Remanded

M/s.Akshaya Developer v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Mar 2024WP/2865/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed municipal authorities to reconsider a rejected building permit application, ruling that denying permission based on access via an unclassified existing road violated the stated G.O. conditions.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the building application by taking into account the existence of the old road as access to the service road.

M/s.Akshaya Developer Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^3{66 ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOs: 1216 AND 2865 OF 2024

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 1216 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. Akshaya Developer, rep. by its Managing Partner, S. Jeevender Reddy S/o. S. Bal Reddy, aged about 40 Years, Occ. Business, No. 3-1OOl1l2, Powrampet^{Village,Dundigal-GandimaisammaMandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri} Diskict, Telangana State

¶11

..PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

'1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secreta ry, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority (MA and UD) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

The Special Chief Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority (MA and UD) Department, Telangana.

¶15

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Rep, by its Metropolitan Commissoner, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

¶16

The Director and Planning Department, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA). Hyderabad.

¶17

The Hyderabad Growth Conidor Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Nehru Outer Ring Road Authority, Hyderabad.

¶18

The . Dundigal Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Medical- Malkajgiri District

¶19

Sri Ganapqlhy Sachchidananda, Avadhoota Datta Peetha Trust, rep by Sri. K Narayana Rao, S/o K. Chella Pilla Rao aged about 75 Years, PUo. ti-2411, 9F,^{S-7, LumbiniRock Castle, Road No.6,BanjaraHills, Hyderabad.} (Respondent no.7 is not necessary party)

¶20

..RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petitlon undei Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pbased to issue any writ, order or any direction more in the nature of Writ of

¶22

-12

¶23

Mandamus declaring^{the actionof the respondent nos. 1 to 6 in not granting} buildingpermissiontothepetitionerfirminrespectofconstructionofResidential building consisting^{of 2 Cellar + 1 Ground+ 5 upper floorsin Plot no NA'} situated at^{Sy. Nos. 330 and 333/Aof Dommara Pochampalle Village, Dundigal} GandimaisammaMandal,Medchal-MalkajgiriD|stricttoanextentoI8,377.27 Sq.mtsmoresowhentheTthrespondentwasgrantedbuildingpermissionwhois similarly^{placed as the petitioner firm as illegal' arbitrary discriminatory and in} ViolationofArticle14oftheConstitutionoflndiaandconsequentlydirectthe respondent^{nos.'t to 6 to grant building permissionto the petitionerfirm in} respect of Residential^{building consistingof 2 Cellar + 1 Ground + 5 upperfloors} in Plot no.NA,^{situated at Sy.Nos'330and 333/4 of DommaraPochampalle} Village,DundigalGandimaisammaMandal,Medchal-MalkaigiriDistricttoan extent of 8,377^{.27 Sq.mts.}

¶24

IANo:¹ OF^2O24

¶25

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} directtherespondentnos.lto6hereintoreconsiderthebuildingpermission application of^{the petitionerfirm in respect of constructionof Residentialbuilding} consisting^{of 2 cellar+ 1 Ground+ 5 upperfloors in Plotno- NA, situated at Sy.} NoS.33oand333/AofDommaraPochampalleVillage,Dundigal GandimaisammaMandal,Medchal-MalkajgiriDistricttoanextentoIS,3TT.2T Sq.mts in the^{same lines as was done in the caseof respondentno'7 pending} disposal of the^{abovewrit petition.}

¶26

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRIS.SRIDHAR}

¶27

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No.l & 2: GP FORMCPL ADMN URBANDEV} Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.3 to 5: M/s' D'MADHAVI'SC FORHMDA} counset forthe^{Respondent No.6: SRIB.JAGAN MADHAV RAO, SC FORMCPL}

¶28

-3-

¶29

WR|T PETITION NO: 2865OF 2024

¶30

Between:

¶31

M/s. Akshaya Developer, rep. by its Managing Partner, S. Jeevender Reddy S/o. S. Bal Reddy, aged about 40 Years, Occ. Business, No. 3-1061112, Bowrampet Village, Dundigal-Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State

¶32

..PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

The State of Telangana, represented by its Municipal Secrelary, Municipal Administration and Urban Developrnent Authority (MA and UD) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶35

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Rep, by its Metropolitan Commissioner, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶36

Director and Planning Department, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA).

¶37

The Hyderalad Growth Corridor Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Nehru Outer Ring Road Authority,.Hyderabad

¶38

Dundigal Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

¶39

..RESPONDENTS

¶40

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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd and 3rd respondents in not considering the petitioner application for grant of building permission consisting Block A and B of 2 cellar + G + 5 upper floors in survey nos. 603/P, 604/P 60S/P in Dundigal Village, Dundigal - Gandimisamma Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri inspite of the repo( submitted by the 4th respondent for consideration of building permission as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to grant building permission consisting Block A and B of 2 cellar + G + S upper floors in survey nos. 603/P, 604/P 605/P in Dundigal Viilage Dundigai Gandimisamma Mindal, Medchal -Malkajgiri:

¶41

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

¶45

direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to allow the petitioners to start construction as per the deemed provision under Section 20(3) of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Act, 2008 by collecting necessary building permission fee pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: M/s. D.MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI B.JAGAN MADHAV RAO, SC FOR MCPL The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶47

{

¶48

THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE T. VINOD^KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.1216 AND 2a5 sor. 2024

¶49

COMMON ORDER:

¶50

W.P. No.1216 of 2024:

¶51

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of^Writ of^Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in not^gralting buitding permission to the petilioner firm for construction^{of 2} cellar⁺ I Ground⁺ 5 upper floors in^{Plot No.NA, in Sy. No'330} and 333/A situated at Dommara^{Pochampallevillage, Dundigal} Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District to^an extent of 8,377.27 square meters more so when the^7tr' respondent was granted building^permission to^{others whoare} similarly placed as the petitioner firm, as being^{illegal,arbitrary,} discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of^{the Constitution of} India with a consequential to direct the respondent^{Nos'1to 6 to} grant building permission.

¶52

W.P. No.2865 of 2024:

¶53

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of^Writ of^Mandarmts to declare the action of respondent^Nos.2 and 3 in^not considering the petitioner's application for^grant of^building permission consisting of Block A and B of 2 cellar⁺ Ground^{+ 5} upper floors in Sy. Nos.603 lP,604lP,605/P^{in Dundigalvillage,}

¶54

¶55

¶56

Dundigal - Gandimaisamma^{Mandal,Medchal-Malkajgiri, inspite} of the report submitted^{by the 4ft respondent for consideration of} building permission, as^{being illegal, arbitrarywitha} consequenLial direction^{to the respondentNos.2and 3 to accord} building permission to^{thepetitionerbyconsidering the} application submitted.

¶57

Heard learned Counsel^{for thepetitioner, learned} Government Pleader for^{Municipal Administrationand Urban} Development appearing^{for respondentNo.1; Smt. D. Madhavi,} learned Stalding Counsel,^{appearingfor respondent Nos'2 to 4,} Sri B. Jagan Madhav^{Rao, learned Standing Counselappearing} on behalf of respondent^{No.5 and with the consent of the learned} counsel appearing for^{the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up} for hearing and disposal at the^{stage of admission-}

¶58

Petitioner contends that^{being in possessionof the land} admeasuring a377.27^{square meters and 16,214 square yards} respectively under different^{development agreement-cum-general} power of attorney, the^{petitionerhad approached the 2"d} respondent authority and^{submitted anapplicationon} 17.O3.2O22 for grant of building^{permission for construction of 2} blocks consisttng of 2 Cellar^{+ ground floor and 5 upperfloors} and that the said application^{submitted by the petitioner is not}

¶59

¶60

being considered by the respondent authority on the one^ground or the other.

¶61

Petitioner further contends that as per the information obtained by the petitioner under RTI Act, uide^proceedings dated O1.O7.2022, it was learnt that the 4th respondent had submitted report dated 26.04.2022 to the 2"d respondent whereby it has been stated tJrat in respect of the^property whereat the^petitioner proposed to undertake construction of commercial and residential block, the same does not open onto the service road directly and the access to tJle service road is provided via old existing road, which is not identihed as a grid road or radial road.

¶62

Petitioner further contends that the authorities in order to grant building permission are only required to consider whether the access to the subject property for which permission has been sought is being provided directJy from the service road which is not permitted as per G.O.Ms No.470 MA & UD dated 09.07.2008 and there is no restriction or prescription that tJle access to the service road is provided only from identifred grid road or radial road.

¶63

7 . Petitioner thus contends that inspite of the aforesaid note being submitted by the 46 respondent, the non-consideration of

¶64

¶65

the application by^{the 2'd respondentauthority by granting} permission clearly shows^{non-applicationof mind'}

¶66

Per contra, Counter-allidavit^{on behalf of respondentNo 2} is hled. On the basis^{of the counter-allidavit,it is contendedthat} the 4b and Sfr respondents^{have mentioned an existence of 40} feet wide road on^{ground; that since the 4th respondentby their} letter stated that^{the existing road is not a grid road or radial} road. as per the^{Notified MasterDevelopmentPlan 2O3l and} since, the 4ft respondent^{did not provideanyspecifrc NOC stating} that the edsting road^{can be considered as a grid road to} consider issuance^{of permission, the respondent authorities} could not grant^{permissionas per Rules and Regulations in} place.

