ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Krishna, learned standing counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent. Perused the record. 2. Petitioners herein are claiming that they are absolute owners and possessors of Plot Nos.39 to 49, total admeasuring 1814 square yards vide Sale deed bearing document No.7430 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012 and Plot Nos.50 to 53 i.e., total extent 748 square yards vide Sale Deed No.7431 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012 and Plot bearing Nos.54 to 61 i.e., total extent 1080 square yards vide Sale deed No.7432 of 2012. They have also obtained 25 building permit orders from 2 nd respondent, the details of the same are specifically mentioned in impugned speaking order dated 15.02.2025. All are dated 10.07.2023. There is no dispute with regard to the same. 3. According to the petitioners they are proceeding with construction in accordance with the said building permit orders. Even then, 2nd respondent is interfering with the said construction on the complaint lodged by 3 rd respondent. 4. 2 nd respondent has also issued hearing notice dated 06.11.2024 directing the petitioners to appear for hearing on 09.11.2024. In the said hearing notice dated 06.11.2024, there is reference to the representation dated 19.07.2024 submitted by 3rd respondent alleging open spaces in Sy.Nos.743, 746, 747, 748, 749 and 750 situated at Nadergul village have been converted into plots and petitioners are making construction of houses illegally and requested to take action against petitioners. Therefore, on consideration of the said representation, 2 nd respondent issued hearing notice dated 06.11.2024. Petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.1452 of 2025 challenging the said hearing notice. 5. The said writ petition came up for hearing on 21.01.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have submitted representations pursuant to the hearing notice dated 06.11.2024 stating that they have valid permissions for construction on the said survey numbers. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent submitted that petitioners have not produced valid documents including registered sale deeds to show their ownership over the land and they are proceeding with the construction over the subject land. This Court considered the said submissions made by the petitioners and 2nd respondent. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent submitted that petitioners have not produced valid documents including registered sale deeds to show their ownership over the land and they are proceeding with the construction over the subject land. This Court considered the said submissions made by the petitioners and 2nd respondent. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 21.01.2025 and paragraph No.4 of the said order is relevant and the same is extracted below: “Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is evident that the respondent No.2 must verify the documents to be produced by the petitioner which are in the possession of the petitioners to ascertain whether the petitioners can claim ownership or any permission to make constructions over the survey numbers forming part of the impugned hearing notice. Since it is also the petitioner’s case that no hearing was conducted by the respondents on 09.11.2024, W.P.No.1452 of 2025 is disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to call the petitioners for a fresh hearing. The petitioners shall produce all relevant documents in their possession to contest the notice. The petitioners relied on the second paragraph of the impugned notice which records that a few permissions were granted to the petitioners in respect of the survey numbers and constructions presently going on. It is made clear that pending the hearing none of the parties shall proceed with construction or with disturbance to possession in the meantime until the respondents arrived at a final conclusion. The respondents shall conclude the hearing within 4 weeks from the date of hearing to be fixed as directed. The date of hearing shall be fixed before 31.01.2025.” 6. In compliance with the said order, 2 nd respondent has conducted hearing and passed speaking order dated 15.02.2025 stating that on perusal of the documents filed by the petitioners and 3rd respondent would reveal that link documents from Kamala Nehru Nagar Co-operative Housing Society represented by Sri R. Madhava Rao submitted by 3 rd respondent is an agreement of sale but not registered document. Therefore, the parties have misled and obtained the building permissions concealing the fact of un-registered link documents as such further action will be initiated by following the due procedure laid down under law. Thereafter, 2 nd respondent has issued notice dated 24.02.2025 directing the petitioners to stop construction. Therefore, the parties have misled and obtained the building permissions concealing the fact of un-registered link documents as such further action will be initiated by following the due procedure laid down under law. Thereafter, 2 nd respondent has issued notice dated 24.02.2025 directing the petitioners to stop construction. Challenging the speaking order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the 2 nd respondent, petitioners filed the present writ petition. 