Telangana High Court
M/S.Akshaya Developer vs The State Of Telangana on 9 June, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33737 OF 2024
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to call for
the records and set aside the impugned short fall letter in
File No.005803/BP/HMDA/1327/MED/2024 dated 21.09.2024
issued by respondent No.2 in respect of the construction of
residential building consisting of two (2) Cellar + one (1) Ground +
five (5) Upper floors in Plot No.NA admeasuring 8377.27 square
meters in Survey Nos.330P and 333P situated at Dommara
Pochampalle Village, Dundigal Gandi-Maisamma Mandal, Medchal-
Malkajgiri District, as the same being illegal, arbitrary and contrary
to the provisions of the Telangana State Building Permission and
Self Certification System, 2020 (for short 'TG-bPASS' Act') and the
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act 2008 (for short
'HMDA Act), and consequently direct the respondent authorities to
issue fee intimation letter/work commencement letter under Section
20(3) of the HMDA Act forthwith.
2. Heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. V. Narsimha Goud, learned standing counsel for HMDA,
appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy,
learned standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for
respondent No.4.
3. It is submitted that one Mr. Matkala Yadaiah S/o. late
Mallaiah Goud was the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring
Acs.2-17 guntas in Survey No.330 situated at Dommerapochampally
Village, Gandimaisamma Mandal, then Medchal District, by virtue
of gift settlement deed executed by his mother and two sisters vide
document No.4764 of 2017 dated 29.07.2017. Thereafter,
Mr. M. Yadaiah, got his name recorded in revenue records and he
was issued e-pattadar passbook, and his name was also recorded in
Dharani portal as pattadar.
4. It is submitted that due to efflux of time, the nature of land got
converted from agricultural to non-agricultural land due to rapid
urbanization and construction of Outer Ring Road (ORR) around the
subject property. The said Mr. M. Yadaiah applied for conversion of
agricultural land to non-agricultural land before the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division (RDO). The RDO has
accorded permission vide proceedings No.L/294/2017 dated
15.12.2017. Later, the petitioner - firm purchased an extent of land
admeasuring 2057 square yards out of Acs.2-17 guntas in Survey
No.330 and 1210 square yards out of 3630 square yards in Survey
No.333/A, totaling to 3267 square yards from Mr. M. Yadaiah and
his two (2) sisters vide registered sale deed bearing document
No.12205 of 2021 dated 16.08.2021. Mr. M. Yadaiah has
exchanged his remaining extent of land in Survey No.330 under an
exchange deed bearing document No.10754 of 2021 dated
17.07.2021 with Sri Ganapathy Sachitandanda Avadhoota Datta
Peetha Trust for an extent of 3630 square yards or 30 guntas.
5. It is submitted that Mr. M. Yadaiah executed a registered
Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney vide
document No.12204 of 2021 dated 16.08.2021 in favour of the
petitioner - firm for the entire extent of land and from then the
petitioner - firm is in peaceful possession of the subject land.
It is submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 authorities grant only
technical approval and respondent No.4 grants building permission
based on such technical approval. However, the petitioner applied
for grant of technical approval and building permission with
respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 did not consider both the
applications for the reason that there is no approach road, and the
same is not captured in the master plan, and advised petitioner to
approach Hyderabad Growth Corridor Limited for obtaining
No Objection Certificate (for short 'NOC') for the existing access
from ORR service road to the said site. Aggrieved by the action of
respondent authorities in not granting building permission, the
petitioner filed W.P. No.1216 of 2024, which was disposed of by
this Court by this order dated 18.03.2024 with the following
directions:
"In the light of the above discussion, the rejection/non-
consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner for
grant of building permission by adopting a hyper-technical
approach in the considered view of this Court only goes to show
the non-application of mind on the part of 2nd respondent
authority. Thus, this Court is of the view that the respondent
No.7 authority should be directed to reconsider the building
application submitted by the petitioner for grant of building
permission by taking into consideration the existence of old
road as access to the service road subject to the petitioner
complying with the other short fall objections if any. Subject to
the above direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No
Costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs."
6. It is submitted that pursuant to the above order, the petitioner
again applied for building permission vide application
No.005803/BP/HMDA/1327/MED/2024 dated 01.06.2024. As the
respondents did not process his application, the contempt case in
C.C. No.1560 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner, wherein, Form-I
Notice was issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein and for
extraneous consideration, impugned short fall notice was issued.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also preferred an appeal challenging the
order dated 18.03.2024 in W.P. No.1216 of 2024 in W.A. No.1094
of 2024 and the same was dismissed by this Court by the judgment
dated 12.09.2024.
7. It is submitted that under the provisions of TG-bPASS Act the
authorities on receipt of online application for building permission
should issue a short fall notice within a period of ten (10) days and
the building permission must be sanction within ninety (90) days as
per Section 20(3) of the HMDA Act. If no order of rejection is
passed, there is provision under the TG-bPASS Act by which the
building permission is deemed to have been granted.
8. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed counter affidavit contending
that short fall letter has been issued to the petitioner as per the rules
in force. The building proposals submitted by the petitioner were
scrutinized in accordance with G.O. Ms.No.168 MA & UD dated
07.04.2012 and G.O. Ms.No.470 MA & UD dated 09.07.2008.
Petitioner has not submitted all requisite documents which are
required for this proposal, such as, NOC from Irrigation and
Revenue Department as there is water body within 200 meters.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that insistence of
NOC from the Revenue Department is not mandatory and the same
is contrary to the judgment of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries
Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad1.
10. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner about the short fall remarks the only point which needs to
be considered by this Court is whether respondent No.2 can insist for
2001 (3) ALD 600
NOC from the Revenue Department. It has been held in Hyderabad
Potteries Private Limited's case (supra 1) that NOC from Revenue
Department cannot be insisted for the purpose of building
permission.
11. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned short fall
letter in File No.005803/BP/HMDA/1327/MED/2024 dated
21.09.2024 issued by respondent No.2 to the extent of insisting the
petitioner to produce NOC from the Revenue Department is set
aside. In so far as, other short falls remarks are concerned, petitioner
shall comply with the same.
12. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed in
part. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in the writ petition stand closed.
______________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
June 9, 2025.
MS
