Heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the v. Narsirrha Goud, leamed standing couns

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S'SRIDHAR a;;;";i for the Respondeni No.1: GP FoR McPL ADMN & LIRBAN DEv Counsel for the ResponAeni tlos'Z & 3: SRI V'NARSIMHA GDUD' SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No'4: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REI)DY' SC FOR HMDA MPCL The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33737 OF 2024 ORDER: The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the records and set aside the impugned short fall letter in File No.005803/BP/HMDN1327lMEDl2024 dated 2l-09.2024 issued by respondent No.2 in respect of the construction of residential building consisting of two (2) Cellar + one (l) Ground + five (5) Upper floors in Plot No.NA admeasuring 8377.27 square meters in Survey Nos.330P and 333P situated at Dommara Pochampalle Village, Dundigal Gandi-Maisamma Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, as the same being illegat, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana State Building Permission and Self Certification System, 2020 (for short'TG-bPASS' Act') and the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act 2008 (for short 'HMDA Act), and consequently direct the respondent authorities to issue fee intimation letter/work cofilmencement letter under Section 20(3) of the HMDA Act forthwith. o 2 2- Heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. Narsirrha Goud, leamed standing couns:l for HMDA, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed standing counsel for Municipalitibs, appearing for respondent No.4

3. It is subrnitted that one Mr. Matkala Yar laiah S/o. late Mallaiah Goud rvas the owner of the agricultural larrd admeasuring Acs.2-17 guntas in Survey No.330 situated at Domm,)rapochampally Village, Gandimaisamma Mandal, then Medchal Di ;trict, by virtue of gift settlement deed executed by his mother and rwo sisters vde document No.4764 of 2017 dated 29.07.2017 Thereafter, Mr. M. Yadaiah, got his name recorded in revenue records and he was issued e-pattadar passbook, and his name was also recorded in Dharani portal as pattadar

4. It is submitted that due to efflux of time, the nature of land got converted fron-r agricultural to non-agricultural [an,l due to rapid urbanization and construction of Outer Ring Road (O RR) around the subject property. The said Mr. M. Yadaiah applied fcr conversion of w 3 agricultural land to non-agricultural land before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division (RDO). The RDO has accorded permission vide proceedings No.Ll294l20l7 dated

15.12.2017. Later, the petitioner - firm purchased an extent of land admeasuring 2057 square yards out of Acs.2-17 guntas in Survey No.330 and 1210 square yards out of3630 square yards in Survey No.333/A, totaling to 3267 square yards from Mr. M' Yadaiah and his two (2) sisters vide registered sale deed bearing document No.12205 of 2O2l dated 16.08.2021. Mr. M. Yadaiah has exchanged his remaining extent of land in Survey No'330 under an exchange deed bearing document No.10754 of 2021 dated

17.07.2021 with Sri Ganapathy Sachitandanda Avadhoota Datta Peetha Trust for an extent of3630 square yards or 30 guntas' It is submitted that Mr. M' Yadaiah executed a registered 5. Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attomey vide document No.12204 of 2O2l dated 16.08.2021 in favour of the petitioner - firm for the entire extent of land and from then the petitioner - firm is in peaceful possession of the subject land' tt is submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 authorities grant only 4 technical approval and respondent No.4 grants building permission based on such technical approval. However, the p,:titioner applied for grant of technical approval and building l,ermission with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 did not corsider both the applications tbr the reason that there is no approac h road, and the same is not captured in the master plan, and advi: ed petitioner to approach Hyderabad Growth Corridor Limited for obtaining No Objection Certificate (for short 'NOC') for the existing access from ORR service road to the said site. Aggrieved by the action of respondent authorities in not granting building termission, the petitioner filed W.P. No.1216 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court by this order dated 18.03.2024 with the following directions: ''ln the light of the above discussion, the rejr ction/non- consideralion of the application submitted by the peritioner for grant 01' building permission by adopting a hypcr-technical approach in the considered view of this Court only gors to show the non-application of mind on the part of 2nd espondent authoritl. thus, this Court is of thc view that thc espondent No.7 aLrthority should be directed to reconsider th: building application submitted by the petitioner for grant ci building permission by taking into consideration the exister ce of old road as access to the service road subject to the petitioner W 5 complying with the other short fall objections ifany. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No Costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this *rit petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs."

