AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned standing counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 - HMDA and Mr. P. Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6 - Cyberabad Municipal Corporation (CMC).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two objections have been raised in the rejection order dated 17.11.2025 whereby the application for issuance of occupancy certificate has been rejected. So far as objection No.1 is concerned deviations have been rectified and as it was found to be within 10% permissible limits, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,19,911/- towards compounding fee, which was duly paid. So far as second objection is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner is not a party to the order in CC.No.702/M/1975 dated 18.12.2019 whereby the Land Reforms Tribunal declared the in Sy.Nos.15, 41, 83, 133, 135, 136, 336, 337 and 511 admeasuring Ac.133.19 guntas as ceiling surplus land. That challenging the above order, appeal in LRA.No.1 of 2021 was filed by third party wherein status quo order was passed in respect of land in Sy.Nos.15, 41, 83, 133, 135, 136, 336, 337 and 511 admeasuring Ac.133.19 guntas, Bachupally Village and Mandal, which is not binding on the petitioner. There are no specific details in the status quo order pertaining to the subject land of the petitioner for which building permission was granted on 20.02.2023. At the time of granting building permission, the only requirement to be seen by HMDA was whether the permission was granted in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the property of the petitioner is covered in the land ceiling proceedings or hit by any other order of competent authority, then the respondent authorities are at liberty to take action in accordance with law.
Learned standing counsel for HMDA submitted that after verification of documents, it was found that the lands in Sy.Nos.133 and 135 of Bachupally Village, have been declared as surplus in CC.No.702/M/1975 dated 18.12.2019 and the case is pending.
In the opinion of this Court, mere pendency of a land ceiling case and status quo order passed against a third party cannot be a ground not to issue occupancy certificate. The issuance of occupancy certificate depends upon construction being made in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not. Building permission was granted to the petitioner on 20.02.2023, which is so far no cancelled. The consideration of occupancy certificate is only to verify if construction is made as per building permission. The occupancy certificate cannot be refused for extraneous reasons. If the subject land is covered by land ceiling proceedings, it is for the appropriate authority to take action in accordance with law and the same cannot be a ground to reject the occupancy certificate.
In the light of the above observations, the rejection proceedings dated 17.11.2025 is set aside. Consequently, the respondent - CMC is directed to issue occupancy certificate to the petitioner, provided if the construction is made in accordance with the sanctioned plan. However, this order shall not come in the way of either HMDA/CMC/Revenue authorities to take action against the petitioner, if the property of the petitioner is covered by land ceiling proceedings in CC.No.702/M/1975 dated 18.12.2019 and LRA.No.1 of 2021. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as costs.