Puvvadi Anasuya vs State Of Telangana

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the revocation letter (Revocation of Building Permission) vide letter No.342274/GHMC19751/2023 dated 07-12-2023 as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the record and one having been issued without jurisdiction.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

Petitioner contends that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of 1500 sq. yards in Sy.No.88/1 of Serilingampally Circle 20, Ranga Reddy District; that the petitioner had obtained building permission through TS-bPASS online process on 03-11-2023 for construction of a residential building consisting of stilt for parking + 3 upper floors; that the respondent authorities did not cause any post verification after petitioner generating online building permit order within 21 days; and that on account of non-causing of verification and issuing work commencement letter, the building permission obtained by the petitioner through TS-bPASS online process on 03-11-2023 would have to be considered as receiving deemed approval under Section 7(11) of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System Act, 2020 ( for short ‘the Act’).

Petitioner further contends that since no communication has been received from respondent No.3 authority with regard to causing post-verification of the building permission generated and being issued work commencement letter or rejection of permission, the petitioner has construed the building permission application submitted by her through online process having been approved under deeming provision and on obtaining such deemed approval, respondent No.3 looses jurisdiction to revoke such building permission; and that the power to revoke the building permission, which has received the status of deemed approval, vests only with the Commissioner under Section 7(11) of the Act.

Petitioner further contends that as the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is dated 07-12-2023, the same is clearly beyond the period of 21 days and therefore the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

Petitioner further contends that even otherwise, the ground on which the 3rd respondent had revoked the building permission obtained by the petitioner is also unsustainable for the reason that the subject land has been found to be falling in Sy.No.88 of Serilingampally village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in a survey conducted by the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, dated 01-07-2021, when the authorities sought to lay a road through the petitioner’s property, claiming the same as part of Sy.No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli.

Petitioner further contends that during the survey conducted by the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, the land of the petitioner was shown as falling on a road passing through Sy.No.88 and further since the respondents did not take any steps to lay any road therein, the petitioner’s property continues to be an open land, in respect of which petitioner had obtained building permission from the respondent authorities.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, however, does not dispute the fact that the impugned order has been passed by the 3rd respondent beyond the period of 21 days and also having regard to the law laid down by this Court in Bandi Muni Reddy and another Vs. State of Telangana and others Order dated 07-12-2023 in W.P.No.33023 of 2023, the same is clearly without jurisdiction.

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as per the draft Master Plan, 36 meters width road is shown, and that the said road is shown in Sy.No.26 of Kancha Gachibowli as per the record.

Learned Standing Counsel, however, does not dispute the fact survey being conducted in the presence of Municipal Authorities, wherein the subject land of the petitioner, which the respondents are claiming as forming part of Sy.No.26, has been identified as falling in Sy.No.88 of Serilingampally.

I have taken note of respective contentions urged.

This Court in Bandi Muni Reddy (Order dated 07-12-2023 in W.P.No.33023 of 2023 supra) had held that the building permissions obtained through the Act can be revoked by the Deputy Commissioner only within a period of 21 days and on failure to revoke such building permission within the time, the power to revoke such permissions obtained would vest only with the Commissioner under Section 7(11) of the Act.

Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the building permission obtained by the petitioner is dated 03-11-023 and the same was not revoked by the 3rd respondent authority within 21 days. Thus, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is clearly beyond the time permitted under the Act, and therefore the said order cannot be held to be valid.

Further, this Court by common order dated 10-04-2023 in W.P.No.25092 of 2015 and connected Contempt Case Nos.3203 of 2018 and 1836 of 2022 had observed that a Joint Survey was conducted wherein the properties falling in Sy.Nos.88/1 and 26 have been demarcated and that the land in Sy.No.88/1 is a patta land. Since, the said survey report clearly demarcated the land of the petitioner falling in Sy.No.88, the ground on which the impugned order has been passed by the 3rd respondent, otherwise also cannot be held to be valid for being it to be sustained.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order 07-11-2023 passed by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.