IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY DATE OF ORDER: 02-12-2025 Between:

Mr. Vemula Venkateshwara Rao S/o. Vemula Kondaiah, and one (1) another.

... Petitioners AND The State of Telangana Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Development Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Secretariat Buildings, at Hyderabad, and two (2) others.

... Respondents ORDER : (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in passing the impugned rejection order in File No.016852/PEDA/00407/IABP/2025 dated 30.09.2025 revoking the building permit order dated 15.09.2025 granted to them for construction of residential building consisting of Stilt for parking + two (2) upper floors in the property bearing Plot No.33 north part admeasuring 77.89 square meters in Survey No.143 situated at Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr. Subba Rao Vadrevu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Singireddy Ravinder Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. The petitioners claim to be owner of the Plot No.33 north part admeasuring 100 square yards in Survey No.143 situated at Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.4262 of 2025 dated 08.08.2025. The petitioners applied for building permission before respondent No.2 and permission was granted to them through self certification in File No.016852/PEDA/00407/IABP/2025 dated 15.09.2025 for construction of Stilt for parking + two (2) upper floors in the subject property. It appears that during the post verification of the title it was found that there are civil disputes pending in connection with the subject property and the building permit order dated

15.09.2025 has been rejected by the impugned rejection order dated 30.09.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that rejection of building permission is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. There are no reasons stated in the impugned rejection order dated 30.09.2025. The petitioners are not a party to any civil suit and there is no prohibitory order passed against them. Thus, action of respondents in passing cryptic order without giving any reference of the civil case is illegal and unsustainable.

5. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that impugned rejection order is passed, as there is civil suit pending in connection with the subject property.

6. There is no reference to the pending civil suit in the impugned rejection order. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are not a party to any civil suit nor there is any injunction order operating against the petitioners in respect of the subject property. By stating that civil dispute is pending, provisional building permit order dated 15.09.2025 granted to the petitioners was rejected. As there is no clear information in the impugned rejection order whether the petitioners are party to any civil suit, or the property is subject matter of any civil suit, the impugned rejection order is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and liable to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned rejection order in File No.016852/PEDA/00407/IABP /2025 dated 30.09.2025. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the building permission application of the petitioners dated 15.09.2025, by verifying the title and also whether the petitioners are party to any civil suit and property is subject matter of any civil suit and if there is any injunction order or prohibitory order operating against the petitioners. In case, if the petitioners are not party to the civil suit and prohibitory order against the petitoners, it is made clear that respondent No.2 shall not reject the building permission a