7. It is clear that there is no challenge to the notice dated 24.02.2025 issued by the 2 nd respondent in the present writ petition. 8. Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that 2 nd respondent without issuing any show cause notice, without furnishing copy of representation dated 19.07.2024 said to have been submitted by 3rd respondent and without calling for explanation from the petitioners issued said speaking order. The allegations made against petitioners in the hearing notice dated 06.11.2024 are different to the allegations made by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the speaking order dated 15.02.2025. Therefore, speaking order is in violation of principles of natural justice and also procedure laid down under the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System Act, 2020 (for Short “TS- bPASS Act”). The petitioners have also placed reliance on the principle laid down by this Court in Smt. Lalitha Srikrish v. The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad , [W.P. No.16456 of 2021, decided on 17.01.2022] and Mothukuri Praveen Kumar v. State of Telangana , [W.P. No.31861 of 2024, decided on 25.11.2024] . Thus, according to the petitioners, the impugned speaking order is illegal and contrary to the principle laid down in the said judgment. 9. Thus, petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of plot Nos.39 to 49 admeasuring 1814 square meters under a registered sale deed in Sy.Nos.743, 747, 748, 749, 750 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.7430 of 2012, plot Nos.50 to 53 admeasuring 748 square yards under a registered sale deed document bearing No.7431 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012 and plot Nos.54 to 61 admeasuring 1080 square yards under a registered sale deed bearing document No.7432 dated 31.12.2012. They have obtained the aforesaid 25 building permit orders dated 10.07.2023. They have filed some of the copies of the said building permit orders. They have obtained the aforesaid 25 building permit orders dated 10.07.2023. They have filed some of the copies of the said building permit orders. Perusal of the same would reveal that the petitioners have to commence construction on or before 08.01.2024 and complete the same on or before 08.07.2026. 10. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that they have commenced construction on or before 08.01.2024. 3 rd respondent has submitted a representation dated 9.07.2024 to the 2 nd respondent alleging that petitioners have obtained the said building permit orders by converting the land earmarked for the purpose of open space into open plots in the aforesaid survey numbers, by mis-representation and suppression of facts. He has requested 2 nd respondent to take action against the petitioners. 11. On receipt of the said representation, 2 nd respondent has issued hearing notice dated 06.11.2024 to the petitioners. Petitioners have submitted reply to the said notice on 28.11.2024. Though the petitioners are claiming that they have submitted explanation dated 28.11.2024 to the hearing notice dated 06.11.2024, they have not filed proof of submission of said reply/explanation to the 2 nd respondent. According to the petitioners, they have submitted all the link documents. As per the speaking order, 3rd respondent has submitted representations dated 19.07.2024 and 21.01.2025. 12. The aforesaid building permit orders were issued under TGb-PASS Act, 2020. According to the petitioners, they have uploaded all the relevant documents and they have made self-certification and self-declaration. Therefore, 2nd respondent has to consider prima-facie title and possession of the petitioners over the subject property. They cannot consider other aspects. In support of their contention, they have placed reliance on the aforesaid judgments. 13. There is no dispute that petitioners have obtained subject building permit orders dated 08.07.2023 for construction of house. The same are under TG-bPASS Act, 2020. Thereafter, 2 nd respondent has to conduct post verification with regard to the documents submitted by petitioners within 21 days from the date of said building permit orders. In Smt. Lalitha Srikrish, (supra) , this Court held that twenty one (21) days period mentioned in Section - 7 of the TG-bPASS Act, 2020 is directory, not mandatory. 14. As per Section - 7 (11) of TS-bPASS Act and TS-bPASS Rules made thereunder, 2 nd respondent shall complete the post verification within 21 days. Failure to do so, it amounts to deemed permission. 14. As per Section - 7 (11) of TS-bPASS Act and TS-bPASS Rules made thereunder, 2 nd respondent shall complete the post verification within 21 days. Failure to do so, it amounts to deemed permission. Thereafter, petitioners have to inform 2nd respondent stating that they are proceeding with the construction based on deemed permission provision. They have not obtained work commencement letters to proceed with construction pursuant to the said building permit orders. Admittedly, petitioners have not submitted any letter to the 2 nd respondent stating that they are proceeding with the construction based on deemed provision. 