Bandagonda Gopal Rqddy v. 1. The State. of Telangala,^

Petition underArticle 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 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. 1 O4lEt2, at Pallaburg Shivar, Narayanpet Town and Municipality and District only on the ground that the sate 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 -t though the petitioner have already obtained nala conversion order dated 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, unlaMul, contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to accept provisional building permit orde; dated 22-11-2025 by withdrawing the impugned rejection of the provisional building permit order dated

12.12.2025. IA 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 the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to proceed with the construction on open plot admeasuring 242 Sq. Yards in Sy.No. 1O4tEl2, at Pallaburg Shivar, Narayanpet Town and Municipality based upon the provisional building permit order as granted by the 2nd respondent Municipality in file No. 028001/NARPi00076/IABP 12025, ' 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 Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV counset for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER INTHEHIGHCoURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN I{EDDY WRIT PETITON No.40047 oE 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 30.12.2025 Between: Bandagonda GoPal ReddY AND 'Ihe State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary Municipat Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .Petitioner ..Resportdcnts ORDER: (ORAL) Heard Mr. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No'2: and perused the material on record'

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the building applicarion of the petitioner bearing No.028001aIARP/00076/IAI}P12025 dated 22.11.2025 for the open plot admeasuring 242 square yards in Survey No.104/Ei lllllll, 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 the sale deed dated 28.11.2024was registered before the cut-off date i'e'26'08'2020 as perG.o.Ms.No.131MAUDdated31.08.2020(LayoutRegularization Scheme ILRSI 2020). Learned counsel submitted that in iclentical case' 2 this Court grar)ted relief by the order dated 24.12.2025 in W.P. No.39839 of

2025. T'he said submission is not opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for respclndeirt No.2

3. T'his Courl in the order dated 24.12.2025 passed in W.P. No.39839 of 2025 held that:

7. As seen liom the impugned rejection order, the petitioner's application for building permission was rejected on the ground that the plot should be registered tirrough sale deed on or before 26.08.2020; as per G.O. Ms.No.l3l MA & L-rl) datcd 31.08.2020 only those layouts and sub-division of plots with registered salc deed/title deed as on 26.08.2020 shall be considered for building regulalization; only approved/regularized plots are eligible for grant of bui Iding perniissions.

8. This Court by the order dated 02.02.2022 in W.P. No.5l50 of 2022 dealt with sirnilar sittntion wherein sale deed of the petitioner therein was registered on04.09.2021i.e., after cut off date 26.08.2020 as per G.O. Ms.No.131 dated 3 1.08.2020, and it was held as under: " I l. Frorn tlte above, it can be seen that tlre relaxations under LRS 2020 are applicable oniy to the plots/sites falling in unapproved/illegal layouts having docrrments registered on or before 26.08.2020.In the case before this Court, the plot rvas registered on 04.09.2021 by way of sale deed No.480312021 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 28.04.2017 applicable to LRS 20i5. 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 rroticed that the Government 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 alternative remedy, and for the sake of uniformity and consistency, it is deemed fit and proper to direct the respotrderrts to consider granting building permission to the petitioner herein by collectirrg the penal charges as provided in LRS-2020 and33%o compounding fee on the same, plus open space contribution charges (14%') on the market value of the site/plot applied for building permission as on the date of applications." E n J

9. The principle of law laid down in the said order is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

4. [n the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The irnpugned re.iection 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 passc'd by this Court in W.P. No.39839 of 2025, by giving hin-r an opportunity of hearing, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of fifteen ( l5) days fiom 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 peiition, stand closed. //TRUE COPY// KRISHNA OFFICER To,

4. 5. 6 7

9. BSR rn w ? HIGH COURT DATED: 3011212025 ORDER wP,No;40047 0t 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS p co?g"A l(t- dGfat"