Chapala Srikanth v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the li'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Responde ts, their agents, servants, subord nates or any persons claiming through them, NOT TO INTERFERE with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of his residential property aCrneasuring 60.33 Sq. Yards, bearing part of ti-No. 8-2-7O3lN66lA, Road No.13, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Ivlandal, Hyderabad, andrii6t.to oause any obstruction to tl-e ongoing construction or take any coercive steps pursuant to the impugned reject or letter. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respon-dent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN IJRBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : SRI MIDDE ARUhI KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER 2 THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.36363 OF 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in rejecting the building permission application of the petitioner in File No.002561/GHMC/ 007 I I/IR/C1812025 dated 24.11.2025 in respect of the property bearing H.No.8-2-703lN66lA (old) admeasuring 60.33 square yards situated at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar Basti, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad, as being illegal and arbitrary

2. Heard Mr. M. Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel lor the GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3

3. The petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of the propefty bearing H.No.8-2-703 lN66lA (old) admeasuring 60.33 square yards situated at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar Basti, Road No. 13, Banjara Hitls, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad 3 It is stated that originally the subject property rr:longed to the mother of the petitioner ([ate Mrs. Chapala Shamantha), who acquired thc same under registered gift deed bearing document No.3653 ol'2005 dated 19.09.2005 executed by the father of the petitioner, late Mr. Chapala Yadaiah. The mother ,r1'the petitioner exccuted rvill dced dated 18.01.2019 during her lrfi:time dividing the propertl into three (3) portions each admeasuri rg 60.33 square yards. That after the demise of mother of the petitioner, the petitioner and his brothers became owners o1'their individual extents admeasuring 60.33 square yards.

4. It is submitted that rhe petitioner applierl for building permission under TG-bPASS Act (build no\4, plattbrm ) on

04.11.2025 in File No.002561/GHMC/00711/IR/C1812025. The application of the petitioner was rejected vrde impugned letter dated 24.1 1.2025 stating that the petitioner has nor submitted registered ownership documents.

5. Learned counsel lor the petitioner submitted rhat possession of the petitioner over the subject property is not in dispute. 4 The petitioner and his family members are in possession over the subject property over the past more than twenty (20) years. The mother ol-the petitioner applied for building permission in the year 1997 (under Ex.P6) and amount of Rs.3,300/- was paid towards building permit fee on 14.11.1997 (under Ex.P7). Further, the mother of the petitioner was issued demand notice under Section 268 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (for short 'GHMC Act') on 29.12.2011. The morher of the petitioner had been paying property tax regularly and one such receipt lor the year 2007-2008 is filed under Ex.P9. Thus, it is contended that the rejection of building permission application of the petitioner ts arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,

6. Leamed standing counsel for the CHMC submitted that the petitioner has not produced any title documents. As and when the petitioner submits title documents, his application will be considered, in accordance with law. 5 ..,1

7. This Court in W.P. No.21698 of 2025 dated 1.5.09.2025 held that long standing possession carries a presumption of title. The documents submitted by the petitioner (under Exs.l)6 to P9) shows that the mother of the petitioner had been in posse:ssion over the property for the past more than twenty (20) years. It is not the case of respondents - GHMCI that there are civil dispures belween the petitioner and others or that interest of Govemment involved over the subject property. Thus, rejection of building l,ermission only on the ground of non-submission of registe'ed ownership documents is ur-rjust and cannot be sustained.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned rejection letter in File No.002561/GIMCi007l l/IR lcl8l2025 dated 24.11.2025 in respect of the property bearing H.No.8-2-703l N66lA (old) admeasuring 60.33 srquare yards situated at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Nagar Basti, Road '.b. 13, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabacl. Further, respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the buildlng pcrmission application of' the petitioneq in Filc No.002561/GI Il,{C/0071 l/IR 6 lcl8l2025 dated 04.1 1.2025, by taking note of order of this Cour-t in W.P.2 1698 of 2025 dated 15.09.2025, documents submitted by the petitioner and also considering the long standing possession of the petitioner and his family members over the subject property. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of twenty one (21) days from the date of receipt o[ a copy of this order. l'here shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. Sd/.P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Sec{Ptary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban ' oeieroJmEnt oepirtm'ent ,I s-"c,"iaiiii, The Siate of Telangana' Hyderabad 2. The commissione... Greate, Hyderabad IVlunicipal corporation (GHMC), Head - Offi"e, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad - 500063' "",;5;i

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No 18, Khairathabad Zone' Greater " Hfi N/';"ilipii Cotpb*iion, .luoit"e Hills, Hvderabad - 500033 4. One CC to SRI M VENXATESWARLU, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC 6. Two CCs to GP FOR IVICPL ADMN URBAN DEV' High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT'l

7. Two CD CoPies ' tAf.""g *fiit.py of the order dated 15-09-2025 in W'P' No' 21698 of 2025) W PIVIK -1 HIGH COURT CC.TODAY DATED:2811112025 4 c I ORDER WP.No.36363 of 2025 t. \- "vJ, Fii )t ii *,iit.'i -,1:' .. ALLOWING THE,WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COETS HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21698 OF 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the revocation order dated 05.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the building permission application of the petitioner on the ground of non-submission of ownership documents, to declare the show cause notice dated

08.11.2024 and the seizure notice dated 20.06.2025, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitu tional and consequently, direct the respondent authorities to proccss his application dated 13.09.2024 and grant permission based on the property ta,\ receipts and electricity bills as proof of occupation and possession without insisting for ownership documents.

2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the premises bearing No.4-3-72, admeasuring 72 square yards, situated at Kowkoor Road, Kowkoor, Alwal Circle-27, Medchal-Malkajgiri District by virtue of sale deed executed in favour of his father. The petitioner had been running mutton shop in the subject property since many years and had been paying the propefty taxes and electricity bills regularly That due to heavy rains in the previous year, the subject property suffered structural damage and ultirnately collapsed. As per Section 7(2) of the 2 Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Sell Certification .1 System (TG-bPASS) Act, 2020 (fot short 'Act'), builling permission is not required for the property admeasuring less than 75 square yards rvhereas the property of the petitioner is only 72 squar: yards The only requirement is online registration and payment with tol<en arnount Rs.l/- and duly certifuing the title in respect of the subjcct property. The petitioner tluly complied with the said procetltLr,: by submitting necessary documents uide registration No.4i425 IliGll\'1c | | 581 412024 dated 13.09.2024, rrnder Section 7(2) of the Act. 'l he alrplication of the petitioner was ro ',be approved by the respondsrlt autl'oritres within a period of twenty one (21) days of its filing as per Scctior T(9) ofthe Act. Otherwise, the application is deemed to have bcen approved as per Section 7( I 0) of the Act. 3 It is stated that respondent No.2 issued notice lated 20.06.2025, vlde proceetlings No.1047/C2TITPSIKPZIGI{MC/20.1:, alleging that illegal construction is being made by the petitioner in the subtect property and directed him to furnish clarification within twent'r lour (24) hours, failing which the subject property rvill be sealed. As tlre datrghter of the petitioner u'as critically ill and undergoing nr,)c ical treatment, ---==v / l the petitioner could not submit reply to the said notice within the stipulated period of 24 hours. Thereafter, the respondent authorities proceeded to seal the subject property. That the petitioner, later on enquiry, came to know that his building application dated 13.09.2024 was rejected on 05.12.2024, pursuant to the show cause notice dated

08.11.2024. It is submitted that the petitioner was unaware of the issuance ofthe said show cause notice.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in'sealing the subject property is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act. That after application is filed for building pennission, if any shorlfalls are found, notice has to be issued to the applicant within a'period often (10) days as per Section 7(8) of the Act. However, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner after two (2) months of his registration/application and he was kept in dark

5. Learned counsel submitted that any application has to be approved or rejected within a period of twenty one (2 I ) days as per Section 7(9) of the Act, otherwise, the application is deemed to have been approved as per Section 7(10) of the Act. The impugned action of the respondent 4 authorities defeats the objective of Section 7(2) of the Act u'hich exempts building permission for a plot admeasuring less than 7 > square yards. 6 Heard Mr.'lMujahid, learned counsel for the pet.tioner; Mr. K.Ravi Mahender, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC; md perused the material on record

7. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, basing on the rvritten instructions, submitted that the petitioner has underraken unauthorized construction of groirnd floor in the subject propcr.y rvithout prior rpermission. As such, show cause notice dated 16.10.-lcr24 ',vas issued to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to respond to the, said notice and ,'continued with the construction activity. Thereaftrlr speaking order dated 29 .10.2024 was issued directing the petitionel to remol e the . lunauthorized construction within a penod of frfieen (15) days The petitioner applied for building permission for con:,truction ol ground floor; however, he did not enclose the mandatory ou,trerrship docurnents as prescribed in the Act. Further, the petitioner consfiucted the building without leavin$ mandatory setbacks. Therefore, the application of the petitioner wasilrdected. The petitioner completed the unauthorized construction and he had been using the subject propert), for commercial ) purposes. Thereafter, notice under Section 461_A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporarion Act, 1955 dated 20.06.2025 was issued directing the petitioner to irnmediately vacate and discontinue the use of the unauthorized portion of the subject property. Leamed Standing Counsel further submitted that it is a rnandatory requirement for the applicant to furnish ownership documents in respect of the property. As and when, the petitioner furnishes ownership documents in respect of the subject property, his application will be considerecl.

8. The impugned revocation retter dated 05.12.2024 revears that the proposals (building application) subrnitted by the petitioner is not in accordance with the G.O.Ms. No. l6g dated 07.01.2012; the petitioner has not submitted :ownership docuutents; the petitioner constructed the building without leaving mandatory serbacks.

9. Section 7(2) of the Act reads as under "(2) For plot size upto 75 square yards (63 square meters), and the construction of ground or ground plus one floor. wili not require any permission. Thc applicant howcver nced to register online with a token amount of Rs.l and duly self certiflrig his title, the size of the plot and floors, it shall also not require a completion certificate or occupancy certificate. Any plot bigger than 75 sq yards cannot be split for this purposc or this provision cannot be misused for taking up constructions in I I I I ! i I j i 6 governnlent or prohibited or disputed land ald action as prescribcd shall be initiated for violations noticetl.'

10. The case of the petitioner is that the subject prolerry rvas owned by him and he had been running a mutton shop in the pr('perty since several years; he had dso been paying electricity bills relularly; the subject property was purchased by the father of the petitionel under a sale deed. However, accordiag.to .the learned counsel for the lrr,titioner, the sale deed is rnisplaced and not traceable. The demand noti(.c ol'propefty tax was issued by the then Kowkoor Gram Panchayat to Mr. t LKishan Lal, the lather of the petitioner, in 1970 as evident from thc notice of demand for house tax (page No.43 of the writ affidavit). Thc p,:titioner paid the property tax for the past several years which is eYi]ent fr-om the tax receipts filed alcurg with the writ affidavit (page Nos.-3 I ro 33) that are in the name of his father. It is contended the father ol-tlrc petitioner had been in possession of the subject property for the past sevcral decades, rvhich is not rebutted by the learned Standing Counsel f or GFIMC

11. ln Sonrnath Burman v. Dr. S.P.Raju and anolherr, the Hon'ble Supreme Cou rt held as under: ,t i: '. ' lroeoy I scc tz,r 7 7

9. ... Possessory title is a good title as against everybody other than the lawtul owner. In Ismoit ;7;;.; ";:;;."0 Ghouse the Judicial Committ person having possessarv ,,;:: ::.?"-:: rhc, r'onclusion that a can scl a dcctaration rhot ha was rhe ownetr;i;;;;;;; ;;:" i' : n d. a n i nj u n c t i o n r c s t r a i n i n q , t " a 4" n a o',,i /ir;" t ;;: ;Li ;,:" *,,. suJJtcrcnl evidence of ritle as owncr against rhe dclcntlant. " i i i i; ;,"' ;;1' ; ::, :{,: :' :f ,; :' ;i:,, ;i. ;: : i t, "

12. In view of the long standing possession, it rvould be unjust if the r petitioner is denied building permission. The property of the petitioner .' .admeasures 72 sqtare yards, situated at Kowkoor Road, Kowkoor, Alwal Circle 27, Medchal_Malkajgiri District. By granting building permission, the municipal authorities are not conferring any title in respect of the , subject property. In case there is any titte dispute, then the issue may . ,,arise for the applicant to fumish title documents. Hor,vever, in the 'absence of third party claim, the action of the respondent authorities in insisting the petitioner to fumish title documents in respect of the subject propefty even when the petitioner and his father had been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property for the past severar years woulcr be arbitrary. The revocation letter dated 05.12.2024 was issued post verification after the petitioner was granted building permission dated 13.09.2024 through self_certification. So far as, man4atory setbacks are - 8 concemed, as the subject property is only 72 square y:rrds. setbacks are required only on the fiont side ofthe building subject 1o width of abutting road and are not required on the other sides of the building as per G.O.Ms. No.168. !: 1 3. With the above observations, this wdt petiiion is allowed The impugned revocation letter No.434258/GHMC,'1581412024 dated

05.12.2024 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed tc lorthwith unseal the subject property and handover the possession to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to maintain setbacks on the front side of the building as per G.O.Ms. No.l68 and ensure that the building IS constructed for residential purpose in accordance w ith the buitding permit/plan. Thele shalt be no order as to costs. As a sequol.thereto, miscellaneous applications. if any, pending in this writ petitiorrstand closed. B. VIJA)'SEN REDDY,I September 1,5,2025 NOTE: Issue C.C. in two.(? days (BO)R KI :. !r,