Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 409 (TS)

Sharat Chandra Rachuri v. State of Telangana

2025-04-24

B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

body2025
ORDER : (B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.) The writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief : “…pleased to issue Writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice of revocation of building permission dated 03.12.2024 issued u/s. 174(4)(10) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 by the 2 nd respondent inrespect of the petitioners property admeasuring 200 Sq.yrds bearing Plot No.129, H.No.6210/27/8 in Sy.No.55 and 56, Raghavendra Nagar,Jillelguda, Balapur (M), Rangareddy District, in a routine manner without mentioning any reasons while orally informing that that the same is rejected on the ground that the petitioners did not enclose the ‘No objection certificate’/ Clearance Certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) Authority along with the application as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being contrary to the settled principle laid by this Hon’ble Court in Hyderabad Potteries Case reported in 2001 (3) ALD 600 , orders in W.P. No.12798 of 2021 and also in catena judgements of this Hon’ble Court apart from being in violation of the provisions contemplated under the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 and T.S. bPass Act, 2020 and consequently set aside the same directing the 2 nd respondent to consider the petitioners application without insisting on a No Objection Certificate/ Clearance Certificate from the ULC Authorities or Revenue Authorities and release the sanction plan for the construction of the building in the property and pass…” 2. Heard Mr. V.M.M. Chary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Singireddy Ravinder Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. D.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned Government Pleader for Assignment, appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5. 3. Petitioners claim to be absolute owners and possessors of the property bearing Plot No.129, H.No.6-210/27/8, admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey Nos.55 and 56 of Raghavendra Nagar, Jillelguda, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, i.e., subject property, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.1234 of 2014 dated 03.01.2014 from the previous owners Mr. YeddulaPedda Reddy and another. It is stated that the vendors of the petitioners purchased the subject property from Mr. G. Sudharshan Reddy, through registered Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney videdocument Nos.15588 and 15589 of 2012 dated 12.12.2012. Mr. G. Sudharshan Reddy, in turn purchased the subject property through registered sale deed bearing document No.2026 of 1995 dated 28.10.1995 which was developed by M/s. Gruha Laxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited. G. Sudharshan Reddy, through registered Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney videdocument Nos.15588 and 15589 of 2012 dated 12.12.2012. Mr. G. Sudharshan Reddy, in turn purchased the subject property through registered sale deed bearing document No.2026 of 1995 dated 28.10.1995 which was developed by M/s. Gruha Laxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited. The vendors of the petitioners have obtained building permission for construction of ground + one upper floor and sold the semi- constructed building to the petitioners in the year 2014. Further, petitioners obtained building permission in the year 2024 for construction of residential building in the subject property. 4. It is submitted that while petitioners were taking steps to construct the building, a show-cause notice vide Notice No.440985/MERP/0392/2024 dated 18.11.2024 was issued calling upon them to explain as to why the building permission granted to them should not be cancelled for indulging in misrepresentation. Thereafter, impugned notice vide No.440985/MERP/0392/2024 dated 03.12.2024 under Section 174(4)(10) of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 was issued to the petitioners revoking the building permission granted to them vide order dated 10.10.2024. 5. It is submitted that impugned revocation order is contrary to law laid down by this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad , [ 2001 (3) ALD 600 ] and the order of this Court in W.P. No.12798 of 2021 dated 13.04.2022, and prayed to set aside the same. 6. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 placed on record written instructions and submitted that petitioners applied for building permission for construction of residential building in the subject property through TG-bPASS portal. During the verification, it was found that the subject property of the petitioners was falling in Survey Nos.55 and 56 which is a Urban Land Ceiling land (prohibited property) in Inspector General of Registration and Stamps (IGRS) Telangana portal, as such, show-cause notice dated 18.11.2024 was sent to the petitioners to submit No Objection Certificate (NOC) from ULC Department. Petitioners did not submit NOC, hence, the building permission was revoked. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P. No.12798 of 2021 dated 13.04.2022. Petitioners therein are the purchasers of the land admeasuring 1454.65 square yards in Block ‘B’ of Raghavendra Colony in Survey Nos.55 and 56 of Jilleleguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, which was subject matter of ULC proceedings in CC.No.J2/9984/76. Petitioners therein are the purchasers of the land admeasuring 1454.65 square yards in Block ‘B’ of Raghavendra Colony in Survey Nos.55 and 56 of Jilleleguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, which was subject matter of ULC proceedings in CC.No.J2/9984/76. The writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 therein i.e., The Special Officer, Competent Authority, the District Collector, Urban Land Ceiling Wing, Ranga Reddy District, in notifying their plots as surplus as illegal, void ab initio, contrary to the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 and for other reliefs. The writ petition was allowed by the order dated 13.04.2022, where, it was held as under : “…. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the order under Section 8(4) of the Act was issued on 29.04.1989.The declarant Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum died on 06.09.1987. Section 8(4) order, as per the record was dispatched to all the legal representatives of the declarant. Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum was indicated as expired in the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. Thus, the respondent No.3 cannot be permitted to contend that the death of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum is not in its knowledge. 13. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clearly shown in the order passed under Section 8(4) order dated 29.04.1987 that Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum expired. The notice under Section 10(5) of the Act dated 03.01.2007 was issued in the name of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum, who was dead by then. Section 10(5) of the Act mandates that notices should be given to the land owner and person in possession of the property. This Court in STATE OF A.P., REVENUE DEPARTMENT v. SMT. A. BHARATHI , [ 2002 (4) ALT 334 (DB)] held as under: “... Even otherwise it was brought to our notice that the statutory notices under the Act were issued in the name of dead person which is non est in the eye of law ...” The legal heirs of the declarant were parties to Section 8(1) and Section 8(4) proceedings. The respondent No.3 was well aware of the death of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum. However, for the reasons best known, the respondent No.3 has chosen to issue notice under Section 10(5) to Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum (dead person). Thus, the notice under Section 10(5) and consequential order under Section 10(6) are vitiated and held to be void. The respondent No.3 was well aware of the death of Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum. However, for the reasons best known, the respondent No.3 has chosen to issue notice under Section 10(5) to Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum (dead person). Thus, the notice under Section 10(5) and consequential order under Section 10(6) are vitiated and held to be void. Further, proceedings of taking over possession under the guise of panchanama dated 12.03.2007 is nonest in the eye of law. …” 8. As seen from the contents of the sale deed vide document No.2026 of 1995 dated 28.10.1995, the predecessor in title of the petitioners Mr. G. Sudershan Reddy purchased the subject property from Mr. Mirza Habeebulla Baig and others who acquired the property through Hiba (oral gift deed) executed by Mrs. Habeebunnisa Begum, who was the original owner of the land admeasuring Acs.48-39 guntas in Survey Nos.33, 34, 35, 36, 55 and 66 situated at ZilullahGuda (Jillelguda), Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. M/s. Gruha Laxmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited was the confirming party to the sale deed dated 28.10.1995. The title of the petitioners over the subject property is traceable to original owner Mrs. Habeebunnissa Begum, who is also the declarant/original pattadar of the land of the petitioner in W.P. No.12798 of 2021. The order passed by this Court in W.P. No.12798 of 2021 dated 13.04.2022 has been affirmed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the appeal preferred by the State in W.A. No.355 of 2023 dated 21.10.2024. 9. There is no rebuttal by the learned Government Pleader for Assignment that the petitioners herein and petitioner in W.P. No.12798 of 2021 are similarly placed, and both of their title is traceable to original declarant - Mrs. Habeebunnissa Begum. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned notice of revocation vide No.440985/MERP /0392/2024 dated 03.12.2024, and consequently building permit order of the petitioners vide permit No.440985/MERP/0392/2024 dated 10.10.2024 stands restored. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed.