Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 16
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
M/s.Akshaya Developer - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No.33737 Of 2024
Decided On : 09-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S SRIDHAR
For the Respondent: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV
Insistence on No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department for building permission is not mandatory, aligning with prior judicial authority.
Headnote:(A) Telangana State Building Permission and Self Certification System, 2020; Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 - Building permission - Petitioner challenged the short fall notice for construction permit, claiming it was contrary to the TG-bPASS Act and HMDA Act - The court found the insistence for No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department as illegal. (Para 10)
(B) Writ - Discretion of High Court - The court emphasized the non-mandatory nature of NOC from Revenue Department for building permission. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, engaged in construction on certain plots, sought to challenge a short fall letter regarding building permission that insisted on an NOC, which the court found to be unnecessarily stringent. The petitioner had previously approached the court for similar issues and had received directives to reconsider applications without over-reliance on technicalities.
Findings of Court:
The short fall notice requiring NOC from the Revenue Department was set aside, while other short fall remarks remained for compliance.
Issues: The central issue was whether the insistence on an NOC from the Revenue Department was justifiable under the prevailing laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that NOC from the Revenue Department is not a mandatory requirement for obtaining building permission, aligning with previous judicial decisions.
Result: Writ petition allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for building permission. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments about noc requirements from respondents. (Para 2 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. ownership and conversion of land usage. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. court direction on application processing. (Para 6) |
| 5. criteria for issuing building permissions. (Para 7) |
| 6. legal standing on noc for building permission. (Para 10) |
| 7. challenging the noc requirement granted. (Para 11) |
| 8. partial allowance of the writ petition. (Para 12) |
ORDER :
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the records and set aside the impugned short fall letter in File No.005803/BP/HMDA/1327/MED/2024 dated 21.09.2024 issued by respondent No.2 in respect of the construction of residential building consisting of two (2) Cellar + one (1) Ground + five (5) Upper floors in Plot No.NA admeasuring 8377.27 square meters in Survey Nos.330P and 333P situated at Dommara Pochampalle Village, Dundigal Gandi-Maisamma Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, as the same being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana State Building Permission and Self Certification System, 2020 (for short ‘TG-bPASS’ Act’) and the HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT 2008 (for short ‘HMDA Act), and consequently direct the respondent authorities to issue fee intimation letter/work commencement letter under Section 20(3) of the HMDA Act forthwith.
2. Heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. Narsimha Goud, learned standing counsel for HMDA, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.4.
3. It is submitted that one Mr. Matkala Yadaiah S/o. late Mallaiah Goud was the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2-17 guntas in Survey No.330 situated at Dommerapochampally Village, Gandimaisamma Mandal, then Medchal District, by virtue of gift settlement deed executed by his mother and two sisters vide document No.4764 of 2017 dated 29.07.2017. Thereafter, Mr. M. Yadaiah, got his name recorded in revenue records and he was issued e-pattadar passbook, and his name was also recorded in Dharani portal as pattadar.
4. It is submitted that due to efflux of time, the nature of land got converted from agricultural to non-agricultural land due to rapid urbanization and construction of Outer Ring Road (ORR) around the subject property. The said Mr. M. Yadaiah applied for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division (RDO). The RDO has accorded permission vide proceedings No.L/294/2017 dated 15.12.2017. Later, the petitioner - firm purchased an extent of land admeasuring 2057 square yards out of Acs.2-17 guntas in Survey No.330 and 1210 square yards out of 3630 square yards in Survey No.333/A, totaling to 3267 square yards from Mr. M. Yadaiah and his two (2) sisters vide registered sale deed bearing document No.12205 of 2021 dated 16.08.2021. Mr. M. Yadaiah has exchanged his remaining extent of land in Survey No.330 under an exchange deed bearing document No.10754 of 2021 dated 17.07.2021 with Sri Ganapathy Sachitandanda Avadhoota Datta Peetha Trust for an extent of 3630 square yards or 30 guntas.
5. It is submitted that Mr. M. Yadaiah executed a registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney vide document No.12204 of 2021 dated 16.08.2021 in favour of the petitioner - firm for the entire extent of land and from then the petitioner - firm is in peaceful possession of the subject land. It is submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 authorities grant only technical approval and respondent No.4 grants building permission based on such technical approval. However, the petitioner applied for grant of technical approval and building permission with respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 did not consider both the applications for the reason that there is no approach road, and the same is not captured in the
