##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

WRIT PETITION NO.34980 OF 2016

DATE: 30.01.2026

Between:

K.Nageshwar Rao s/o. Thirpal, Aged 40 yrs.,

r/o.H.No.8-43/34 Boduppal village, Ranga

Reddy district and 13 others.

…. Petitioners

and

The State of Telangana, rep.by its

Prl.Secretary, Municipal Admn.& Urban

Development Department, Secretariat

Buildings, Hyderabad and another.

…. Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr. K.R.Sasidharan Nair, learned counsel representing

Mr.P.Ganga Rami Reddy (expired), learned counsel for petitioners on

record and Mr. V..Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel representing

Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA for

respondent No.2.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed declaring the action of

the 2nd respondent in proceeding with demolition of the buildings of

the petitioners in plot Nos.90, 87, 88, 88, 56 & 92, 28, 27, 25 & 26, 58,

60, 61, 103, 118, 105 and 52 covered by Sy.No.867 situated at

2

Korremula village, Choudariguda Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of

principles of natural justice and consequently, to direct the 2nd

respondent not to demolish of the buildings of the petitioners over

the said plots.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, petitioners purchased the

said plots from A.Venkatesh, through his General Power of Attorney

Holder, Sri M.Durga Reddy, under registered sale deeds bearing

Document Nos.27080/2015, 10528/2016, 10529/2016, 10973/2016 &

9801/2016, 19865/2016, 17863/2016, 19864/2016 & 19862/2016,

4967/2016, 11930/2016, 11931/2016, 9633/2016, 4981/2016,

10936/2016 and 10460/2016, respectively, and their vendor has

obtained building permissions from the then Gram Panchayat

Chowdariguda and constructed the houses over the above house

plots. It is also contended that petitioners have obtained electricity

service connections to their houses and while the matter stood thus,

the 2nd respondent on 15.10.2016 has started demolition of houses

constructed at Sai Durga Nagar, Korremula, on the premise that the

houses were constructed in unapproved layout and the permission

obtained was also not proper and valid.

3

4. It is the main contention of the writ petitioners is that, initially

building permissions were obtained by their vendor from the then

Gram Panchayat and the said area has subsequently come within the

jurisdiction of HMDA and thus, the 2nd respondent contemplated

action by demolishing the houses of the petitioners on the ground

that the permissions granted by the then Gram Panchayat are not

valid sanctions and are in violation of the due procedure as

contemplated under the HMDA Act, 2008.

5. At this juncture, Mr V.Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel

appearing for 2^nd respondent has contended in the year 2017, the 2^nd

respondent has filed the vacate petition vide WVMP No.1774 of 1017,

inter alia, contending that the vendor of the petitioners has applied

for regularization of the said plots under the Layout Regularization

Scheme issued by the then Government vide G.O.Ms.No.151

Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M1) Department,

dated 02.11.2015 and the said applications have been verified and

observed that the vendor of the petitioners has submitted incomplete

sale deed documents. It is contended that regularization of

unapproved and illegal layout Rules 2015 are applicable to all the

existing unapproved sub-division of plots, which existed in

4

unapproved layouts or ventures promoted by land owners, but,

however, the said regularization is available, the plots that have been

purchased by the registered sale deeds on or before 28.10.2015. It is

also contended that the documents filed by the petitioners are not

eligible for regularization of the plots under LRS Scheme and as such,

said LRS files are proposed to be rejected.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioners would contend

that the vendor of the petitioners had obtained permissions under

the said scheme and the