G.Narayana vs The Dy. Commissioner
2026 Latest Caselaw 176 Tel

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

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

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,

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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