The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.Y.N.L.N.CHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRt G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.34677 of 2o.23 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner is claiming that he has purchased undivided share of land to an extent of Ac.O-12.4 gts., out of Ac. l-26.31 gts., in Sy.No.196 situated at Kondpur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.13053 of 2003, dated 13.10.2003. His daughters have also purchased Ac.O-10 gts of each in the very salne survey number under registered sa-Ie deed bearing document Nos. 13054 of 2OO3 arrd 13220 of 2003 dated 13.10.2003 and dated

16.10.2003 respectively. However, petitioner made an T t KL, W.P.No.l4677 of 2023 2 application,,lated 28. 12.2022 to respondent No.,l, dated

05.08.2023 seeking permission for construction of Assembiy building consisting of 1 stilt+3 upper floors under TS-bPASS by way of self certihcation and self declaration. Jlespondent No.2 has issued a fee intimation letter, dated 05.08.2023. He has a-lso issued a demand notice, dated 05.08.2023 requesting the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.6,13,92,158/- under various heads including va.cant land tax, 33Yo compounding fee, building perrnit fees, Betterment Charges and External Betterment Charges on built up area etc. According to the petitioner, the said demand notice is not on consideratior. of the Rules, the same is baseless and exorbitant. They cannot demand 33%o compounding fee and a-lso vaci lt land tax. Therefore, challenging the said demand notr.ce, the petitioner hled the present writ petition

3. Whereas;, Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Cor,rnsel appearing for respondent No.2, has KL,J W.l'.No.34677 of 2023 J produced written instructions of the Additional Chief City Planner, GHMC. The same are placed on record. In the said instructions, he has stated as follows: F The applicalt Sri.T.chinnappa Reddy & others (Petitioner herein ) have submitted the proposals for construction of Function Hall consisting of Stilt+3 upper floors in Sy.No. 196lpart situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on the site area 70755.26Sq.m out of rr,'hich an extent of 548.O1 Sq.m indicated for road widening and net plot area 1O2O7.25 Sq.m vide No.o13959/GHMC/6843/SLP /2o23-BP 13.ot.2023. F It was observed that the applicant has commenced the construction work without prior permission and file was triggered to Revenue Department for remarks for ownership aspect and the hle was kept on hold. The District Collector, R.R.District through letter No.El/2157 /2023 dated 13.07.2023 has furnished remarks there is no Government interest is involved in the subject land i.e., Sy.No. 196 extent lO2O7 .25 Sq.m situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ) Further, it is to submit that the LRS proceedings and plans submitted by the applicant along with said building application were not found in respondent office. ) Whereas, it was observed that the applicant has laid stilt+2 upper floors and raised columns for 3'd floor. Further, it is also observed that the Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.2O, GHMC has issued show cause notice dated 19.O7 .2023 against the unauthorized construction. ) After receipt of remarks from District Coilector, R.R.District, the application was processed as per Section 455-4 of HMC Act, 1955 duly levying 33% I ! l i I I I KL, W.P.No.34677 of 2023 4 compounClng fee along with other applicable charges as per rLles and GOs and fee intimation letter dated 05.08.20:23 was issued to the applicant for payment of fees/charges with other conditions. Whereas, since thc applicant has not paid the fees, the penalty got generatccl in online. In pareLgraph No.9 of the writ afhdavit, petitioner

4. has stated that the said demand notice is not on consideratiorl of the G.O and provision of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and it is erroneous. IJ'the authorities rectify the demand notice, he will pay the same and get the permission to start construction

5. Whereas, Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that without waiting for the building permission, petitioner started construction and he has constructed the shed. Challenging the same, the petitioner h,as fi1ed a writ petition vide W.P.No.2356 of 2025 arnd the same was disposed on29.01 .2025. There is no provision for re-issuance of the demand notice. Petitioner htrs to make fresh application under TS-bPASS KL,J W.P.No.34677 of 2023 5 by way of self certification and self declaration along with all the relevalt documents including LRS proceedings and plan etc.,. which were not hled along with the earlier building application. Respondent No.2 w.ill consider the same and issue building permit order in favour of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ,the Act, 1955,) and TS-bPASS Rules 2020. I (

6. In the light of the said submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit fresh application under TS-bPASS along with relevant documents including LRS proceedings and plan as pointed out by the Additional Chief City planner by way self certification and self declaration. On submission of the salne, respondent No.2 shall consider the same strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act, 1955 and TS-bPASS Rules 2020. There shall be no order as to costs. \ KL W.P. No.34677 of 2023 a 6 As a se,quel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in ttro Writ Petition shall stand closed' SD/. SD/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR GISTRAR ASSI //TRUE COPY// OFFICER \ To,

1. The Secretary, Municipal Administration . and Urban Development ' o""pati!"ni'iitiiret jriat Hyd era bad' State of Tela n ga n a' 2. The commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation' Tank Bund Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRI D.Y.N.L N CHARYULU' Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Slil G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to r3P FOR MCPL ADfvlN URBAN DEV' High Court for the State of - TJtangana al HYderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies BSR e t .6 CC TODAY Ao(-:r u llj1 i :,,1 3 ?J}[ t!l i L t, a1 a .}, {- HIGH COURT DATED: 3010112025 ORDER WP.No.34677 ot 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS