Chinna Balanolla Maruthi Goud v. 2. The IV'lunicipality, Narayanpet

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. DAMODAR REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No1: GP FOR MCPL AOMN & L RBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No 2: SRI P.KRISHNA REDDY iC FOR MUNICIPALITY l Counsel for the Respondent No 3 &4: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER ,| HIGH COT'RT FOR THE STATE OF TELAI{GANA AT IIYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITON No.39839 OF 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 24-12-2025 Between: Mr. Chinna Balanolla Maruthi Goud AND The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others ORDER: (ORAL) ... Petitioner ,. Respondents The Writ Petition is fited seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the provisional building permit order vide proceedings dated 12.12.2025 in File No.027973AIARPlOOO75llABPl2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provision of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

2. Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; leamed Govemment Pleader for Municipal .Eq'I \ - \ 2 Administration, for respondent No.1; Sri P.Krishna Rr:, rdy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and leam: I Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that .l e petitioner is the owner of Acs.0.02 guntas, equivalent to 242 sqw re yards, in Survey Nos.l04lBl2llll and 104lEl2lll1/1, situated r t Pallaburg Shivar, Narayanpet Village, Mandal and District, havi,r 1 purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearinlt Document No.6927 of 2024, dated 28.11.2024. The land in Sur zey No.l04 has been converted into house site plots and t rat several constructions have already come up in and around tho petitioner's plot. The petitioner obtained NALA conversion ,r ders dated

22.10.2024 vide Proceedings Nos.2400697537 and Z 100697603. The petitioner applied for building permission throtlh the self- certification system and that respondent No.2 granted ,r provisional a building permit vide order dated 22.11.2025 in far rur of the petitioner. Thereafter, during post-verification of title, respondent No.2 opined that the petitioner did not have title to the ;ubject plot 7 3 and accordingly passed the impugned rejection order dated

12.r2.202s.

4. Leamed counsel submits that the impugned rejection order is illegat and unsustainable. The petitioner has varid title to the subject plot, supported by a registered sale deed and pattadar passbooks, as reflected in the recitals of the aforesaid sale deed. He submits that the NALA conversion order has already been issued and is enclosed as Ex.p4 to the writ petition. With regard to the allegation ofan unapproved layout, it is submitted that the subject plot has already been converted into a house site and that rejection of building permission on the ground that the sale deed was executed beyond the cut-off date prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.l3 l, dated 31.08.2020, is arbitrary, especially since rhe said G.O. was subsequently amended by G.O.Ms.No.2g, dated 20.02.2025, whereby the regularization scheme has been extended up to

31.03.2025.

5. Leamed counsel submits that once the Govemment has taken a conscious decision to extend the regularization scheme, respondent No.2 cannot insist that the petitioner must obtain ,.1 4 \ regularization under LRS merely because the plot vz s purchased under a registered sale deed dated 28.11.2024. Since he LRS has been extended until 31.03.2025, the regularization cl arges under G.O.Ms.Nos. 13 I and 28 can be levied on the p r litioner and building permission ought to have been granted.

6. Leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.il ;ubrnits that the petitioner's sale deed pertains to a plot in an unap: oved layout and that the petitioner has not availed the facility 6l- ', gularization under G.O.Ms.Nos.l3l and 28 before the prescribed :ut off date. Therefore, building permission cannot be granted.

7. As seen from the impugned rejection order, the petitioner's application for building permission was rejected on th€ ground that the plot should be registered through sale deed o r or before

26.08.2020; as per G.O. Ms.No.13l MA & uD dalec ,l 1.08.2020 only those layouts and sub-division of plots with rt,l istered sale deed/title deed as on 26.08.2020 shall be considered br building regularization; only approved,/regularized plots are :tigible fbr grant of building permissions. .";iidGi,- 5

