SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 818

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Sadiq Ali Topiwala S/o.late Shabbir Hussain - Appellant 
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent 
Writ Petition Nos.22876 and 22921 of 2024
Decided on : 04-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M. Srikanth, Mr. A. Muneedhar Reddy
For the Respondents: Mr. K.R.Koteshwar Rao

Building permission applications must not be rejected without due process, including notice to the applicants, in accordance with principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Cantonment Act, 2006 - Building Permission - Petitioners challenged rejection of building permission applications for properties in Trimulgherry Village, citing past approvals and ownership claims - The court addressed the procedural impropriety in rejecting the applications based on revenue authority objections without due process. (Paras 4, 24, 26)

(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized violation of principles of natural justice by rejecting applications without notice or opportunity to petitioners. (Para 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of two plots purchased through registered sale deeds and previously granted building permissions. Respondent No.2 rejected their applications citing objections from revenue authorities and insisted on NOC from the State Government.

Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection orders to be violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to previous rulings regarding building permissions.

Issues: The main issues involved were whether the rejection of building permission was justified based on revenue authority objections and whether the petitioners were afforded due process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that previous permissions imply entitlement to building permissions without unnecessary obstacles and reaffirmed that respondents must follow due process.

Result: Rejection orders set aside; respondent No.2 directed to reconsider applications.

Table of Content
1. building permission application rejections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. ownership and previous transactions. (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments against rejection of permissions. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
4. court's review of rejection orders. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
5. precedents cited for legal reasoning. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
6. court’s directive to reconsider applications. (Para 24 , 25)
7. final order and disposal of writ petitions. (Para 26 , 27)

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

In W.P.No.22876 of 2024, the petitioners have questioned the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the building permission application in respect of open plot admeasuring 400 square yards in Block No.I covered by Sy.No.62 (old), Sy.No.66/1 (new) situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment, vide online status dated 24.07.2024.

2. In W.P.No.22921 of 2024, the petitioner had questioned the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting his building permission application in respect of open plot admeasuring 200 square yards in Plot No.1/part forming part of Sy.No.66/1, in the layout of Vanita Co-operative Housing Society Limited situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment, vide online status dated 01.07.2024 and insisting him to obtain NOC from State Government authorities.

3. A common issue arises for consideration in these two writ petitions. Therefore, these two writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

4. Heard Mr. M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. M.Srikanth and Mr. A.Muneedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Mr. K.R.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Revenue for respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P.No.22876 of 2024 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.P.No.22921 of 2024. No representation on behalf of respondent No.1 in both the writ petitions.

Brief facts of the case

5. In W.P.No.22876 of 2024:

5.1 Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioners are claiming that they are joint owners and possessors of open plot situated in admeasuring 400 square yards in Block No. I covered by Sy.No.62 (old), Sy.No.66/1 (new) situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment and the same was purchased through registered sale deed bearing document No.2134 of 2023 dated 06.12.2023 from their vendors K.Krishna and K.Padmavati by paying valuable sale consideration and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

5.2 It is further averred that one Kalika Prasad was the owner of the agriculture land admeasuring Ac.6-08 guntas in Sy.No.62(old), new Sy.No.66/1 situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment and he purchased the same from the Government in a public auction in 1352 Fasli (1943) and since then he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and his name was entered in the settlement records and that he died on 28.07.1959 leaving behind his five daughters and one son by name Munnalal. After his death, his son Munnalal filed Revision Petition in File No.P5/3434/81 before the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad requesting to declare the above said land as patta land. The said Revision Petition was disposed on 21.11.1983 declaring that Kalika Prasad is the owner of the above said land and the same was purchased from the Government in the public auction and therefore, the said land is not a Government land. Thereafter the legal representatives of Kalika Prasad have filed suit in O.S.No.1886 of 1989 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking partition and allotment of their respective shares. In the said suit, a final decree was passed on 05.02.1990 and allotted 1/6th share i.e., Ac.0-34.66 guntas out of Ac.6-08 guntas, to Gangia Bai who is the daughter of Kalika Prasad. The said Gangia Bai through her General Power of Attorney holder N.Vishwanath

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top