High Court · 2025

Petition under A(icle 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 an Order, Direction, Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action o respondent No.3 in considering the building permission in Plot measuring 74.15 Sq. Yds comprising in Sy.No.1097111711l2l2 situate in Bheemgal Village and Revenue Mandal of Nizamabad District and granting Letter of Approval for commencement of work Ground plus First Floor vide TS-bPASS Dt-03/1 112023 ignoring the Orders o' tris Hon'ble Court dt- 12-06-2023 in WP No. 14491 of 2023 directing the resporrdent No.3 to dispose of the representertio n s filed by the petitioner on 08-05-2023 and 03-05-2023 within time frame of three weeks from the date of receipt of thi.. order as bad, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice apart from the samr: being arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently the petitioner most i)spectfully prays this Honorable Court to quash the Letter of Approval for r;r; rnmencement of work issued by the respondent No.3. lA NO: 'l OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc urt may be pleased to suspend the ooeration of impugned Letter of Approval lbr Commencement of work issued by respondent No.3 dt- O311112023 pending di:posal of writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co -,rt may be pleased to issue directions to the respondent No.5 not to proceed vi ith construclion work pursuant to the Letter of Approval for Construction of W _ rk in TS-bPASS No. 313345/8HEE10069/2023 dt- 03/11/2023 issued by resp,:rrdent No.3 pending d isposal of writ. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.RAMESH SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M.RAM MOHAN REI)frY, SC FOR MCPL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Wflt Petition N .34297 0f 2023 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for MA & UD appearing for respondent No.1, Iearned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2, and Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ petiiion at the admission stage and the /s involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ petition.

3. The petitioner by the present Writ petition has rassailed the action of the 3'd respondent in considering the building permission application submitted by the 5th respondent herein and issuing letter of approval for commencement of work, vide letter No.313346lBHEEl 006912023 dt.03.11.2023, as being illegal, arbitrary and ignoring the orders oF this Court dt.12.06.2023 in W.p.No.t449I of 2023.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.o.22 guntas 2 ! Sy.No.1097/1/1 lTll located on the northern side ot the tand forrning part of :he Rlce Mill yrz, Sri Venkateshwara Rice Mil bearing prenrises No.2-68/2 situated at Bheemgal Village and lr,l; rdal, Nizamabad District, constructed by his father; that his father had executed a registererd sale deed dt.24.07.20L8 in respect of the r.ice N4ill; that the 5th respondent in the present Writ petition is his :rother and the relationsnip between him and the 5th respondent i:; .rot cordial; that when respondent Nos.5 and 6 along with one M.Laxrrran intended to make illegal construction in part of the Rice Mill land sold in his favour, the petitioner had approached the 3d respondert authority and submittecl a representation dt.08.05.2023 to. :jr:,)p the illegal construction being made by respondent Nos.5 and (;: that another representation was submitted to the 3d respondent and also to the Additional Collector, Nizamabad, local bodies; and tlr,:t bn the said representations not being considered, the petitioner lrjd approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition, videW.p.No.t4491 -.t 2023 praying that the respondents are not implementing th: proceedings dt.12.05.2023 by stopping the illegal construction.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that t s Court while disposing of the aforesaid Writ Petition by its order ,jt.12.06.2023, directed the 3'd respondent herein to dispose of the complaint 3 dt.03.05.2023 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law after putting on notice the parties concerned as expeditiously as possible preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order; that despite this Court passing the aforesaid order, the 3'd respondent did not dispose of the representation of the petitioner by conducting enquiry; that the 3d respondent on the contrary has accepted the application filed by the 5th respondent on 23.06.2023 for grant of building permission, vide Fite No.30423/BHEE / 005512023; and that the 3'd respondent while granting permission did not issue any notification calling for objections from the nearby owners of rand as required under law.

6. It is the fufther case of the petitioner that the 3d respondent had accepted the application submitted by the 5rh respondent for grant of building permission after this Court passing the brders in W.P.No.14491 of 2023 dt.t2.O6.2OZ3 without complying with the directions contained therein; and that on the 5rh respondent making application seeking for grant of building permission, the 3'd respondent sought for opinion of the Standing Counsel, and the Standing Counsel zriTe his letter dt.23.06.2023, had stated that from the contents oF the letter by which his opinion has been sought, it is not clear as to whether the 3'd respondent had complied with the orders passed by \ 4 -1 this Court in W.P.No.14491, of 2023; and that the 1i:anding Counsel by his opirrion however has stated that the building per.,nission granted in favour :f the 5th respondent cannot be revoked wit-out issuing notice to him

7. p'etitioner further contends that despite th€, itanding Counsel making it clear in response to the letter addrr:,;.;ed by the 3.d respondent seeking his opinion that the same does n()t indicate as to whether the 3'd respondent had complied with the cri-,:ctions issued by this Cout in the aforementioned Writ petition, howe,,e:r, proceeded to issue letter of approval for commencement of wcrl. on 03.11.2023 which gces to show that the 3'd respondent despite br:ir.rg aware of the orders of this Court, as also cautioned by the Standing (.ounsel, did not pay heecl to his advice and proceeded to grant lettr:. of approval for commencement of work in favour of the 5th responde"t, thereby, not only violated the order of this Court but also acte(l contrary to the opinion of the Standing Counsel and also the provisior,s, of the Act.

8. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further contendr:rl that since the subject Iald purchased by him from his father, wher€irr a Rice Mill is located, the said land could not have been converted frc,m agricultural to non-ag ricu ltural purposes for the 5th respondent to :btain buildlng I 5 permission therein and that the 4th respondent lacked jurisdiction to pass such orders.

9. It is the fufther contention of the petitioner that since the building permission apprication submitted by the 5rh respondent did not have valid and required documents as required and prescribed under the Act, the 3'd respondent ought not to have granted the building permission, so also the letter of approval for commencement of work and thus, seeks for quashing of leller of approval for commencement of work dt.03.11.2023 with a further direction to the 3'd respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dt.0g.05.2023 in a time bound manner.

10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 while denying the writ averments wourd submit that on this Court passing orders in the Writ petition, videW.p.No.1449I of 2023, the 3'd respondent had issued notice to the 6rh respondent herein dt.17.06.2023 under Sections 178(1) and 180 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short, 'the Act,), whereunder it is mentioned that the said respondent is cbnstructing the buirding without approval in Sy.Nos.t097l1l7/2 and 1Og7lU7lI/2 situated at Nandigally, Ward No.3 of Bheemghal Municipality, contrary to the provisions of the Act and the bye-laws made thereunder and directed 6 .l the 6rh respondent to stop the construction and remove the unauthcrized construction within three days, failir,q which, the said respondent was informed that the said constructiorr ,r,ill be demolished or destroyed without further notice and action wou d also be initiated against the said person under Section 180(1) of the /\ct.

11. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the unofficiarl respondents did not remove the unauthorized and illegal construc.tion made by them, despite the building perrrission application having been rejected by the authorities. The 3'd res::ondent authority with the TS-bPASS Enforcement Team had initiated i:r:tion and seized the aforesard construction being made by the unof'c;ial respondents herein b,y conducting a panchanama on 06.07.2a;t.l at 4.30 pm, wherein it was noticed that the Sth respondent ,,,,ir constructing , building of ground floor in the premises. in Ward t,to.3, Nandigally, situated at Bheemgal Mandal, by noting the stage of r:orrstruction: "Pi lars and side walls constructed in (3) sides, v/lhout any prior permrssion from the Bheemgal municipality llo work comrnencement order issued as on today i.e. C( 07.2023, Hence, seized until further orders from the municipalil,.

72. Learned Standing Counsel further submiL; that on the respondents-authorities seizing the subject premises in respect of which, the petitioner had approached the 3'd responde.lt and submitted 7 a representation/complaint dt.0g.05.2023, are maintaining the aforesaid seizure and the said fact of the 4rh respondent who is the team lead of enforcement team, having seized the subject property under cover of panchanama dt.06.07.2023 and the said seized premises being handed over to the 3.d respondent authority, has also been informed to the petitioner through his counsel by sending a letter through registered post on 10.07.2023.

13. Learned standing counser further submits that since, the subject property has been seized by the respondents-a uthorities by exercising the powers under section 1g1 of the Act, the petitioner cannot allege inaction on the part of the respondents_authorities in complying with the directions of this Court in W.p.No.1449L ot 2023. Learned standing counser however wourd submit th't on the respondents-authorities seizing the subject premises, the unofficial respondents had once again made an. application through fS_bpASS online process on 28.07.2023 in respect of land to an extent of 74.15 square yards consisting of ground + one upper floor and thereafter obtained letter of approval for commencement of work.

14. Learned standing counser wourd further submit that since, the subject property has been seized by the respondents-authorities, mere obtaining oF permrssion by the unomciar respondents herein on 8

28.01 .2023, and also the letter of approval for comm rncement of work wouldnotallowthemtoproceedwiththeconstrucl6rn;andthatthe respond,3nts-authorities would take further action in t x) matter'

15. I have taken note of the respective contentionl; urged'

16. As per the provisions of the Act, one is rr:cuired to obtain buildingpermissionbeforecommencementof\vork/construction. Admittedly, the unofficial respondents, particularly ttre 5tr' respondent, though had made an application for grant of buildrng permission on

20.03.2023 and had obtained provisional permission lhrough fS-bPASS online process, the terms and conditions of the said permission obtainecl through online process clearly indicat(l that the said permlssion is only provisional and would attaln the st?tus of a'deemed permission', only after expiry of 14 days period, durir g Which time, the respondents-authorities are requlred to cause veriflcation by visiting the site.

17. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, trre respondents- authorities on visiting the subject site, in respect of u'h ch the unofflcial respondents herein had obtained provisional building permission through TS-bPASS online process having noticed that the unofficial respondents having commenced the construction work without 9 obtaining sanctioned permission have seized the subject property on 06.07.2023 under cover of panchanama.

18. On the respondents-authorities seizing the subject property as the construction having commenced without obtaining prior permission from the authorities, the unofficial respondents however taking advantage of the online process of obtaining permission. had once again obtained buirding permission on 28.07.2023. This time, the unofficial respondent had sought for building permission in respect of land to an extent oF 74. 15 square yards so as to Fail berow the rimit whereby the unofficial respondents are required to pay only fee of Rs.1/- for construction of ground + one upper floor. 19. The unofficial respondents by obtaining such permission on 28.07.2023 making use of onrine process were issued witr retter of approval for commencement of work after post verification by the officials of the 3.d respondent on 03.11.2023. However, it is not shown to this Court as to how the respondents_a uthorities have issued letter of approval for commencement of work when the earlier building permission obtained was rejected on 04.07.2023 and the respondent officials having seized the subject premises, wherein construction had already commenced without obtaining permission. ) ) 10

20. A, reading of provisions of Section 174 of the l\ct would clearly show tl-,at before commencing construction, one is -equired to obtain permisson and in the event of the authorities f nding that any construction having been commenced without obti)ining permission, such construction is liable for sealing. The mere fact of the unofficial respondents taking advantage of the online process p,ut in place by the respondents, the respondents could not have granted lt:tter of approval for commencement of work without causing verificatnn within 14 days as mandated under the TS-bPASS Act, 2020 frr the unofficial respondents either to claim deemed approval or:he respondents- authorities having issued letter of approval for commencement of work by causing post veriflcation. If only the respondents- ruthorities intend to issue letter of approval for commencement of work, the authorities ought to have first considered the objections cf tlie petitioner submitted vide representation dt.08.05.2023 and tl,€r order of this Couft in W.P.No.14491 of 2023 by passing order thereon either accepting the claim of the petitioner or that c' the unofficial respondents. The acceptance of the claim of the petitroner would result in the respondents-authorities demolishing/ removing .he unauthorized construction made by the unofficial respondents hererin, which was seized by the respondents-a uthorities on 06.07.2023 anl the unofficial I 11 respondents thereafter by proving their prima facie trtle and legal possession could have only made a fresh application.

21. On the conkary, permitting the unofficial respondents to apply through TS-bPASS online process on 28.07.2023 and thereafter, issuing letter of approval for commencement of work on 03.11.2023 would only result in stultifying the proceedings initiated by the authorities themselves earlier firstly by issuing a notice dt.20.06.2023, thereafter by rejecting the building permission application of the unofficial respondents on 04.07.2023 and seizing the propety under the cover of Panchanama dt.06.07.2023. The said act of the 3'd respondent in allowing the unofficial respondents to obtain building permission again on 28.07.2023 and thereafter, issuing letter of approval for commencement of work on 03.11.2023, in the considered view of this Court cannot be held to be in accordance with the I provisions of the Act as well as TS-bPASS Act, 2020 for it to receive the stamp of approval from this Court I I

22. At this stage, it may be noted that the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had assured this Court that the respondents-authorities are continuing to maintain the seizure of the I t subject property 12 .l

23. ln view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel as noted hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the responclents are to be directed to take further ;rction against the construction which has been commenced without oblarining permission and seeking to get the subject construction reqLld rized by taking advantage of online process by submitting app rcation and also obtaining letter of approval for commencement of v,/ )rk as if the work would commence after issuance of such letter, whil€ the Fact remains the construction having already commenced. 24 Subject to above direction, the Writ petition : (lisposed of. No order as to costs.

25. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this r,,,rit petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// FD/ K /hss;rb .BHAVANI SWAMY TANT REGISTRAR \l .SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary, to Government, Municipal hd nrinistration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The District Collector, Nizamabad District. The Commissioner, Municipal Council Bheemgal l'v1un ciplaity, Bheemggal Revenue Mandal, [Vancherial, Nizamabad District, ()1Tice of tVlunicipality Bheemgal, Nizamabad, District. The TahsilCar, Bheemgal, Office of Revenue mandal Ofl ce Bheemgal, District Nizamabad. One CC to SRI C RAMESH SAGAR, Advocate [OPUCI One CC to SRI M RAM I\iIOHAN REDDY, SC FOR MCPL IOPUC] Two CCs tc GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High C;ourt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CCs 1o GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the Slt.ate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 3 4 5 o 7 8 I BSR LS HIGH COURT DATED:1 110712025 I t\r ,-)^ I ? 4 SEP 2025 ORDER WP.No.34297 ot 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS Lqx lh-