Smt. Mumtaz Jahan v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-06. Smt. Mumtaz Jahan v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 14367 OF 2018 Between: Smt. Mumtaz Jahan, W/o Mir Mahboob Ali, Aged 65 years, Occ Retired Govt. Service, R/o H. No. 16-8-334, Kaladera, New Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not granting permission for construction of building in schedule property bearing Municipal No. 16-2-7381141N6 (Old Municipal No. 16-2-738/14lA) (Portion) admeasuring 202 Sq. yards or 168. 87 Sq. meters in Plot No. 37 (Part No. 2/B) situated at Gaddiannaram, Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 16,21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission for construction of building in schedule property bearing Municipal No. 16-2-738/'14lA/6 (Old Municipal No. 16-2-738/14lA) (Portion) admeasuring 202 Sq. yards or 168. 87 Sq. meters in Plot No.
37 (Part No. 2/B) situated at Gaddiannaram, Malakpet, Hyderabad. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for sanction of building permission vide File No. 3/C4l1619912017 and grant permission for construction of building in schedule property bearing Municipal No. 16-2-738/'t4lA/6 (Old Municipal No. 16-2-738/14lA) (Portion) admeasuring 202 Sq. yards or 168. 87 Sq. meters in Plot No. 37 (Part No. 2/B) situated at Gaddiannaram, Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.
2 & 3: SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER -7 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NAII. AYANA ALISHETTY WP. No. l4367 of 2018 Datedi06. 0l. 2026 Belween: Mumtaz Jahan . . Petitioner And; The State of Telangana, reptd. , by its Principal Secretary, Municipal and Urban Development Department' Hyderabad and hryo others. Respondents ORDERT This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following substantive relief: "to issue a writ order or direc:lion more parlicularl. t' ont itt the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring tlte actiort tt/' respondents in not granling permission conslrucliott o. f for buitding in schedule property bearing Municipal No l6-2- 738/14/A/6, Old Municipal No. 162738/14/A (Porrionl admeasuring 202 Sq yards or 168. 87 Sq meters in Plot No. 37, (Part No.
2/B) situated at Gaddiannaram, Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State as illegal, arbirrary, discriminalory in violalion of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles t4, 16, 2l and 300A of Constilution of India and consequently, to direct the \ WP. No. l1367 ol20t 8 re. tp())ldents to grdnl permission for consffuction of httilt/ittp. itt tlt,: tt/rtrt,. sttitl propere,. " 2. Ucalcl Sli Katika I{avinder Reddy, leamed counsel for petitioncr and Sri ltaparlhi Venkatesh, Leamed Standing Counsel lor rcsponclent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. L-carned counsel lor petitioner represented that the issue in this Writ l)etirion is squarely covered by the order passed by this Courl in \\'rit Petition No 4018 of 202 l, dated 19. 02. 2021, and pra"u"cd to pass sinrilar ordcl in the present petition.
Writ Learned counsel f urthei' subrlitted lhat in view of introduction of BuildNow Online porral lor subrnission of building permissiol application, the petitioner utay bc perntitled to file a fresh application and on such application being f ilcd, the respondents may be directed to consider thc same altd pass appropriate orders. 4. l-carned Srandins Cor-rnsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not dispr"rtc tlrc sr-rbnrission o1- leamed counsel tbr petitioner that the issue in tlris \[rit Petirion is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Writ Perition No. 4018 of 2O2l ,dated19. OZ. 202l. 5. Ilav ing legard to the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a tr. esh application for obtaining permission for k, WP.
No-14367 of 2018 construction through BuildNow Online portal and on such application being made by the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Iaw by duly taking into account the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 40l 8 of 2021. dated 19. 02. 2021 . 6. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand dism issed. No costs. SD/. P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, Municipal and Urban lopment Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 6.
Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI 7. Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of order dated 19. 02. 2021, in W. P. No. 4018 ot 20211 w BSR \- HIGH COURT DATED: 0610112026 ORDER gTHES o t WP. No. 14367 of 20'18 ) (J (1 t 1 0 flA8 202f $ * * TC DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS {to' \_ u THE HOTI'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4O18 of 2O2L ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos. I and 2, and the leamed Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in insisting the petitioners to produce 'No Objection Certificate' from respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for processing the building permission application daled 06. O2.
2O21 in respect of the subject property situated at Fern Hills, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad. As can be seen from the record, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh had filed L. G. C. No. S4 of 2OO2 before the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh tand Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad, claiming the land in Survey No. 318/1, admeasuring Acs. 4. l7 guntas, located in Gaddiannaram Village as Government land and to declare the persons in possession of the same as Land Grabbers. After due trial, the Special Court dismissed the said L. G. C on L7. O9. 2O7O. As against the same, the Government has preferred a Writ Petition being W. P. No. 16789 of 2011 and the same is pending adjudication before a Division Bench of this Court. It is pertinent to mention here that even though W. P. No. 16789 of 2O11 was hled for the entire extent of Ac. 1O9. 21 guntas, subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court uide order dated 04. O4.
2017 has clarified that the LGC was hled in respect of onl,v 17,882 square meters, equivalent to 2l,387 square yards, rvhich translatcs to Acs. 4. 17 guntas ot land, and therefore, rnodihed the interim ordcr to the extent ofAcs. 4. 17 guntas ofland. This Court, in number of cases, has depreciated the stand taken by the Municipal Corporations rvhenever they have insisted lor submission of 'No Objection Certificate' either from the Revenue Departrnent or tire Urban Land Ceiling Department or any other Departmcnt, for cor. rsidering the applications tor building permission. As per the provisions o[ the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, thc olllcials are mandated only to verify as to whether the applicants have printa facte titlc or not by looking at the relevant title documents submitted bv them and rvhether the plans are in conformity wlth tht: r clevant Rules ancl G. Os. In vierv of the above, the othcial respondents are directed to consider thc application dated 06.
02. 2021 made b-y the petitioners for burldrng permission, without insisting for NOC from the Revenue Department, dul-', taking notc of the above factual backgrour. rd and obsen'ations of this Court, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, t. ithin a period of thrce weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the building permission, if any, granted by respondent-Corporation is subject to the hnal orders likely to be passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 16789 of 2011 and the petitioners shall not claim anl' equities in case any adverse orders are passed against 'e them in the above writ petition. In case bf any alienation, the petitioners shall inform the purchaser about the pendency of the litigation and also that building permission granted by the GHMC is subject to the final orders likely to be passed in W. P. No. 16789 of 2O11, and such alienation made by the petitioners is also subject to the final result of the W. P.
No. 16789 of 2011. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs- A. ABHTSHEK REDDY, J Date : 19. O2. 2O21 ua
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.