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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 26638

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Koyagura Dinesh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 40016/2025



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

WRIT PETITON No.40016 OF 2025

DATE OF ORDER: 30.12.2025

Between:

Koyagura Dinesh

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana

Represented by its Principal Secretary

Municipal Administration and Urban Development

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others

...Respondents

ORDER : (ORAL)

Heard Mr. M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2;

and perused the material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the building

application of the petitioner bearing No.027971/NARP/00074/IABP/2025

dated 22.11.2025 for the open plot admeasuring 242 square yards in Survey

No.104/E/1/1/1/1, at Pallaburg Shivar, Narayanpet Town and Municipality,

Narayanpet District, has been rejected vide letter dated 12.12.2025 on the

ground that the site of the petitioner falls in unapproved layout and the sale

deed dated 28.11.2024 was registered before the cut-off date i.e.26.08.2020 as

per G.O.Ms. No.131 MA UD dated 31.08.2020 (Layout Regularization

Scheme [LRS] 2020). Learned counsel submitted that in identical case, this

##PAGE2##

2

Court granted relief by the order dated 24.12.2025 in W.P. No.39839 of 2025.

The said submission is not opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for

respondent No.2.

3. This Court in the order dated 24.12.2025 passed in W.P. No.39839 of

2025 held that:

“…

7. As seen from the impugned rejection order, the petitioner’s application for

building permission was rejected on the ground that the plot should be

registered through sale deed on or before 26.08.2020; as per G.O. Ms.No.131

MA & UD dated 31.08.2020 only those layouts and sub-division of plots with

registered sale deed/title deed as on 26.08.2020 shall be considered for

building regularization; only approved/regularized plots are eligible for grant

of building permissions.

8. This Court by the order dated 02.02.2022 in W.P. No.5150 of 2022 dealt

with similar situation wherein sale deed of the petitioner therein was registered

on 04.09.2021 i.e., after cut off date 26.08.2020 as per G.O. Ms.No.131 dated

31.08.2020, and it was held as under:

“ 11. From the above, it can be seen that the relaxations under LRS 2020 are

applicable only to the plots/sites falling in unapproved/illegal layouts having

documents registered on or before 26.08.2020. In the case before this Court, the

plot was registered on 04.09.2021 by way of sale deed No.4803/2021 i.e. after

26.08.2020. In the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

this Hon’ble Court has considered the Memo dated 28.04.2017 applicable to LRS

2015, whereas the Memo dated 30.12.2020 is applicable to this case and the

petitioner is not eligible for relaxation under the said Memo. However, it is

noticed that the Government has not provided for any formula for regularisation of

plots/sites falling in unapproved/illegal layouts having documents registered on or

after 26.08.2020.

12. As the petitioner is not provided with any alternative remedy, and for

the sake of uniformity and consistency, it is deemed fit and proper to direct the

respondents to consider granting building permission to the petitioner herein by

collecting the penal charges as provided in LRS-2020 and 33% compounding fee

on the same, plus open space contribution charges (14%) on the market value of

the site/plot applied for building permission as on the date of applications.”

##PAGE3##

3

9. The principle of law laid down in the said order is squarely applicable to

the facts of the present case.

…”

4. In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned

rejection letter dated 12.12.2025 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside.

Consequently, respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the building

application of the petitioner by taking note of the order dated 24.12.2025

passed by this Court in W.P. No.39839 of 2025, by giving him an opportunity

of hearing, and pass appropriate orders in accordanc

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