Telangana High Court

Suresh Suri vs The State Of Telangana on 14 February, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             WRIT PETITION No. 4337 of 2025
ORDER:

Heard Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel

representing M/s. Pearl Law Associates, learned counsel for

petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 10 and

Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) appearing

for respondent Nos.5 to 9.

2. Petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners

and possessors of plot bearing No.13, H.Nos.1-10-233,

1-10-233/2 and 1-10-233/3, admeasuring 640 Sq. yards, in

Survey No.184, situated at Gaganmahal, Hyderabad, on the

strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.3274

of 1962 dated 07.12.1962. With an intention to construct new

house by demolishing the old house, petitioners have

submitted an application dated 14.06.2021 to 5th respondent -

GHMC, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad, seeking 2 KL, J

permission for construction. Thereupon, 5th respondent has

issued shortfall intimation letter dated 03.08.2021. Without

submitting any reply to the said shortfall intimation letter,

petitioners have filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.21058 of

2021 seeking to declare the action of 5th respondent in issuing

shortfall intimation letter dated 03.08.2021 as illegal.

However, this Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 disposed of

the said Writ Petition granting liberty to petitioners to submit

explanation/reply to the said shortfall letter dated 03.08.2021

and on receipt of the same, respondents therein shall take

necessary steps in accordance with law by putting petitioners

on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. It

appears that petitioners have not submitted any

explanation/reply complying with the shortfall intimation letter

dated 03.08.2021.

3. Further, they have submitted another application dated

21.01.2022 to 5th respondent with a request to accord

permission for construction of building in the subject property.

The same was rejected vide rejection letter dated 30.03.2022.

3 KL, J

Challenging the said rejection letter dated 30.03.2022, they

have filed a Writ Petition vide W.P. No.46221 of 2022. This

Court vide order dated 28.12.2022 allowed the said Writ

Petition by setting aside the rejection letter dated 30.03.2022

and directing respondents therein to follow the

guidelines/directions issued by this Court vide common order

dated 13.12.2021 in Writ Petition No.20398 of 2021 and

batch. It appears, GHMC authorities have not passed any order

thereafter.

4. Perusal of the record reveals that petitioners have

submitted one more application dated 04.04.2023 to

5th respondent with a request to issue building permit order.

On receipt of the said application, 5th respondent has issued

shortfall letter dated 23.06.2023 with the following remarks.

"1) this office has not received any explanation/representation in persuasion with the orders Dt:28.12.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.46221 of 2022 against the rejection letter No.000625/GHMC/0316/SEC1/2022-BP, Dt:

30.03.2022.

4 KL, J

3) As per copy of Judgment Dt: 26.03.2021 of Hon'ble XXV Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.5 of 2020 filed between

1) Sri Suresh Suri s/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry,

2) Sri Ramesh Suri S/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry, 3) Smt. Kalvakolanu Vidya d/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry and 1) Bommakanti Suryanarayana S/o. Late BVR Sastry, in which the suit is decreed in terms of compromise declaring the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as the Legal Heirs of Late Suri Krishnanada Sastry. Whereas the partition deed document No.214/2022 executed between the applicants and there is no discussion about Smt. Kalvakolanu Vidya D/o.

Suri Krishnanada Sastry, who is one of the legal heirs of Late Suri Krishnanada Sastry.

4) Renewed Builder license to be submitted"

"1) This office has not received any explanation/representation in persuasion with the orders Dt:28.12.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.46221/2022 against the rejection letter No.000625/GHMC/0316/SEC1/2022-BP, Dt:

30.03.2022.

3) As per copy of Judgment Dt: 26.03.2021 of Hon'ble XXV Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad in O.S.No.5 of 2020 filed between

1) Sri Suresh Suri S/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry,

2) Sri Ramesh Suri S/o. Suri Krishnanada 5 KL, J

Sastry, 3) Smt. Kalvakolanu Vidya D/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry and 1) Bommakanti Suryanarayana S/o. Late BVR Sastry, in which the suit is decreed in terms of compromise declaring the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 as the Legal Heirs of Late Suri Krishnanada Sastry. Whereas the partition deed document No.214/2022 executed between the applicants and there is no discussion about Smt. Kalvakolanu Vidya D/o. Suri Krishnanada Sastry, who is one of the legal heirs of Late Suri Krishnanada Sastry.

4) Renewed Building license to be submitted"

Petitioners have not submitted any explanation to the same.

However, petitioners are contending that they have submitted

explanation on 30.01.2024 and complied with all the shortfalls

pointed out by 5th respondent in the aforesaid shortfall letter.

5. Further, petitioners by narrating all the facts including

their title and possession over the subject property, submitted

another representation dated 31.01.2025 to 5th respondent

seeking permission for construction of building on the subject

property. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said

representation dated 31.01.2025, 5th respondent is not 6 KL, J

proceeding further. Aggrieved by the said inaction of

5th respondent, petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition.

6. As discussed supra, this Court vide order dated

28.12.2022 in Writ Petition No.46221 of 2022 directed 5th

respondent to consider the directions/guidelines issued by this

Court vide common order dated 13.12.2021 in Writ Petition

No.20398 of 2021 and batch. The conclusive portion of the

said common order is also extracted in the order dated

28.12.2022 in Writ Petition No.46221 of 2022. The same is

relevant in the present Writ Petition also and is extracted

below.

"12. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that in order to justify the action taken by the respondent authorities in revoking the building permission of the petitioners, they ought to have acted fairly and in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. However, since the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the impugned revocation letters passed against the petitioners stand withdrawn to the extent of revocation of permission to construct buildings, the said submission is placed on record. The impugned revocation letters passed by the respondent 7 KL, J

authorities against the petitioners stand withdrawn to the extent of revocation of permission to construct buildings, in terms of submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader. The petitioners are directed to submit their explanations to the objections pointed out in the impugned revocation letters to the respondent authorities within a period of two weeks from today. On such submission of explanations by the petitioners, the respondent authorities are entitled to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the provisions of TS-bPASS Act and the Rules made thereunder, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such explanations. It is made clear that until passing of orders by the respondent authorities within the time prescribed on the explanations submitted by the petitioners, the petitioners shall not proceed with any type of constructions in their respective subject lands."

Therefore, 5th respondent has to consider the aforesaid

guidelines/directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid Writ

Petitions while considering representation dated 31.01.2025

submitted by petitioners.

7. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of

directing 5th respondent to consider building application dated 8 KL, J

04.04.2023 as well as representation dated 31.01.2025

submitted by petitioners and dispose of the same in accordance

with law. If any further clarification/documents are required

from petitioners, liberty is granted to 5th respondent to call for

the same from petitioners and petitioners shall submit the

same. However, 5th respondent shall afford the petitioners an