Telangana High Court
Manchala Vineet vs The State Of Telangana on 6 March, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.6755 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Smt. Thakur Roopa Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment for 5th
respondent.
2. Petitioners herein are claiming that they are the
absolute owners and possessors of Plot No.33-A admeasuring
200 square yards in Survey No.207, situated at Sri
Ramnagar, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, on the strength of a registered Sale Deed
bearing Document No.18157 of 2024 dated 07.10.2024. They
have obtained building permit order dated 05.11.2024 for
construction of Stilt for parking + 2 upper floors. Petitioners
have not commenced construction. In the meanwhile, 3rd
respondent has issued show cause notice dated 11.11.2024
stating as follows:
"The Provisional permission obtained for construction of
individual Residential Building vide reference 1st cited, has
been examined in detail by the Post Verification team as per
the rules and regulations in force. It is noticed that it has been
obtained by suppressing the material facts and by
misrepresentation of documents facts as stated below:
"As per the scrutiny and inspection report of TPS & ACP-
20, Sri MANCHALA VINEET, S/O. SRI MANCHALA
PRAVEEN KUMAR, 2. MR.MANCHALA VISHAL KUMAR,
S/O.SRI MANCHALA RAVI KUMAR, 3. MR.MITTAKANTI
VAMSHIDHAR REDDY, S/O.SRI MITTAKANTI
PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, 4. MR.MITTAKANTI ANUDEEP
REDDY, submitted proposals the construction of
residential building consist of 1 stilt + 2 upper floors over
the Plot No: PLOT BEARING NO:303-A, Locality: SRI
RAMNAGAR, Survey No: 207, Gachibowli(V),
Serilingampally Circle 20, Serilingampally Zone,
Serilingampally(M), GHMC, Rangareddy (Dist). Inspected
the site, verified the submitted documents and observed
that, the survey numbers 207 are covered under
prohibited properties as CEILING SURPLUS LAND. Prior
NOC is required from the concerned authorities for issue
of building permission. The applicant has not submitted
any document with regard to the regularization of said
plot from the ULC authorities, In this regard, a show
cause notice may be issued to the applicant with a
direction to show cause as to why the provisional
permission obtained by self-certification should not be
revoked within 7 days, otherwise the same will be
cancelled without any further notice."
Hence you are hereby directed to show cause in writing as to
why the provisional permission obtained by you shouldn't be
revoked for the reasons stated as above. Your explanation
should be submitted within 7 days from the date of receipt of
this notice, failing which the provisional permission granted
will be revoked without further notice."
3. 3rd respondent directed the petitioners to submit
explanation within seven days. When the petitioners went to
the office of the 3rd respondent to explain the same orally, he
refused to hear the same. Thus, according to the petitioners,
they have submitted explanation orally. Without considering
the same, 3rd respondent has issued revocation letter dated
06.12.2024 revoking the aforesaid building permit order.
Challenging the same, petitioners filed the present writ
petition.
4. Whereas, Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on
instructions, would submit that 3rd respondent has issued
show cause notice dated 11.11.2024 with the aforesaid
allegations and despite granting seven days time, petitioners
herein failed to submit explanation. Therefore, 3rd respondent
has revoked the building permit order dated 11.11.2024 vide
revocation letter dated 06.12.2024. There is no error in it.
5. Perusal of revocation letter would reveal that there
is no reference to the show cause notice dated 11.11.2024.
6. As discussed supra, the building permit order is
dated 05.11.2024. Petitioners obtained the said building
permit order under Telangana State Building Permission
Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2020
by uploading all relevant documents by way of
self-certification and self-declaration. Thereafter within 21
days, 3rd respondent has to conduct post-verification and
issue work commencement letter. Otherwise it amounts to
deemed permission in terms of Section 7(10) of Telangana
State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification
System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2020 and Rule 12(vii) of TS-bPASS
Rules, 2020. Even then, 3rd respondent has issued revocation
letter dated 06.12.2024.
7. However, petitioners failed to obtain work
commencement letter pursuant to building permit order dated
05.11.2024.
8. 3rd respondent has to consider prima facie title and
prima facie possession of the petitioners over the subject
property. He cannot revoke the building permit order dated
05.11.2024 on the ground that petitioners have not submitted
NOC from the concerned authorities and they have not filed
regularization proceedings. This Court vide order dated
26.04.2022 in W.P.No.16868 of 2022 considered the said
aspects and directed the Municipality not to insist for NOC
from the Revenue Department. This Court also placed
reliance on principle laid down in judgment in Hyderabad
Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad
District 1. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, GHMC
preferred an appeal vide W.A.No.403 of 2022. The said
appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 05.07.2022. In
fact, petitioners have to bring the said facts to the notice of 3rd
respondent by submitting written explanation. Petitioners
cannot contend that they have submitted explanation orally.
9. As discussed supra, there is no reference to the
show cause notice in the revocation letter dated 06.12.2024.
The same is in violation of principles of natural justice and
procedure laid down under TS-bPASS Act, 2020.
1 2001(3) ALD 600
10. It is relevant to note that 3rd respondent, being
Deputy Commissioner, GHMC has no power, authority or
jurisdiction to revoke the building permission and it is 2nd
respondent Commissioner, GHMC, who is having power to
revoke the building permission. Therefore, 2nd respondent
has to initiate action afresh for revocation of building
permission issued in favour of petitioners.
11. Therefore, without going into the merits and
demerits of the case, only on the said ground, the impugned
revocation letter dated 06.12.2024 is set aside. Matter is
remanded back to 2nd respondent with a direction to initiate
fresh action, serve fresh show cause notice on the petitioners
granting seven (07) days time to petitioners. On receipt of the
said show cause notice, petitioners shall submit explanation
along with copy of order dated 26.04.2022 in W.P.No.16868 of
2022 and judgment dated 05.07.2022 in W.A.No.403 of 2022
within seven (07) days. Thereafter, 2nd respondent shall pass
orders on consideration of the aforesaid aspects within four
(04) weeks. Till then, petitioners shall not proceed with the
construction. Subject to the result of the said enquiry, on
obtaining work commencement letter, petitioners shall
proceed with the construction strictly in accordance with the
aforesaid building permit order and work commencement
order, failing which liberty is granted to respondent Nos.2 and
3 to take action against the petitioners in accordance with the
procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation Act, 1955.
12. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date: 06.03.2025
PNS
