HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9785 OF 2025 ORDER: (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the revocation orders passed by respondent No.2 in Notice No.453927/POCH/0692/2024, dated 07.02.2025, without giving opportunity of hearing to her, as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the land admeasuring 280 square yards, equal to 234 square meters, in Plot No.72 in Survey Nos.73 part, 74 part, 75 part, 76 part and 83 part of Mini Singapore Colony, Annojiguda Village, Pocharam Gram Panchayat, now in Pocharam Municipal Limits, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (now in Medchal Malkajgiri District), having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.6552 of 2004, dated 12.05.2004. She submitted the application dated 25.11.2024 to TG-bPass for building permission. Vide permit No.453927/POCH/0692/2024, dated 25.11.2024, the petitioner was accorded permission for construction of Stilt for parking + 1 upper floor.

3. It is submitted that the show cause notice dated 24.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner calling for her explanation within seven days as to why her building permission shall not be revoked for production of false statements and misrepresentation of facts. The petitioner has submitted explanation to the show cause notice. However, without considering her explanation and without giving an opportunity of hearing to her, the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 was passed revoking the building permission.

4. Heard Mr. K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.2, and perused the material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Municipality submitted that during post verification after building permission was granted, it was found that in Survey Nos.73 to 76 and 83, wherein the petitioner’s plot is situated, there is a civil dispute, as such, show cause notice was issued and thereafter the impugned revocation order was passed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has submitted reply/explanation to the show cause notice, the same has not been considered and it is merely stated in the impugned revocation order that the reply of the petitioner is found unsatisfactory. Further, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing.

7. In view of the above, without entering into the merits of the case, but for the reason that specific reasons have not been pointed out by respondent No.2 in the impugned revocation order, the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not been referred to and that pendency of the civil suit in the above survey numbers is not the ground on which the revocation order is passed, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned revocation order. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for passing fresh orders pursuant to the show cause notice dated 24.12.2024, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed.

____________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J Date: 27-06-2025 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow (BO)

v v