15. As discussed supra, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.1452 of 2025 challenging the hearing notice. They have not mentioned that 2nd respondent did not furnish copy of the representation dated 19.07.2024 submitted by 3 rd respondent. In fact, petitioners did not request the 2 nd respondent to furnish copy of the said representation. Without seeking copy of the said representation, they cannot blame the 2 nd respondent that he has not furnished copy of the same. Without seeking copy of the said representation, they are claiming that they have submitted explanation on 28.11.2024. They are contending that they have submitted all the link documents during the hearing conducted by the 2 nd respondent. 16. Perusal of aforesaid sale deeds would reveal that M/s. Kamala Nehru Co-operative Housing Society Limited was the owner of the subject property. Petitioners’ vendor, B. Venkat Reddy is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot Nos.39 to 49 in the aforesaid survey numbers admeasuring 1850 square yards basing on the unregistered agreement of sale executed by M/s. Kamala Nehru Co-operative Housing Society Limited. Basing on the said un- registered agreement of sale, he has executed the aforesaid registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.7430 etc. Therefore, 3 rd respondent has submitted representation dated 19.07.2024 to 2 nd respondent narrating the aforesaid facts and requesting 2 nd respondent to take action against the petitioners. 17. In the earlier writ petition i.e., W.P.No.1452 of 2025 they have raised all the aforesaid contentions. On consideration of the contentions of both the petitioners and 2nd respondent, vide order dated 21.01.2025 this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to call the petitioners for a fresh hearing. Petitioners shall produce all relevant documents to contest the notice. On consideration of the contentions of both the petitioners and 2nd respondent, vide order dated 21.01.2025 this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to call the petitioners for a fresh hearing. Petitioners shall produce all relevant documents to contest the notice. Petitioners relied on the second paragraph of the impugned notice which reveals that a few permissions were granted to the petitioners in respect of the survey numbers and constructions presently are going on. Therefore, this Court made it clear that pending the hearing, none of the parties shall proceed with construction or with disturbance to possession in the meantime until the respondents arrived at a final conclusion. This Court also directed 2 nd respondent to conclude the hearing within 04 weeks from the date of hearing to be fixed as directed. This Court also considered the fact that 2nd respondent has already fixed hearing date before 31.01.2025. Therefore, petitioners cannot raise fresh grounds now in the present writ petition stating that 2 nd respondent issued speaking order without issuance of show cause notice etc. Petitioners did not raise the said contentions in the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, they cannot contend the same now. 18. The impugned speaking order dated 15.02.2025 is an appealable in terms of Section - 252 (1) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. 19. Though petitioners contended that the speaking order dated 15.02.2025 is in violation of principles of natural justice and procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and TG-bPASS Act, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that impugned speaking order dated 15.02.2025 was passed after issuing notice to petitioners and after hearing the petitioners in compliance with the order dated 21.01.2025 in W.P.No.1452 of 2024. Therefore, petitioners have to prefer an appeal challenging the speaking order dated 15.02.2025 before the Regional Director-appellate authority concerned. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that 2nd respondent cannot consider the title disputes and the disputes with regard to the agreement of sale is to be decided before the competent civil court and authorities cannot decide. There is force in the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent No.2 and this Court can’t consider disputed/complicated questions of fact in the present writ petition. There is force in the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent No.2 and this Court can’t consider disputed/complicated questions of fact in the present writ petition. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ehsan , [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 887] 21. In the light of the said discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the speaking order dated 15.02.2025. Without expressing any opinion on merits, this writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal challenging the order dated 15.02.2025 before the Regional Director, appellate authority concerned raising all the grounds which they have raised in the present writ petition before the Appellate Authority as it is for the Appellate Authority to consider. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.