Allowed

Shaik Jameel Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Dec 2025WP/39472/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A building permission application in an unapproved-layout area was rejected for want of a link document despite succession-based title supported by Pahanies, pattadar passbook and a Tahsildar memo confirming non-agricultural residential use. The High Court set aside the rejection and directed reconsideration with penal charges per an earlier judgment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection letter set aside; respondent No.2 to reconsider the building permission application within 21 days considering W.P. No.5150 of 2022, the Tahsildar memo, pattadar passbook and Pahani

Shaik Jameel Hussain Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD^{DAY OF DECEI/BER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE^{B.VIJAYSENREDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 39472^{OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Shaik Jameel Hussain,^{S/o. Ahmed Hussain, aged about 35 years, Occ'} .fournaf iJt, R/o. H.No.^{20-5411, A Zone, Ramakrishnapur,Mandammari} ' Mandal, Mancherial District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its PrincipalSecretary,IVlunicipal} Administration and UrbZn^{Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶12

2 The Ramagundam Municipal^{Corporation,Rep. by its Commissioner,} Peddapally District

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High court maybE} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction^{more particularly one in the natureof} writ of Mandamus declaring^{the actionof the Respondent No.2 in rejecting the} Building Permission of the Petitioner vide File No' 008124/RAMG/00006/SWBP/2025^{dated 24.11.2025inrespect ofland} admeasuring 242^{Sq. Yards in Sy.No. 728lA/1 at Power House Colony,SCCL .} Quarters internal^{roadsof JanagonVillage,RamagundamMandal, Peddapally} District as illegal, arbitrary^{and contraryto the orders passed in wP.No.19156 of} 2021 and set aside^{the same and consequentlydirect the respondentno.2 to} grant the building^permission to the^{petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 242} sq. Yards in Sy.No.^{728tAt 1 at Power Housecolony, sccL Quartersinternal} roads of Janagon Village,^{Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapally District as directed} in WP. No. 19156 of 2021

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir: rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nri y be pleased direct the respondent no.2 to grant the building permission to the p: .itioner in respect of land admeasuring 242 Sq. Yards in Sy.No. 728lAl1 at Pt ver House Colony, SCCL Quarters internal roads of Janagon Village, Rar ragundam Mandal, Peddapally District as directed in WP.No. 19156 ot 2021

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S SRIDHAR

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MCPLADMN UF BAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : SRI K. SIDDARTH REDII f, SC FOR MUNICIPAL

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

¶22

HIGH COT]RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITON No.39472 OF 2025

¶25

DATE OF ORDER: 23-12-2025

¶26

Between:

¶27

Mr. Shaik Jameel Hussain S/o. Ahmed Hussain

¶28

... Petitioner

¶29

AND

¶30

The State ofTelangana

¶31

Rep. By its Principal Secretary,

¶32

Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and one (1) another.

¶33

... Respondents

¶34

ORDER

¶35

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting his building^permission application in File No.008124/RAMG/00006/SWBP12025 dated 24.11.2025, in respect of the land admeasuring 242^{squareyards in} Survey No.728lA/1 situated at Power^House Colony,^SCCL Quarters^{intemalroads, Janagaon Village, Ramagundam Mandal,}

¶36

-E-jF?{

¶37

¶38

Peddapalli District, as being illegal, arbitrary and^{i:, ,ntrary} to the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 19156 of 2021 dat,: I 17.08.2021.

¶39

Heard Mr. S. Sridhar, leamed counsel for the l etitioner, and Mr. K. Siddarth Reddy, leamed standing counsel I rr respondent No.2

¶40

It is stated that vendor of the petitioner, I Ir. Vegolapu Thirupathi, was the absolute owner and possesscr of the land admeasuring 606 square yards in Survey No.728lir I situated at Janagon Viltage, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli I) strict, having acquired the same from his ancestors by successiorr Out of 606 square yards, 242 square yards was sold by said I'lr. Vegolapu Thirupath i to the petitioner by registered sale leed bearing document No.2576 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024. the petitioner apptied for building permission for construction rf residential building consisting of ground + one (1) upper floor li le application No.008124/RAMG/00006/SWBP12025 dated 15.09.2025

¶41

Respondent No.2 issued shortfall letter dated 25.10.20 5 stating that link document is not available.

