dated 21.09.2025 is hereby set aside. Re.:pondents No.3 and 4 are directed to consider the buitding application o '1he petitioners in respect of the Plot No.[8, admeasuring 555 square lards in Survey No.64, situated at Madhapur Village, Serilingampally r4andal, Ranga Reddy District, without ref'erence to the impugned shorLfirll intimation lefter tlated 21.09.2025, hy givillt'opportunitv ol lrearing to the I i 5 l petitioncrs, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law' within a period of twenty one (21) days lrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 'Ihere shall be no order as to costs' Asasequelthereto,miscellaneousapplications,ifany,pending in this writ petition shall stand closed' SD/- C.DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary (MAUD)' Secretariat.Buildipl:]:P Hvderabad' The Commissioner, Greater ;;l;;;#; M';i-ipal c"orporation' Tankbund ?fr S}J'{AS}XX.:.etr^9""tjffi ZT;;"B,,fl ;E jfif; Y8u[li1;f " 3X?33B'iif d"I11nrX'$nntnf i*o CCs to GP FOR MCPL 3;"titls'.--q'B;ilia"l""S;'61i,'*L%'JlscFoRGHMCtoPUCr Two CD CoPies ,^nttttlaem.L,sncou,tro, 1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9',* HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 CC TODAY I I I l i I i I i I I i ORDER WP.No.3O842 of 2025 \ ;,,\ ..,] 1,,1 .-t Ial ,l.l t-: ! ..1/ 3 O +$ :9, ;+i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHCIUT COSTS \\ t