¶67

g. By the counter-affidavit,^{it is also contendedthat as per} Rule 6 of G.O.Ms.^{No'47O datedO9.O7.2O08 "access uill notbe} alloued. onto the service^{road of tlrcORR directlgf'}

¶68

Placing reliance^{on the aforesaidcondition specified in Rule} 6 under G.O.Ms.^{No'47O,the 2"d respondent contends that since} no access will be^{allowedonto the sertrice road of the ORR} directly, the authorities^{did not accordpermission by considering} the application submitted by^{the petitioner.}

¶69

¶70

I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

¶71

The condition Nos.6 and 7 of G.O.Ms. No.470 dated O9.O7 .2OO8 on which reliance is placed by the respondent authority for not considering the application of the petitioner reads as under:

¶72

"6. ORR Buffer Zone: All properties abutdng the ORR vril mandatorily have an open buffer (minimum building setback) of 15 meters from the ROW outer edge. Access uill not be allaued onto the seruice roods ofthe ORR dtectlu.

¶73

Comrnon Building line: i) All sites abutting t] e ORR and Radial roads within the ORRGC sha-ll have a common building line (minimum setback) of l0 meters. Parking shall be allowed rvithin this minimum front setback and this area shall be considered as part of the mandatory open space. Direct access b the rddidl rood.s shall be ued onlu throuoh seruice roads throuoh desianated^points onlu and not dte4lu on to the ORR or Radial Road. No^p@peLa sh4q open ditectlu onto tle ORR or rodial roo.d-"

¶74

A reading of the aforesaid conditions mentioned in the G.O. would clearly show that for grarting building permission, the authorities are only required to consider whether the site for which permission has been sought for does not open directly on to the ORR or radial road and acc€ss will not be allowed onto the service road of the ORR directly. If one takes into consideration the above requirement prescribed under G.O.Ms. No.470, arld the note submitted by the 46 respondent authority to the 2"d

¶75

¶76

i tI

¶77

respondent uide^{file note dated 26'04'2022,the same would} clearly show that^{the subject property of the petitioner for which} permission has been^{sought for is providedwith accessto the} service road not^{directlybut is via old existingroad which} however is not identifred^{as a grid road or radial road' Since' it is} not shown^{to this Court that either by G'O' No'470 or any Rule} prescribing that^{access to the serqice road should only be} provided through^{gridroador radial roadand cannotbe provided} from any other^{road, the claim of the respondentauthoritythat} the petitioner^{is disentitled from seekingbuildingpermissionas} access to the^{petitioner's propertyto the service roadis provided} from old existing^{road,cannot be acceptedas a validreason for} not granting^{permission.Thus, this Courtis of the view that the} respondent authority^{is not empowered to rej ect the same merely} on the^{ground that the existingroad is neither identihed as grid} road nor radial^{road for the authoritiesnot to considerthe} application^{or to deny the permission'}

¶78

In the light^{of the above discussion,the rejection/non-} consideration^of tle^{application submittedby the petitionerfor} grant of building^{permission by adoptingahyper-technical} approach in^{the considered viewof this Court onlygoes to show} the non-application^{of mind on the part of the 2"drespondent} authority. Thus, this^{Court is of the view that the respondent}

¶79

¶80

authority should^{bedirected toreconsider thebuilding} application submitted^{by the petitionerfor grant of building} permission by taking into consideration^{the existence of old road} as access to the^{service road subjectto the petitioner complying} with the other^{short fall objectionsif any'}

¶81

Subject to^{the above direction, the Writ Petitions are} disposed of.^{No costs.}

¶82

Miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany, pendinginthis writ} petition sha-ll stand^{closed. No orderas to costs'}

¶83

SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGI R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority (lVA and UD) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶88

The Special Chief Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority (MA and UD) Depa(ment, Telangana.

¶89

The fvletropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Ameerpet, Hyderabad

¶90

The Director and Planning Department, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HIVDA), Hyderabad.

¶91

The Managing Director, Hyderabad G rowth Corridor Limited, Nehru Outer Ring Road Authority, Hyderabad.

¶92

The Commissioner, Dundigal Municipality, Medical- Malkajgiri District

¶93

One CC to SRI S.SRIDHAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶94

One CC to M/s. D.MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA [OPUC]

¶95

One CC to SRI B.JAGAN I\TADHAV RAO, SC FOR MCPL [OPUC]

¶96

10.Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

11.Two CD Copies

BSR GJP Vy

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1810312024

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.1216 and^{2865 of 2024}

¶103

IHE S
7 '......
; ti
ol) fl 0 ilAI] ?it{
.i
't/

¶104

DISPOSING OF^{BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS'} WITHOUT COSTS

¶105

trcP*,
Xa,

M/s.Akshaya Developer v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Akshaya Developer v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Anusha Vs The State of Telangana

Varikuppala Buchiramulu, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.Basireddy Ram Mohan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Khandesh Sangitha Vs State of Telangana

Smt. Racharla Prameela Vs The State of Telangana

Gudipati Mallareddy Vs The State of Telangana