2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13190
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.10810 of 2026
DATED: 10.04.2026
Between
Smt. Nabeena Taskeen and another
…Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (MAUD)
Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others
…Respondents
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. With their consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:-
“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more particularly respondents 3 and 4 herein, in issuing the Shortfall Intimation Letter vide Application ID No.013834/GHMC/06322/SWBP/KHB2/2026, dated 12.03.2026, in respect of the petitioners’ property bearing Municipal No.10-3-282/2/A/4, admeasuring 314 Sq. Yards, situated at Humayun Nagar, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad, within the jurisdiction of Golconda Zone, GHMC, treating the said land as “Poramboke Government Land” and refusing to process the building permission application, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the GHMC Act, TS-bPASS Act, 2020 and Build Now Act and consequently set aside the said Shortfall Intimation Letter and direct the respondents to process and grant building permission to the petitioners without reference to the said objection, and to pass...”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the house bearing Municipal No.10-3-282/2/A/4, admeasuring 314 Sq. yards situated at Humayun Nagar, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad (herein after referred as “subject property”), by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 10.07.2025. The petitioners wanted to construct a building over the subject property and submitted an application dated 12.03.2026 vide No.013834/GHMC/06322/SWBP/KHB2/2026 before respondent Nos.3 and 4 seeking permission to construct stilt + 3 Upper Floors in the subject property. The petitioners’ application was taken up by the corporation. However, shortfall intimation letter dated 12.03.2026 was issued stating that building permission has been rejected on the ground that the subject property falls in TS No.28 & 29, Block-G, Ward-23, Kulsumpura Village, Asif Nagar Mandal of Hyderabad District, and as per TSLR, TS No.28 & 29, Block-G, Ward-23 in Column No.10 are recorded as Poramboku and Column No.20 is recorded as “G” and classification of land is Government Land.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to order dated 03.11.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33199 of 2025, the relevant portion of the order reads as under: -
“It has been held in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad [(2001) 8 ALD 600] that the building permission cannot be decided solely on the basis of entries in Telangana State Revenue Records (TSLR). The GHMC is required to look into the prima facie title of the petitioner while processing building application. The impugned shortfall letter in File No. 006017/GHMC/02914/KHB2/2025 dated 27.10.2025 has been issued stating that the subject property of the petitioner is classified as G-Mosque in TSLR, and is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Hyderabad Potteries’s Case (supra).
Hence, there shall be interim direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the building permission application of the petitioner in File No.006017/GHMC/02914/KHB2/2025 dated 23.08.2025. without reference to the impugned shortfall letter dated 27.10.2025 and also without reference to the entries in TSLR, within a period of twenty one (21) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, despite the orders passed by this Court on the shortfall intimation letter, wherein the respondents were directed not to delve into title disputes, as held in Hyderabad P