The 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in rejecting the the Petitioner vide File No' Building Permission of 008124/RAMG/00006/SWBP/2025 dated 24.11.2025 in respect of land admeasuring 242 Sq. Yards in Sy.No. 728lA/1 at Power House Colony, SCCL Quarters internal roads of Janagon Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapally District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed in wP.No. 19156 of 2021 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent no.2 to grant the building permission to the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 242 sq. Yards in Sy.No. 728tAt 1 at Power House colony, sccL Quarters internal roads of Janagon Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapally District as directed in WP. No. 19156 of 2021 . lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir: the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nri the respondent no.2 to grant the building permission to the p: land admeasuring 242 Sq. Yards in Sy.No. 728lAl1 at Pt SCCL Quarters internal roads of Janagon Village, Rar Peddapally District as directed in WP.No. 19156 ot 2021 rmstances stated in y be pleased direct .itioner in respect of ver House Colony, ragundam Mandal, Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S SRIDHAR Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MCPLADMN UF BAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : SRI K. SIDDARTH REDII f, SC FOR MUNICIPAL The Court made the following: ORDER 7 o HIGH COT]RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITON No.39472 OF 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 23-12-2025 Between: Mr. Shaik Jameel Hussain S/o. Ahmed Hussain ... Petitioner AND The State ofTelangana Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and one (1) another. ... Respondents ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting his building permission application in File No.008124/RAMG/00006/SWBP12025 dated

24.11.2025, in respect of the land admeasuring 242 square yards in Survey No.728lA/1 situated at Power House Colony, SCCL Quarters intemal roads, Janagaon Village, Ramagundam Mandal, 2 -E\-jF?{ Peddapalli District, as being illegal, arbitrary and i:, ,ntrary to the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 19156 of 2021 dat,: I 17.08.2021.

2. Heard Mr. S. Sridhar, leamed counsel for the l etitioner, and Mr. K. Siddarth Reddy, leamed standing counsel I rr respondent No.2

3. It is stated that vendor of the petitioner, I Ir. Vegolapu Thirupathi, was the absolute owner and possesscr of the land admeasuring 606 square yards in Survey No.728lir I situated at Janagon Viltage, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli I) strict, having acquired the same from his ancestors by successiorr Out of 606 square yards, 242 square yards was sold by said I'lr. Vegolapu Thirupath i to the petitioner by registered sale leed bearing document No.2576 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024. the petitioner apptied for building permission for construction rf residential building consisting of ground + one (1) upper floor li le application No.008124/RAMG/00006/SWBP12025 dated 15.09.2025 Respondent No.2 issued shortfall letter dated 25.10.20 5 stating that link document is not available. ---v 3

4. It is stated that petitioner submitted reply dated 07 -11.2025 to the shortfall letter stating that the land in non-agricultural and he also obtained Memo vide No.BAtrALA/2lZ4 dated 28.06-2024 ftom the Tahsildar, Ramagundam Mandal, which states that the land in Survey No.728lA/1 is notified as non-agricultural land and it is surrounded by residential houses. The petitioner also enclosed Pahani copies along with reply and requested respondent No.2 to consider Pahanies and NALA certificate as title documents and grant building permission. It is further stated that respondent No'2 without considering his reply dated 07.11-2025 issued impugned rejection letter dated 24.11.2025 on the ground that link document for document No.2576 of 2024 is not available.

5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that subject property was acquired by the vendor of the petitioner through his ancestors by way of succession, hence, the question of having link documents does not arise. The petitioner submitted copies of Pahanies and Memo vzde No'B/NALN2024 dated 28'06'2024 which clearly establishes the title of the petitioner' This Court in W.P. No.5 105 of 2022 dated 02.02.2022 has dealt with similar r<, 4 -E":rtF5l \r \l \ - situation and directed the respondent authorities the -ein to grant building permission to the petitioner therein by ct,l ccting penal charges as provided under Layout Regularization S cheme (l-RS 2020). 33 % of the compounding fee plus open spa(r( contribution charges @ 14% on the market value of the plot appii,: I for building permission as on date of application.

6. Leamed standing counsel for respondent No.2 : ,rbmitted that as per G.O. Ms.No. 13l dated 31.08.2020, the crt off date for regularization of plots t-atling under unapprov r I layout IS

26.08.2020. The sale deed o[the petitioner was execr I :d in the year 2024, after the expiry of cut-off date. Further, the peti ioner has not submitted any link document of the sale deed.

7. The contention of the leamed counsdl for the pr: itioner is that the subject property was owned by the ancestors of lr s vendor and devolved upon his vendor through succession which is evident from the pattadar passbook (under Ex.P6) and Pahanies (r nder Ex.P7). Moreover, the Memo of the Tahsildar, Ramag I rdam, dated

28.06.2024 (under Ex.P5) also clarifies that the plot oi' ,he petitioner 5 is in residential area and it is a non-agricultural land. Further, there are several residential houses in the locality of the subject property. So far as the regularization of unapproved layout is concemed, this Court in the above referred case i.e., W.P. No.5l50 of 2022 dated

02.02.2022 held that building permission application can be considered by collecting penal charges, compound fee and other charges. ln view of the above, impugned rejection letter dated

24.1| .2025 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned rejection letter in File No.008124/RAMG/00006 /SWBP/2025 dated 24.11.2025. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the building permission application of the petitioner in File No.008 I 24/RAMG/00006/SWBP/2025 dated I 5.09.2025, and pass orders, by taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.5l50 of 2022 dated 02.02.2022, Memo issued by the Tahsildar, Ramagundam Mandal, vrde No.B/\IALN2024 dated

28.06.2024, pattadar passbook issued in favour of vendor of the petitioner and entries in Pahanies. The entire exercise shall be .- \aFq! \l .\ 6 completed within a period of twenry one (21) days 1i rm the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. There shall be no ordc; as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicrr ions, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. SD/.F. ). SULEKHA DEVI ASql$ 'ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \. i ECTTON OFFICER 0 To, 1 2 3 4 5 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and - rban Development' Secretariai, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad' The commissioner, Ramagundam Municipal corporation, reddapally District One CC to SRI S SRIDHAR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI K. SIDDARTH REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIF AL TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADMNURBANDEV,High(ourtfortheStateof TJlangana. [OUT] 6 Two CD CoPies PVL BS w I HIGH COURT DATED:2 311212025 ORDER WP.No.39472 of 2025 ,1 {tlE Srrr ,:. C) t IJAl.l 2t2c ,:l { '-:;tr, ifi ,i Ct ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1A 5