Telangana High Court
G.Narayana vs The Dy. Commissioner on 31 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NOs.33699, 33586, 33687, 33709, 33788, 33790,
33796, & 33817 OF 2015
DATE: 31.03.2026
W.P.No.33699 of 2015:
Between:
G.Narayana, s/o. Anjaiah,
R/o. MIG 53, APHB Colony,
Balaji Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
.... Petitioner
and
The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-XII,
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,
Serilingampally, Hyderabad and three others.
.... Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. M.M.Vali, learned counsel for petitioners in all writ petitions, Mr. V.Siddardh Goud, learned counsel representing Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA and Mr. G.Madhu Sudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.
2. All these writ petitions are though filed by the different petitioners, however, the subject matter of the property in all the writ petitions is one and the same, and the factual matrix and the principle contentions made by the petitioners are same and their permissions for construction of building were rejected by the 2 respondents Nos.1 to 3, thus, all the writ petitions are heard together and the issue is decided by this common order.
3. The W.P.No.33699 of 2015 is taken as the lead writ petition and the order in this writ petition will also cover all the other writ petitions, as such, the averments and contentions raised by the petitioner in the lead writ petition is taken for deciding the batch of writ petitions.
4. The present petition is filed questioning the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, wherein the building permissions were rejected by proceedings No.939/TPS/ E12/WZ/GHMC/2014-15 dated 17.08.2015 (1st respondent) and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and also violative of provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (for short, 'Act, 1955').
5. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of open plot No.236 issued by the then HUDA vide sanction layout bearing No.5424/MP2/HUDA/91, admeasuring 267 square yards in Sy.No.100 of Miyapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same vide 3 registered sale deed bearing document No.9365/1992, registered in the Office of Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Ranga Reddy District, and likewise, the other respective writ petitioners have alleged to have purchased the respective plot numbers in the very same layout sanctioned by the then HUDA. It is stated by the petitioner that the said locality is well developed, which is popularly known as 'Prashanth Nagar Colony' and many houses were built with the due sanction accorded by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, consisting of about 750 plots. Further, it is stated that the HUDA has sanctioned the said layout in the said Sy.No.100 at Miyapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and during the period from 1990 to 1995 at about 150 houses alleged to have been constructed by various persons by obtaining loans from the Banks, LIC and other financial institutions. It is also stated that assessment of the houses is also done by the GHMC in the said cases.
6. It is stated that the petitioner so as to construct a house has prepared a plan through licensed Engineer and Planner for stilt plus two floors consisting of total floor area of 1455 square feet over the plot admeasuring 267 square yards as per the building rules and regulations and accordingly, the Demand Draft bearing No.382699, 4 dated 09.05.2014 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, IDPL, Kukatpally Branch was obtained towards the building permission fee and submitted the same before the 1st respondent along with the application and necessary documents, however, the respondents have refused to accept the application and directed the petitioner to go to the Office of Town Planning Section. Subsequently as the Office of Town Planning Section also did not entertain his application, the petitioner alleged to have sent the application to the 1st respondent vide registered post with acknowledgement due on 20.06.2014, which was delivered to the 1st respondent on 21.06.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner alleged to have made personal visits to the office of the 1st respondent on numerous occasions, and as the said application was not considered, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.23487 of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 27.08.2014 along with batch of writ petitions, directing the 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of building permission within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order in accordance with law. Further, even after the directions of this Court, the 1st respondent has not considered the said application, consequent upon which, a contempt case in C.C.No.1661 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner on 26.08.2015, and at that juncture, the 1st 5 respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 17.08.2015 by refusing to grant building permission to the petitioner (likewise in other cases), and dispatched the same to the petitioner, which was received on 01.09.2015, and the said orders along with respective orders pertaining to the other petitioners are challenged in these instant batch of writ petitions.
7. The short grievance of the petitioner is that, the proceedings dated 17.08.2015, wherein the building permission was refused stating that the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal has informed vide letter No.B/60/2013-20, dated 17.04.2013 to the 1st respondent stating the land in Sy.Nos.100 and 101 of Miyapur village belongs to the Government and that the SLP is filed by the Government before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the said letter issued by the 4th respondent, the building application was rejected by the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings of the Special Court in LGC Nos.131 of 1995 and 136 of 1995 though challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, though status quo is granted, the same cannot be applied to the case of petitioners as they have considered for other persons and many houses are built.