¶42

---v

¶43

¶44

It is stated that petitioner^{submittedreply dated07 -11.2025 to} the shortfall letter stating^{that the land in non-agricultural and he} also obtained Memo vide No.BAtrALA/2lZ4^{dated28.06-2024ftom} the Tahsildar, Ramagundam^{Mandal,which states that the landin} Survey No.728lA/1 is^{notifiedas non-agricultural land and it is} surrounded by residential houses.^{The petitioneralso enclosed} Pahani copies along with^{reply and requestedrespondentNo.2 to} consider Pahanies and NALA^{certificateas title documents and} grant building permission. It^{is furtherstated thatrespondentNo'2} without considering his^{replydated 07.11-2025 issued impugned} rejection letter dated 24.11.2025^{on the groundthat link document} for document No.2576 of^{2024 is not available.}

¶45

Leamed counsel for the^{petitioner submitted that subject} property was acquired by^{the vendor of the petitioner throughhis} ancestors by way of succession,^{hence,the questionof havinglink} documents does not arise.^{The petitioner submitted copies of} Pahanies and Memo^vzde No'B/NALN2024^{dated28'06'2024} which clearly establishes the title^{of the petitioner'This Court in} W.P. No.5 105 of 2022 dated 02.02.2022^{has dealt with similar}

r<,

-E":rtF5l \r \l

situation and directed the respondent authorities the^-ein to^grant building permission to the petitioner therein by ct,l ccting^penal charges as provided under Layout Regularization S cheme^(l-RS 2020). 33 % of the compounding fee plus open spa(r( contribution charges @ 14% on the market value of the plot appii,: I for building permission as on date of application.

¶51

Leamed standing counsel for respondent No.2 : ,rbmitted that as per G.O. Ms.No. 13l dated 31.08.2020, the crt off date for IS regularization of plots t-atling under unapprov r I layout 26.08.2020. The sale deed o[the petitioner was execr I :d in the year 2024, after the expiry of cut-off date. Further, the peti ioner has not submitted any link document of the sale deed.

¶52

The contention of the leamed counsdl for the pr: itioner is that the subject property was owned by the ancestors of lr s vendor and devolved upon his vendor through succession which is evident from the pattadar passbook (under Ex.P6) and Pahanies (r nder Ex.P7). Moreover, the Memo of the Tahsildar, Ramag I rdam, dated 28.06.2024 (under Ex.P5) also clarifies that the plot oi' ,he petitioner

¶53

¶54

is in residential area and it is a^{non-agriculturalland.Further,there} are several residential houses in the^{locality of the subject property.} So far as the regularization of unapproved^{layout is concemed, this} Court in the above referred case^{i.e., W.P. No.5l50of 2022 dated} 02.02.2022 held that building^{permission applicationcanbe} considered by collecting^penal charges,^{compoundfee and other} charges. ln view of the above,^{impugnedrejection letterdated} 24.1| .2025 is unsustainable and liable^{to be set aside}

¶55

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed^{setting aside the} impugned rejection letter in File^{No.008124/RAMG/00006} /SWBP/2025 dated 24.11.2025.^{RespondentNo.2 is directed to} reconsider the building^{permission applicationof the petitioner in} File No.008 I 24/RAMG/00006/SWBP/2025^{dated I 5.09.2025,and} pass orders, by taking into consideration^{the judgmentof this Court} in W.P. No.5l50 of 2022 dated 02.02.2022,^{Memo issued by the} Tahsildar, Ramagundam Mandal,^{vrde No.B/\IALN2024dated} 28.06.2024, pattadar^{passbookissued in favour of vendorof the} petitioner and entries in Pahanies.^{The entireexercise shall be}

\aFq! \l .\

completed within a period of twenry one (21) days 1i rm the date of

¶61

receipt ofa copy of this order. There shall be no ordc; as to costs.

¶62

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicrr ions, if any,

¶63

pending in the writ petition stand closed.

¶64

SD/.F. ). SULEKHA^DEVI ASql$^{'ANT REGISTRAR}

To,

//TRUE COPY//

. i ECTTON OFFICER 0

1 The Principal Secretary,^{Municipal Administrationand - rbanDevelopment'} Secretariai,^{TheState of Telangana,Hyderabad'}

¶69

2 The commissioner,^{Ramagundam Municipalcorporation,reddapallyDistrict}

¶70

3 One CC to^{SRI S SRIDHAR,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶71

¶72

One CC to^{SRI K. SIDDARTH REDDY, SC FORMUNICIFAL}

¶73

5 TwoCCstoGPFoRMCPLADMNURBANDEV,High(ourtfortheStateof TJlangana. [OUT]

¶74

6 Two CD CoPies

¶75

PVL

¶76

BS w

HIGH COURT

DATED:2 311212025

ORDER

WP.No.39472 of 2025

,1 {tlE Srrr
,:.
C) t IJAl.l 2t2c ,:l
{ ,i
'-:;tr, ifi Ct

¶82

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

¶83

WITHOUT COSTS

¶84

1A
5

Shaik Jameel Hussain v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Jameel Hussain 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Muthyala Bhooma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Annabathula Durga Prasad Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Quadeer Vs The State of Telangana

Samudrala Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Sarvar Imdad Vs the State of Telangana

Thakur Thirumal Singh Vs The State of Telangana