High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an Order, Direction or Writ sn6 more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus decladng the acts of the respondents in rejectin g on 21-12- I 2024 buirding permission appri.ztion of the petitioners vide No.01 1 437i8 P/H MDA/3026/M ED 12024, dated 17 I 1 O t 2024 made for construction of commercial building consisting of one stilt and four upper floors on the land bearing plot Nos.15 and 16 in Survey Nos.347lA and 35g/A, situated at Thumkunta village, shameerpet mandar, Medchar-Markajgiri district, admeasuring 396.27 square meters, on the ground that the petitioners have not compried with informed shortfalls, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, high handed, violative of Article 300-A of the constitution of rndia and principres of naturar justice and consequently direct the respondents to grant sanction and permission as sought for by the petitioners under said application, and rerease the permit and sanction, in the interest of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to pass an order directing the respondents to release the building permission to the petitioners for construction of commercial building consisting of one stilt and four upper floors on the rand bearing prot Nos.'15 & 16 in Survey Nos.34 7rA and 358/4, situated at rhumkunta viflage, shamseerpet mandar, Medchar-Markajgiri district, admeasuring 396.27 square meters, under the buirding permission application of the petitioners vide No.01i437/8p/HMDAl3o26/MEDt2o24, dated 17-'10'2024, forthwith by withdrawing the iflegar shortfails raised, pending disposar of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SHYAM S AGRAWAL counsel for the Respondent No.1: A Gp FoR MUNrcrpAL ADMTNISTRATTON Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to4&6: Smt. D. MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.S:- AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.37O44 of 2024 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. 1 and Smt.D. Madhavi, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6. Perused the record.

2. The petitioners herein are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of plot Nos.15 and 16 in Sy.Nos.347lA and 358/A admeasuring 396.27 Sq meters, situated at Tumkunta village, Shameerpet mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, on the strength of two (2) registered sale deeds bearing document Nos. 1052 and 3066 of 2024, dated 05.03.2024 and O9.O7.2O24 respectively. The subject plots are being part of unapproved layout. They have obtained regularization KL, W.P.No.37O44 of 2024 2 proceedings, dated 21.O5.2024 and 18.O5.2O24 in respect of plot Nos. 15 and 16 respectively, each of them admeasuring 2O4.38 Sq. meters. Petitioners herein have submitted an application dated 17.lO-2O24 with respondent No.2 with a request to grant permission for construction of commercial building consisting of 1 Stilt + 4 Upper floors on the subject property, under TSbPASS by way of self-certification and self-declaration' Respondent No.2 has to consider the said application within 2l days in terms of Section 7 of TS-bPASS Act, 2O2O and TS-bPASS Rules,2O2O.There is no intimation from respondent No.2. Therefore, petitioners herein have submitted a letter dated 15.11.2024 requesting to process the said application submitted by them. Thereafter, on 20.11.2024, respondent No.2 has issued shortfall notice mentioning the following shortfalls:

1. To submit NOC from HakimPet AFA. 2. To correct the Dwg for residential purpose as the proposed site is LRS regularized plots. i l KL,J W.P.No.37044 of 2024

3. To submit the corrected PDF drawing duly signed by the owners and architect.

4. To correct the proposed use and proposed sub-use in the application form as per the corrected Dwg.

3. Petitioners submitted their reply to the said shortfall notice on 23.11.2024. With regard to shortfall No.1, it is submitted that the proposed site is nearly 20OO meters far away from the boundary of Hakimpet Airport. Therefore, as per the above Rules there is no need to the petitioners to submit NOC from Hakimpet Airport authority. With regard to shortfall No.2, petitioners have specifically stated that as per Rule 9 of Regularization of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2020 issued by Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Municipal Administration and Urban Development vide G.O.Ms.No.131, dated 3L.OB.2O2O, in cases where an application is received in a site that is contrary to the land use stipulated in the statutory plan, the competent authority sha,ll have the power of approving the case KL, W.P.No.37044 of 2024 .+ except those specified in Rule 7 of the above Rules by levying the necessary conversion charges. Even, HMDA already collected Rs. 1,O00/- towards charges for change of land use through LRS fee. Therefore, the proposed site 1S already earmarked S commercial use Zone in the HMDA Master Plan and the same was approved under LRS. With regard to shortfall Nos.3 and 4, petitioners have stated that they have already corrected the same and submitted. According to the petitioners, without considering the said explanation, respondent No.2 has rejected the application submitted by them vide rejection order, dated 27.12.2024. Challenging the said rejection order, dated 21. 12.2024, petitioners filed the present writ petition.

4. Pemsa-l of the impugned rejection order, dated

21.12.2024 would reveal that there is no reference to the shortfall notice, dated 2O.LL.2024 issued by respondent No.2 and also the explanation, dated 23.11.2024 submitted by petitioner explaining each shortfall KL,J W.P.No.37044 of 2024 5 mentioned by respondent No.2 in shortfall notice, dated 20.1L.2024. There is no reference to letter dated 15.11.2024 submitted by the petitioners requesting respondent No.2 to process their application. Therefore, the impugned rejection order, dated 21.12-2024 of respondent No.2 is in violation of principles of natural justice and also non-consideration of explanation, dated

23.11.2024 and the contents of the same. Therefore, on the said ground alone the impugned rejection order, dated 21.12.2024 of respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside.

5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned rejection order, dated 2I.12.2024 of respondent No.2. Matter is remanded back to respondent No.2 with a direction to consider the explanation, dated 23.11.2024 submitted by I I the petitioners to the shortfall notice, dated 20.11.2024 and consider the application, dated 17.1O.2024 submitted by the petitioners, strictly in accordance with W.P.No.37O44 of 2e2 6 the procedure lairl down qn6.r law, by putting the petitioners on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. If respondent No.2 is not inclined to accept the request made by the petitioners, he shall pass an order specifying the reasons aJrd communicate copy of the said order to the petitioners. He shdll complete the said exercise within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberer is also granted to respondent No.2 to seek any further clarification, if required, from the petitioners and petitioners shall submit the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ petition shall stand closed \ To, SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Department, Secretariat, Hydera6ad

1. The Principar Secretary . Municipar Administration and Urban Deveropment 2. The Mekoporitan commissioner, Hyderabad Metroporitan Deveropment Authority, Swa ma .laya{1 !9mplgx, Sinleeva neoov i[igai n"A' S;frir;;; Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500082. 3. The Joint commissioner, Hyderabid Metroporitan Develooment Authoritv Reddv'tr'gii n;j'3;;i';;'f Nil; i 4. The Directoi-l lPlanningl, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authoritv iH3:li"i,'nilx,,"r"#t36r&?"J*n"oai-r'r'ri';n--jd"*d,iiii';;'J1i',;;? iH3:13"'.",f !9,.ffi t 36r&?jeeva

5. The Assistant Planning officer, Hyderabad Mekoporitan Deveropment Authority Swarna J.ay.anti Complex, Sinjeeva Reddy Niagir noiO Sii,iirasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500092

6. One CC to SRl. SHYAM S AGRAWAL, Advocate tOpUCl 7. TWO CCS tO GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRAT1ON AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ,High court for the State of reranqana. at Hvderabad toUTr qr ' i'vvrqvuv tvv I r B. one cc to Smt. D. MTADHAVI, SC Fon Hnroa toiiJti' 9. Two CD Copies BM BS % I I I i CC TODAY STATG 0 [ JIN $15 6) , IY l o o .t- * otis fl HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 ORDER WP.No.37044 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I