[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
K. Ravi Vara Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.2630 of 2020
DATED: 01.04.2026
Between:
K.Ravi Vara Prasad ...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ...Respondents
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent
No.2 in issuing proceedings No.42563/1505/2013, dated
30.01.2020, cancelling building permission accorded to the petitioner
in Permit No.37878/HO/CZ/Cir-9/2014, dated 15.11.2014 in file
No.42563/15/05/2013, as illegal and arbitrary and for
consequential relief.
2. Heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and
learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.
LNA,J
3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that
petitioner purchased a house bearing No.1-7-496/1, admeasuring
760 Sq.yrds, situated at Zamisthanpur Village, Musheerabad,
Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property'), under
registered sale deed No.836 of 2013, dated 11.02.2013, from one
G.Satyanarayana; that subsequently, petitioner came to know that
petitioner's vendor filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.15438 of 2012,
and this Court vide Common Order dated 28.04.2014, allowed the
writ petition and observed as under:
"In the pleadings of the respondents, it is evident that the
only ground on which the land was included in the prohibitory
list was that the same recorded as "G-Abadi" in the TSLR.
Except the TSLR entry, no other document is relied upon by the
respondents to show that the land in question belongs to the
Government. The fact that the mutation was made in favour of
the petitioner's vendors is not disputed by any of the
respondents.
As noted above in contrast to the TSLR entry, the petitioners
have relied upon the proceedings of the primary and Appellate
Authorities under the 1976 Act where under the land has been
treated as a private land. The fact that the Petitioner was
allowed to purchase the land under three (3) Registered Sale
deeds in the year 1985 and sell a part of the land under
separate Registered Sale Deed latter to a third party would
show that despite the entry in the TSLR, the Government
functionaries have treated the land as "private land". In the face
of this undisputed facts and having allowed the Petitioner to
sell 1124 sq. yards of land, the Respondent cannot raise an
objection for registration of the balance property solely based on
the entry in the TSLR. If the subject property was included in
LNA,J
the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of 1908 Act based on
such an entry in the TSLR, such inclusion cannot be legally
sustained. Accordingly, Respondent No.5 is directed to ignore
the prohibitory list to the extent of the subject property and
entertain the sale deed that may be presented by the Petitioner
for registration. However, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are left with
the liberty of filing a civil suit for declaration that the property is
vested in the Government".
4. Aggrieved by the Order dated 28.04.2014, respondents in
W.P.No.15438 of 2012, preferred an appeal vide W.A.No.1137 of
2014; that during the pendency of said appeal, petitioner has applied
for building permission and obtained permission for construction of
Stilt+5 upper floors vide Permit No.37878/HO/CZ/CIR-9/2014,
dated 15.11.2014, however, respondent No.5 addressed a letter vide
Lr.No.C/1643/2012, dated 27.11.2019 to Station House Officer,
Musheerabad Police Station, asking the Police to see that no
construction activity to take place in the subject property and also
addressed another letter vide Lr.No.C/1643/19, dated 12.12.2019, to
respondent No.2, to revoke the building permission; that respondent
No.2 issued a notice dated 02.01.2020, to the petitioner under
Section 450 of GHMC Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioner to
submit explanation within 7 days. Accordingly, petitioner submitted
his explanation on 09.01.2020, but the respondent No.2 vide
proceedings No.42563/1505/2013, dated 30.01.2020, cancelled the
LNA,J
building permission dated 15.11.2014. Aggrieved by the same,
present writ petition is filed.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that
W.A.No.1137 of 2017, filed by the State was dismissed on
05.06.2024, therefore, in view of the dismissal of W.A.No.1137 of
2017, the Order of respondent No.2 dated 30.01.2020, cancelling the
building permission has to be set aside and prayed to allow the writ
petition.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue did not
dispute the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
7. Perusal of the impugned Order dated 30.01.2020 discloses that
respondent No.2 issued notice dated 02.01.2020 to the petitioner
under Section 450 of GHMC Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioner to
submit explanation within 7 days as to why the building permission
dated 15.11.2014, granted to the petitioner, shall not be cancelled
since the land in question belongs to Government. Originally, the
petitioner's vendor filed W.P.No.15438 of 2012 in respect of the
subject property and the same was allowed by this Court vide
Common Order dated 28.04.2014, wherein, this Court has directed
the respondent No.5 therein to ignore the prohibitory list to the
LNA,J
extent of subject property and entertain the sale deed presented by
the petitioner's vendor for registration. Aggrieved by the same, State
has preferred an appeal vide W.A.No.1137 of 2014, however, the
same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on
05.06.2024, therefore, the Order dated 28.04.2014, passed by this
Court has become final, wherein it is observed that the Government
treated the subject land as 'private land'. In view of dismissal of
W.A.No.1137 of 2014, the claim of Government over subject land has
no legs to stand and thus, impugned proceedings dated 30.01.2020,
cancelling the building permission dated 15.11.2014, granted in
favour of petitioner in respect of subject property, basing on the letter
dated 12.12.2019 of respondent No.5, is unsustainable.
8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and the Order dated
30.01.2020, passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. There shall be
no Order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stands closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
DATE: 01.04.2026
Tri
