AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. M.Krishna Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4; and perused the material on record.
The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the property admeasuring 249.2 square meters in Survey Nos.20 and 28/1 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.10282 of 2025 dated 19.07.2025. The petitioner submitted three (3) applications dated 19.08.2025, 17.11.2025 and 30.12.2025 bearing file Nos.005775/GHMC/02828/SWBP/SLP2 /2025, 010122/GHMC/04652/SWBP/SLP2/2025 and 012470/GHMC/05579/ SWBP/SLP2/2025 respectively seeking permission for construction of residential building comprising of stilt + 3 upper floors over the subject property. Pursuant thereto, shortfall intimation letters dated 21.11.2025 and 21.01.2026 were issued to the petitioner and later, rejection order dated 17.10.2025 was passed rejecting the applications of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned shortfall letters and the rejection letter are illegal, violative of the Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.18252 of 2025, as such, they are liable to be set aside.
Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that the site of the petitioner is being affected in the master plan and only after verification of his documents, the shortfall letters were issued and later, building permission was rejected.
This Court in W.P. No.358 of 2024 dated 08.01.2024 held as under:
“...
9.This Court, in WP.No.29024 of 2023, dt.17.10.2023, took note of the dicta laid down by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in G.Usha Rani vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, wherein it has been held as under:
“It is incumbent on the part of the respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 18 of the AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of the land of the petitioner for road widening and pay compensation to the petitioner. If not, the petitioner would be deprived of her valuable property without compensation.”
10.This Court in WP.No.29024 of 2023 further observed that even if the master plan is notified, the authorities cannot seek to deny grant of permission, unless the property is being shown as open area in the master plan.
11.In the present case, since it is not shown to this Court of the respondents-authorities initiating any steps to acquire the land of the petitioner being shown as covered by Master Plan 100 feet road, the respondents-authorities cannot deprive the petitioner of enjoyment of her valuable property by making construction therein, by refusing to grant building permission. ..."
In similar lines, the order dated 31.01.2025 was passed by this Court in W.P. No.18252 of 2025 which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the order dated 08.01.2024 in W.P. No.358 of 2024 and the order dated 31.01.2025 in W.P. No.18252 of 2025, the impugned shortfall intimation letters dated 21.11.2025 and 21.01.2026 and consequent rejection order dated 17.10.2025 denying the building permission to the petitioner for sole reason that the subject property is being affected in the master plan cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned shortfall intimation letters dated 21.11.2025 and 21.01.2026 and the rejection order dated 17.10.2025 are hereby set aside. Respondents No.3 and 4 are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner bearing File No.012470/GHMC/05579/SWBP/SLP2/2025 dated 30.12.2025 for construction of residential building comprising of stilt + 3 upper floors over the subject property admeasuring 249.2 square meters in Survey Nos.20 and 28/1 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by issuing notice to the petitioner and to all other concerned/interested persons, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition, stand closed.