THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13931 OF 2025 ORDER : (ORAL)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent authorities in neither linking the amount paid i.e., Rs.28,04,420/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs four thousand four hundred and forty only) by the petitioner towards regularization of plot Nos.66, 67, 75, 75/A, 94, 94/A, 132, 132/A, 132/B, 146, 146/B, 151, 152, 156 to 162, 164, 221, 259, 353, 354, 355, 399, 399 to 402, 411 to 414 under the Land Regularization Scheme 2020 (LRS -2020) with the internal dashboard nor processing its LRS application, as being illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. Narsimha Goud, learned standing counsel for the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), appearing for respondent No.2, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.3.

3. The petitioner claims to be absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.29-0.37 guntas in Survey Nos.615/P, 616/P, 617, 618, 619/P, 620/P and 621/P situated at Dundigal Village, Gandimaisamma Dundigal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, having purchased the same under various registered sale deeds. The petitioner developed the above land by dividing into 395 plots under the name and style of “Viswa Sai Township”. It was an unauthorized layout. As the layout was unauthorized, the petitioner filed application vide No.M/DUND/013291/2020 dated 14.10.2020 by paying application fee of Rs.10,000/- seeking regularization of the layout. The Government has also announced 25% rebate on the regularization charges, as such, the petitioner - firm paid Rs.28,04,420/- on 27.03.2025 towards regularization of the plots. However, the said amount was not being reflected in the official website of respondent No.3. When the petitioner enquired with respondent No.3, it was informed that payment made by the petitioner towards LRS charges was not reflected in the internal dashboard and unless the payment is reflected, the LRS application of the petitioner cannot be processed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to technical issues, the regularization charges of Rs.28,04,420/- paid by the petitioner are not reflected in the internal dashboard of respondent No.3. Hence, requested direction to be issued to respondent No.3 to manually process the regularization application of the petitioner.

5. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner - firm has submitted application for regularization of the layout, which is within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 - HMDA and the regularization of the plots is within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 - Municipality. The petitioner has opted for layout regularization instead of individual plot regularization.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that assuming that layout regularization has to be done by respondent No.2, it is internal arrangement between respondent No.2 - HMDA and respondent No.3 - Municipality. The amount received by respondent No.3 may have to be transferred to respondent No.2 or vice versa.

7. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that representation dated 19.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner will be duly considered, in accordance with law.

8. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.04.2025 for processing its LRS application vide No.M/DUND/013291/2020 dated 14.10.2020, and pass orders, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J September 09, 2025

Note: Issu