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) 2060

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
Nalla Jayshankar Goud – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9236 of 2023
Decided On : 10-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mohd Baseer Riyaz
For the Respondent: GP For Mcpl Admn Urban Dev

Authorities are bound by survey reports in property disputes, and arbitrary rejection of building permission violates procedural fairness.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, and 300A - Writ of Mandamus - Petition challenging the rejection of building application for land established to be lawful possession - Court emphasizes the binding nature of survey reports in determining property boundaries and disputes - Prior orders directing reconsideration were ignored, reflecting arbitrary action by authorities. (Paras 1-17)

(B) Administrative Law - Powers of authorities - Respondent authorities cannot change their stance without justifiable grounds, especially against established survey results. (Paras 11-16)

(C) Property Law - Authority to determine title - GHMC barred from deciding property titles in building permission matters as disputes should be resolved in civil court. (Paras 12-16)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner applied for building permission on land he claims to own, previously rejected due to alleged misclassification of the land's survey number; survey reports confirm property ownership.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order set aside; GHMC directed to reconsider application based on authoritative survey results.

Issues: Legality of the rejection of building permission despite conclusive survey results and whether the GHMC overstepped by challenging the applicant's title.

Ratio Decidendi: The survey report clarifying the plot's status must be accepted unless legally challenged; arbitrary rejection of applications violates due process.

Result: Writ petition allowed. The impugned order set aside with directions for reconsideration.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's ownership and application for building permit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. previous court orders and survey reports. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments regarding the legitimacy of authorities' actions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court's duty to uphold valid survey reports. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. final judgment in favor of the petitioner. (Para 17)

ORDER :

1. The writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned order vide No.45728/TPS/CR5/KPZ/GHMC/2023 dated 28.02.2023 passed the respondent No.3 rejecting the building application of the petitioner for his land admeasuring 177.33 sq. yards in Sy.No.236, Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, as being contrary to common order dated 25.06.2021 passed by this Court in WP.No.1956 of 2019 and WP.No.12261 of 2020 and in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the open land admeasuring 177.33 Sq. Yards, Sy.No.236, at Jeedimetla Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.16789/2018 dated 26.07.2018; the vendors of the petitioner have purchased the said land under registered sale deed bearing document No.6796 of 2015 dated 01.06.2015 from the previous owners, namely, H. Subhadra and H. Ramchander Rao.

3. It is stated that the petitioner applied for layout regularization for the subject plot vide Application No.C/GHMC/ 035628/2020 dated 27.09.2020. Later, the petitioner applied for sanction of building permission. The respondent No.3 rejected the application vide shortfall Letter Lr.No.3/C25/ 22154/2018 dated 17.12.2018 stating that the proposed building space falls in Sy.No.238/2, 239/1 to 239/8 of Bhagya Lakshmi Colony, Subash Nagar, Jeedimetla, Quthbullapur as per the layout but not under Sy.No.236 as per the document produced by the petitioner. It is stated that the one of the residents of the said area filed RTI application dated 01.02.2019 to the GHMC seeking information to furnish a copy of Bhagya Lakshmi Colony Layout. Reply was received from the GHMC stating that the Bhagya Lakshmi Colony Layout is not available with the office.

4. It is stated that after receiving the shortfall letter dated 17.12.2018, the petitioner submitted representation dated 21.06.2019 to the respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry along with Tahsildar, Quthbullapur, regarding boundaries of petitioner's open plot, which falls in Sy.No.236 and grant building permission. Upon such representation, the respondent No.4 sent a letter vide Lr.No.1160/TPS/Clr-25/GHMC/KZ/2019 dated 29.06.2019 requesting the respondent No.5 to furnish survey report along with sketch plan duly showing the land of the petitioner, whether the site falls in Sy.Nos.236 or 238/2, 239/1 to 238/8 of Jeedimetla Village of Quthbullapur Mandal.

5. It is stated pursuant thereto, survey was conducted by the surveyor of Revenue Department along with Town Planning Officers of GHMC and furnished a report along with sketch plan to the respondent No.4 vide Lr.No.B/773/2019 dated 27.08.2019, categorically stating that plot of the petitioner is falling in Sy.No.236 and thus, the objection raised by the GHMC in rejecting building permission of the petitioner is untenable. The respondent No.3, despite the report dated 27.08.2019, tried to interfere with the possession and erected a sign board and further went on construction of a compound wall around petitioner's plot contemplating that the plot is falling in Sy.Nos.238/2, 239/1 to 239/8 as per lay out of Bhagya Lakshmi Colony Subash Nagar, Jeedimetla, Quthbullapur Mandal which is illegal and shows the malafide intention of the authorities.

6. It is stated that the petitioner filed WP.No.19556 of 2019 to declare the rejection of the building permission application vide shortfall letter No.3/C25/22154/2018 dated 17.12.2018 as illegal and for a consequential direction to th

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