6. It is submitted that pursuant to the above order, the petitioner again applied for building permission vide application No.005 803/BP llll\D N 1327 IMED /2024 dated 01 .06.2024 - As the respondents did not process his application, the contempt case in C.C. No. 1560 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner, wherein, Form-l Notice was issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein and for extraneous consideration, impugned short fall notice was issued. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also preferred an appeal challenging the order dated 18.03.2024 in W.P. No.l216 of 2024 in W.A. No. 1094 of 2024 and the same was dismissed by this Court by the judgment dated 12.09.2024.

7. It is submitted that under the provisions of TG-bPASS Act the authorities on receipt of online application for building permission should issue a short fall notice within a period of ten (10) days and the buitding permission must be sanction within ninety (90) days as per Section 20(3) of the HMDA Act. If no order of rejection is 6 passed, there is provision under the TG-bPASS A,r by which the i' -r building permission is deemed to have been granted

8. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed counter affidavit contending that short fall letter has been issued to the petitioner as per the rules in force. The building proposals submitted by the petitioner were scrutinized in accordance with G.O. Ms.No.168 MA & tID dated

07.04.2012 and G.O. Ms.No.470 MA & UD dared 09.07.2008. Petitioner has not submitted all requisite docum:nts which are required for this proposal, such as, NOC from Irrigation and Revenue Department as there is water body within 2(10 meters

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted tlrat insistence of NOC from the Revenue Department is not mandator y and the same is contrary to the judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabadr,

10. In vieu, of the submission of the leamed r ounsel for the petitioner about the short fall remarks the only poinr which needs to be considered by this Court is whether respondent No.2 can insist for ' zoo I 1:'1 eLo ooo i I i I I I l 7 7 NOC from the Revenue Department. It has been held in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited's case (supra 1) that NOC from Revenue Department cannot be insisted for the purpose of building perrnlsslon.

11. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned short falt letter in File No.005803/BPfinilDN1327lNIEDl2024 dated

21.09.2024 issued by respondent No.2 to the extent of insisting the petitioner to produce NOC from the Revenue Department is set aside. In so far as, other short falls remarks are concerned, petitioner shall comply with the same.

12. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Asa sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pendi,ng,in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To 1 The Princioal Secretary, Municipal Administr Authority (iVlA and UD) Department, Secreta Telanoana SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD DEPU TY REGIS SECTION OFFICER riat, H derabad, State of d Urban DeveloPment AuthoritY (HMDA) ,. fi;N4'&t&olitan Commissioner' Hyderabad Metropolitan Development - Authoritv ti-ttrlon), Ameerpet, Hyderabad 3. ?#'Di;il".i;i'a"0''pi".'ii.Io]pJrt-."nt, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development 4 ih; C;,i ;issionbr. Dundigal Municipality, Medical- Malkajgiri District 5. One CC to SRI S.SRIDHAR' Advocate [oPUUl 6. i;; dd.i" cp Fon rr,riii'AitH,1rye-u'nanN bev, High Court for the State - ? 5";iCi;'sRrV.riAnsft,t[n cotlo. s-c roB !14-DA toPUqL .-- 8. 5;;6c i;sRi purrn ii{rsnr.rA nroov sc FoR MPcL [oPUC] 9. Two CD CoPies of Telanqana, at HYderabad. IOUTI N, PSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ORDER WP.No.33737 of 2024 ( J c o 1HE S] Are 13 JUN zffi * oESnn,, r rr'i- o( ?t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b y$ I I I