Koyagura Dinesh v. '1 . The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned order dated 12-12-2025 rejecting the provisional building permit order of the petitioner as granted by the Municipality dated 22.11.2025 in respect of open plot admeasuring 242 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 104lEl1l1l1l1, at Pallaburg Shivar, Narayanpet Town and Municipality and District only on the ground that the sale deed of the petitioner in respect of the above plot is after cut of date i.e., 26-08-2020 as mentioned in the G.O. Ms. No.28, dated 20-02-2025 issued by the Municipal Administration and Revenue Department, though the petitioner by virtue of the registered document is the owner of the above plot and further though the petitioner have already obtained nala conversion order dated 1 I 22-10-2024 and further though the cut of date with regard to the sale deed of the petitioner as mentioned in the above G.O. in not applicable to the case of the petitioner as not only 10 % but total extent of land in Sy. No. 104 had already been sold by original owner and the purchasers constructed pacca houses thereon, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to accept provisional building permit order dated 22-11-2025 by withdrawing the impugned rejection of the provisional building permit order dated 12.12.2025. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to issue interim order directing tire 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to proceed with the construction on open plot admeasuring 242 Sq. Yards in Sy. No. 104lEl1l1l111, at Pallaburg Shivar, Narayanpet Town and Municipality based upon the provisional building permit order as granted by the 2nd respondent Municipality in file No. 0279711NARP/00074llABPl2O25, dated 22-11-2025 without reference to the rejection of the provisional building permit order dated 12-12-2025, pending disposal of main Writ Petition. Counsel'for the Petitioner: SRI M.DAMODAR REDDY Counselfor the Respondent No.l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counselfor the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL Counselfor the Respondent No.3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER R IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITON No.40016 OF 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 30'12'2025 Between: Koyagura Dinesh AND -l'he State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development l)epartrnent, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ...Pctitioncr Ilespondcnts OttDER: (ORAL) Heard Mr. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioncr: Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No'2: and perused the material on record'

2. 'l-earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thc buildirtg application of the petitioner bearing No.027971AIARP/00074/[ABP12025 dated 22.11.2025 for the open plot admeasuring 242 square yards in Strrvcl' No.104/Eilllllll, at Pallaburg Shivar, Narayanpet Town and Municipality" Narayanpet District, has been rejected vide letter' dated 12'12'2025 on the ground that the site of the petitioner falls in unapproved layout and ttrc sale deed dared 28.1I .2024 was registered before the cut-off date i.e'26'08'2020 as perG.o.Ms.No.l31MAUDdated31.08'2020(LayoutRcgularization Schernc TLRSI 2020). Learned counsel submitted that in identical case, this :-# 2 court grarted relief by rhe order dared 24.12.202s in w.p. No.39g39 of 2025. 'l he said suhrrlission is not opposed hy the learned Standing Counsel for rcsltonclent N<1.2. J This coufl in rhe order dared 24.12.2025 passed in w.p. No.39g39 of 2025 held that:

7. As secn lrom the impugned rejection order, the petitioner's application for building pei'missio, was re.iected on the ground'that the plof should be rcqistered through sale deed on or beforeza.og.zozO; as per G.o. Ms.No.l3l N'{,tr. & [JD datecl 31.08.2020 onry rhose layours and sub-d'ivision of plots with rergiste.ed sale deed/title deed as on 26.og.2oza shall be considered for building rcgr-rlarization; only approved/regularized plots are eligible for grant of building pcnnissions. tl. 'fhis court by the order dated 02.02.2022 in w.p. No.5r50 of 2022 deart rvith sirnilar situation wherein sale deed of the petitioner therein was registered on 04.09.2021 i.e., after cut off date 26.0g.2020 as per G.o. Ms.No.13l dated 31.48.2020, and it was held as under: " I l. Froin the above, it can be seen that the relaxations under LRS 2020 are applicable o,ly to the protsAites failing il,ulapprovealirrelar rayouts having documents registered on or before 26.0s1020. rn't-he case beiore this court, the plot was regisrered orr 04.09.2021 by way of sale deed No.4g o3l20zl i.e. after 26'08'2020' In the decisions. relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Hon'ble court has considered the Memo dated 2g.04.2017 applicable to LRS 2015, whcreas the Memo dated 30. r2.zo2o is appricable to this case and the petitioner is ,ot eligible for relaxation under the said Memo. However, it is noticed tlrat the Government has not provided for any formula for regularisation of plots/sites falling in unapproved/iilegal layouts having documents registered on or alter 26.08.2020. . 12. . As the pctitioner is not provided with any arternative remedy, and for the sake of uniformity and consistincy, it is deemei nt ur,a p.oper to direct the respondents to consider granting building to the ;etiiioner herein bf collecting the penal charges as provided i-n-LRS-2020 and 33ii/o compounding fee on tlre sarne, plus open space contribution charges (r4%) on the market value of the site/plot appried for buirding permission us on the dateof apfiications.,, rye11i1s-ion -4, r-) 3 g. The principle of law laid down in the said order is squarely applicable to the facts ofthe present case. I 7)

4. In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned rejection letter dated 12.12.2025 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. Consequently, respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the building application of the petitioner by taking note of the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.39839 of 2025, by giving hirn an opportunitl'' of'hearing, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with larv, within a period of fifteen ( l5) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, stand closed. The /TRUE COPY/ Administration NarayanPet, , Revenue DePartment, Secretariat' NA KRISHNA Secretariat, at NaraYanPet, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. ei='is'Y,'s'.'fi "fi ,:S[,ffi ffi a"REWi!']*1fr iq{i", one cc to sRr P-ufiil-Crsir$ #dbv;s-qi-qB ry'J"Lof,#lLe st"te ot il; 66; t" Gp F-OR Niip_aaDMN URBAN DEV, Hish coun Tor tne Dtt Hish court ror the State or reransana at +;lSta:*t3il'F6R'$l?Et =, Hvderabad [OUTI Two CD CoPies To,

4. 5. 6. 7. B.

9. BSR \(- I I ,'u HIGH COURT DATED: 30/1 212025 ORDER WP.No.40016 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS s .d(^ Xs.