8. This Court by the order dated 02'02'2022 in W 'P ' No'5 150 of 2022 deatt with similar situation wherein sale deed of the petitioner therein was registered on 04'09'2021 i'e', after cut off date 26.08.2020 as per G.O. Ms.No'13t dated 3t'08'2020' and it was held as under: " I l. From the above, it can be seen that the relaxations under LRS 2020 are applicable only to the plots/sites falling in unapproved/illegal layouts having documents registered on or before 26.08.2020. In the case be lore this Court, the plot was registered on 04.09 202I by way of sale deed No.4803/2021 i.e. after 26.08'2020' ln the decisions relied upon by the leamed counsel lor the petitioner, this Hon'ble Court has considered the Memo dated 28.04.2017 applicable to LRS 2015, whereas the Memo dated 30.12.2020 is appticabte to this case and the petitioner is not eligible for relaxation under the said Memo. However, it is noticed that the Govemment has not provided for any formula [or regularisation of plots/sites falling in unapproved/illegal layouts having documents registered on or after 26 '08 '2020 '

12. As the petitioner is not provided with any altemative remedy, and for the sake of uniformity and consistency, it is deemed fit and proper to direct the respondents to consider granting building permission to the petitioner herein by collecting the penal charges as provided in LRS-2020 md 33oh compounding fee on the 6 same, plus open space contribution charges ( l'l 6) on the market value of the site/plot applied for building permission as on the date of applications." 9 The principle of law laid down in the said or<1, r is squarely applicable to the facts ofthe present case.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in te rns of order dated02.02.2022 in W.P. No.5150 of 2022. Respr'r dent No.2 is directed to consider the building permission appl r ation of the petitioner in File No.027973lNARPl00075llAI P12025 by collecting penal charges AS provided in Land l:gularization Scheme - 2020 and 33oZ compounding fee on the sar re, plus open space contribution charges (14Y") on the market 'alue of the site/plot applied for building permission as on date I 'application. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicat ons, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. I; ),.MOMINA MEHAR s r ;TANr REGI;rRAR AS ,1", l./' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Principal Secretary. Municipal Administration Depar -nent' Secretariat' Hyderabad issioner,Municipality, Narayanpet, Office at \ rrayanpet' 2. The Comm t District. NaraYanPe su.rut"rilllio'"?jJ3ry, state of Tetangana, Revenue Department, *","r"rpet District, Narayanpet

3. The principal Secr

4. The District Collect 5. one cc to sRr ,. ,o', 6. one cc to sRr ".^'o'ooo* REDDY' Advocate toPuc1 ,Ts ryix#i isffi: :ffiJ Iffi ;i::l: ili.I::,.," rrsr I \-oum lor the State of relangana at REVENUE, Hish court ror : irr"Eft u lyo""?"";j" ,o;.,Ero* g. Two cD copies pMK (Along wirh a copy of order d ated 02.02.2022 in \) BS .fu ' -*'v! vL'v' zuzz n wP' No 5150 of 2022) a HIGH COURT DATED:2411212025 ORDER WP.No.39839 of 2025 7 ,,Ail ;lii 'a :i , o,J t ( :l I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \" fi-"-- I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRI T PETITON No.39839 OF 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 24-12-2025 Between: Mr. Chinna Balanolla Maruthi Goud AND The State ofTelangana Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others ORDER: (ORAL) ... Petitioner ... Respondents The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the provisional building permit order vide proceedings dated 12.12.2025 File No. 02797 3,NARP/0007 5/IABP I 2025 AS illegal, arbitrary and violative of provision of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

2. Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; leamed Govemment Pleader for Municipal 2 Administration, for respondent No.1; Sri P.Krishna Ii. :ddy. learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and learr :d Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue, for respondent No; I and 4

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits thar .he petitioner is the owner of Acs.0.02 guntas, equivalent to 242 sq tare yards, in Survey Nos.l04lE/2/1 ll and lU4lEl2llllll, situatel at Pallaburg Shivar, Narayanpet Village, Mandal and District, ha', ng purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearir s Document No.6927 of 2024. dated 28.1 1.2024. The land in il rrvev No.104 has been converted into house site plots anc that set.eral constructions have already come up in and around .l e petitioner's plot. The petitioner obtained NALA conversiorr orders dated

22.1 0.2024 r'ide Proceedings Nos.2400 697 531 antl 2400697 603. The petitioner applied for building permission thrr ugh the self- certification system and that respondent No.2 grante( a provisional building permit vide order dated 22.11.2025 in avour of the petitioner. Thereafter, during post-verification of tit e, respondent No.2 opined that the petitioner did not have title to .l e subject plot 3 and accordingly passed the impugned rejection order dated

12.12.2025.

4. Learned counsel submits that the impugned rejection order is illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner has valid title to the subject plot, supported by a registered sale deed and pattadar passbooks, as reflected in the recitals ofthe aforesaid sale deed. He submits that the NALA conversion order has already been issued and is enclosed as Ex.P4 to the writ petition. With regard to the allegation of an unapproved layout, it is submitted that the subject plot has already been converted into a house site and that rejection of building permission on the ground that the sale deed was executed beyond the cut-off date prescribed under G.O.Ms.No' I 3 1 , dated 31.08.2020, is arbitrary, especially since the said G'O was subsequently amended by G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 20.02.2025, whereby the regularization scheme has been extended up to

31.03.2025.

5. Learned counsel submits that once the Government has taken a conscious decision to extend the regularization scheme, respondent No.2 cannot insist that the petitioner must obtain 4 regularization under LRS merely because the plot iv rs purchased under a registered sale deed dated 28.11.2024. Sinc: the LRS has been extended until 31.03.2025, the regularization c rarges under G.O.Ms.Nos. 131 and 28 can be levied on the ::titioner and building permission ought to have been granted.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No i submits that the petitioner's sale deed pertains to a plot in an unau rroved layout and that the petitioner has not availed the facility o1 'egularization under G.O.Ms.Nos.l3l and 28 before the prescribec cut off date. Therefore, building permission cannot be granted

1. As seen from the impugned rejection order, .l e petitioner's application for building permission was rejected on :l e ground that the plot should be registered through sale deed rn or before

26.08.2020; as per G.O. Ms.No.l3l MA & UD dat:d 31.08.2020 only those layouts and sub-division of plots with r:gistered sale deedititle deed as on 26.08.2020 shall be consider: I for building regularization ; only approv ed/ regtlaized plots ar: eligible for grant of building permissions. 5

8. This Court by the order dated 02.02.2022 in W.P. No.5I50 of 2022 dealt with similar situation wherein sale deed of the petitioner therein was registered on 04.09.2021 i.e., after cut off date 26.08.2020 as per G.O. Ms.No.131 dated 31.08.2020, and it was held as under: " 11. From the above, it can be seen that the relaxations under LRS 2020 are applicable only to the plots/sites falling in unapproved/illegal layouts having documents registered on or before 26.08.2020. In the case before this Court, the plot was registered on 04.09.2021 by way of sale deed No.4803/2021 i.e. after 26.08.2020.\n the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Hon'ble Court has considered the Memo dated 28.04.2017 applicable to LRS 2015, whereas the Memo dated 30.12.2020 is applicable to this case and the petitioner is not eligible for relaxation under the said Memo. However, it is noticed that the Govemment has not provided for any formula for regularisation of plots/sites falling in unapproved/illegal layouts having documents registered on or after 26.08.2020.

12. As the petitioner is not provided with any altemative remedy, and for the sake of uniformity and consistency, it is deemed fit and proper to direct the respondents to consider granting building permission to the petitioner herein by collecting the penal charges as provided in LRS-2020 and 33o/o compounding fee on the 6 same, plus open space contribution charges ( I 1 Zr) on the market value of the site/plot applied fo r building pennission as on the date of applications."

9. The principle of law laid down in the said orl:r is squarely applicable to the facts ofthe present case.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in t rms of order dated 02.02.2022 in W.P. No.5150 of 2022. Respr rdenr No.2 is directed to consider the building permission app t:ation of the petitioner in File No.027973AllARP/00075/lt,\P12025 by collecting penal charges as provided in Land I .egularization Scheme - 2020 and 33o% compounding fee on the st ne, plus open space contribution charges (14%) on the marker value of the site/plot applied for building permission as on date , ,f application There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applica ions, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. December 24,2025 Note: Registry is directed to annex a copy of order dated 02.02.2022 in W.P,No.5l50 of 2022, B. VIJAYSI N REDDY, J B/o. myk