THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.16947 of 2023

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri B.Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they had approached the respondents-authorities and sought permission for erecting fencing for protecting their land admeasuring Ac.1.14 guntas in survey No.259/143/A, 259/143/B, 259/13/C and 259/13/D situated at Garmilla Village, Mancherial Mandal and District, by making an application, dt.13.02.2023.

3. Petitioners further contend that the aforesaid application made by the petitioners for grant of permission for erecting fencing to protect the subject land has been rejected by the 2^nd respondent- authority observing that a proposed 80 feet wide Master Plan Road is passing through the above mentioned survey numbers and therefore, no construction permission can be granted.

4. Petitioners further contend that the mere earmarking of the land as being covered by Master Plan Road would not automatically entitle the authorities to claim right over the property without taking steps for acquiring the same and as such the rejection of the application made by the petitioners for grant permission for erection of fencing on the said ground is illegal, arbitrary and capricious.

5. Per contra, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent while not disputing the claim of the petitioners approaching the respondents-authorities and submitting a representation, dt.13.02.2023, for grant of permission for erection of fencing to the subject land, would submit that since the subject land has been earmarked for proposed 80 feet wide Master Plan Road, the authorities have rejected the application/representation made by the petitioners.

6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that any application seeking permission for undertaking construction is required to be made through TS-bPASS online process and thus the petitioners are required to make application through the online process as per the provisions of TS-bPASS Act, 2020.

7. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

8. Though it is contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the petitioners are required to make an application through TS-bPASS online process as per the provisions of TS-bPASS Act, 2020, the said web portal, through which application is required to be made, does not provide for making an application for grant of permission for erection of fencing.

9. This Court in W.P.No.564 of 2024, dt.19.01.2024, had an occasion to deal with a similar situation wherein this Court had observed that under TS-bPASS Act, 2020 one cannot secure permission for construction of a compound wall alone, inasmuch as TS-bPASS online portal does not provide for granting of such permission, unless until the same is coupled with the construction of a room or shed. Similar is the situation with the fencing as sought in the present case.

10. Thus, the claim of the 2^nd respondent of the petitioners requiring to make an application through TS-bPASS online process, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be accepted as a valid claim and the 2nd respondents-authorities are required to consider the petitioners’ representation, dt.13.02.2023, including as to whether any permission is required for erecting fencing having regard to the defginition of ‘building’ under Section 2(5) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

11. Insofar as the other ground on which the respondents rejected permission to the petitioners that a proposed 80 feet wide Master Plan Road is passing through the petitioners’ subject property and as such no permission can be granted for erecting the fencing, it is to be noted that except stating that the subject land of the petitioners is getting affected by 80 feet Master Plan road, no steps