HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16002 OF 2025 ORDER : (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in revoking his building permission vide revocation notice No.421507/NZPT/0299/2024 dated 16.01.2025 in respect of the Plot No.34, admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey No.100 (revised Survey No.100‘B’), situated at Nizampet Village, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, without any valid reason, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Municipality; and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property bearing Plot No.34, admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey No.100 (revised Survey No.100'B', situated at Nizampet Village, Bachupally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.16343 of 2024 dated 22.06.2025. The petitioner submitted application vide No.421507/NZPT/0299/2024 dated 29.07.2024 for building permission before respondent No.2; building permission was accorded to the petitioner and accordingly he started construction in the subject property. Learned counsel submitted that show cause notice dated 03.01.2025 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why his building permission cannot be revoked within a period of seven (7) days as he obtained the building permission by misrepresentation of facts. In the show cause notice, it is stated that there is legal dispute with regard to the property of the petitioner and the petitioner needs to submit legal opinion from the Municipal Standing Counsel. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.01.2025 to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 under Section 174(4)(10) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 was passed revoking the building permission granted in favour of the petitioner with the following remarks: “the submitted ownership documents that the site legal dispute. The applicant need submit legal opinion from MSC. Hence, the proposals may be recommended. Basing on the above remarks of Section Head and Section Officer, the file is rejected.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that show cause notice does not point out what is the legal dispute based on which building permission is sought to be revoked. Further, if legal opinion is to be obtained by respondent No.2 Corporation, they are at liberty to do so but they cannot insist the petitioner to obtain legal opinion from the Municipal Standing Counsel. Thus, the show cause notice and the impugned revocation order are vague.

5. As seen from the record, the vendor of the petitioner purchased the subject property from the previous owner under registered sale deed bearing document No. 3925 of 2020 dated 14.02.2020 who in turn purchased the same from her predecessor-in-title under registered sale deed bearing document No.14271 of 2006 dated 20.04.2006. The petitioner applied for Layout Regularization in respect of the subject property and vide proceedings dated 09.04.2025, the subject property was regularized. The show cause notice and the impugned revocation order do not specifically point out the reason for revoking the building permission accorded to the petitioner. Assuming that there is legal dispute, the same needs to be specified in the show cause notice/ revocation order. Without giving any details of the legal dispute, show cause notice should not have been issued to the petitioner. Thus, the show cause notice and the impugned revocation order are liable to be set aside.

6. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The show cause notice dated 03.01.2025 and the impugned revocation order vide revocation notice No.421507/NZPT/