6
8. It is also stated by the petitioner that the land in Sy.No.100 of Miyapur village is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the total survey number consists of 277 acres of land, but only 100 acres of land was in dispute before the Land Grabbing Court in LGC Nos.131 and 136 of 1995, but the 4th respondent issued a letter as if claiming the total Ac.277 in Sy.No.100. However, the then HUDA has granted layout by proceedings No.5424/MP2/HUDA/91 in Prashanth Nagar Colony, admeasuring only 30 acres, which is not part of the scheduled property in the said LGC Nos.131 and 136 of 1995 and that the purchasers of the plots in Prashanth Nagar Colony are neither parties to the LGC Nos.131 of 1995 and 136 of 1995 nor to the W.P.No.2267 of 1998 and batch. However, the Prashanth Nagar Welfare Association (Registered No. 349/95) filed implead petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.17462 of 2003, which is also pending as the LGCs are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. It is stated that the land where the litigation is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is only 100 acres, but, however, the total land is 277 acres and the then HUDA has granted permission for the layout in only 30 acres and that in view of the land not being part in 7 the dispute covered by the Land Grabbing Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioners are entitled for grant of building permission. It is also stated that in a similar occasions in W.P.No.8691 of 2008 and W.P.No.22983 of 2014, this Court directed the respondents to consider the applications for building permission and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to be granted building permission and contended that the impugned orders dated 17.08.2015 are not tenable and the said proceedings are only passed at the behest of the 4th respondent. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for petitioner stated that the impugned proceedings are bad in law and prayed to allow the writ petition by directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein to consider the application of the petitioner for construction of building and sanction the same permitting the petitioner to make constructions over the said property.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. V.Siddardh Goud representing learned Standing Counsel Mr. V.Narasimha Goud for HMDA for the respondent No.3 would contend that a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed, wherein it is stated that an extent of Ac.236.05 guntas of land in Sy.No.100, and Ac.209.29 guntas of land 8 in Sy.No.101 was taken over by way of duly conducting panchanama dated 20.08.2003 from the Revenue authorities for public purpose and resource mobilization, and that a dispute is pending over the said land in Sy.Nos.100 and 101 in SLP (C) No.14917 of 2003 and batch cases are pending on the subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted status quo order on 25.08.2003 and prior to the said order, the Revenue authorities have given possession to the respondent No.3 on 20.08.2003. Further, it is stated that though the answering respondent was not a party to the said SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, an implead application has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also stated that under the guise of approved layout of HUDA, the unauthorized persons have constructed houses on the land more than the approved layout by encroaching upon the land given to the HMDA i.e., 3rd respondent. It is also stated that the petitioners have neither filed any registered sale deeds nor filed the copy of the layout alleged to be sanction by 3rd respondent (HUDA) in the present writ petitions and in fact, as the claim is on the land in Sy.Nos.100 and 101, the respondent No.4 addressed a letter to the 1st respondent not to grant any building permissions as land belong to the Government, which was allotted to the 3rd respondent. 9
11. The learned counsel Mr. V.Siddardh Goud, representing Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, would contend that the impugned proceedings rejecting the building permissions were rightly passed and the respective petitioners have not substantiated their cases by filing proper documents and contended that the writ petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.
12. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter-affidavit in the same lines as that of the respondent No.3 stating that the land in Sy.No.100 is a Government porambok land and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 25.08.2003 in S.L.P.No.17462 of 2003 directed the alleged owners and the respondents to maintain status quo. In that view of the matter, the building permissions have been rejected and no permissions can be granted in respect of the said plots in view of the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. Evidently, the factual matrix mentioned in the counter- affidavits filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, and 3 herein, the dispute over the land in Sy.No.100 is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.14917 of 2003 & batch, and Sy.No.100 which is claimed by the Government. Though the 10 petitioners contend that the then HUDA authorities have granted layout permission bearing No.5424/ MP2/HUDA/91, however, it is stated that the extent is only 30 acres, it is categorical assertion of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein that under the guise of said layout, the alleged encroachers along with the respective parties including the petitioners have created bogus documents and encroached upon the land belonging to the Government, admittedly the dispute is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed interim orders to maintain status quo, and evidently, even in any of the writ petitions, the petitioners have neither filed the copy of the layout nor filed the registered sale deeds executed in their favour evidencing their prima facie title over the respective plots.
14. In that view of the matter, the petitioners except asserting that they are the owners of the property have neither filed the registered sale deeds long with copy of layout to show that they are the bona fide purchasers of the respective plots and more so, when the SLP is pending on the very same subject land before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and subsisting interim orders of 'status quo' as on 25.08.2003 and in that view of the matter, the impugned proceedings passed by 11 the 1st respondent rejecting the building permissions to the petitioners appears to be coherent.
15. Thus, the writ petitioners in all the writ petitions have miserably failed to substantiate their cases to set aside the respective impugned orders and for grant of building permissions. In that view of the matter, all the writ petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.
16. In view of the above findings, all the Writ Petitions fail and accordingly, dismissed.
17. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto all miscellaneous applications if any stand closed.
________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Date: 31.03.2026 kkm