Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18412

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J
Merreddy Shantha @ Shantha Sen – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WP.No.4326 of 2020 | WP.No.18776 of 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Venkatesh (senior counsel), C. Naresh Reddy
For the Respondents: V. Narasimha Goud, Standing Counsel No.5, M. Damodar Reddy

Quasi-judicial authorities under Section 22-A of the HMDA Act cannot revoke approved layouts based on unsubstantiated title disputes; they must strictly follow the statutory scope and evidence requirements.

Headnote:(A) Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 - Sections 22 and 22-A - Revocation of draft layout - Scope of enquiry under Section 22-A is limited and quasi-judicial - Authority cannot adjudicate title or serious disputes of fact - Burden of proof on party asserting a fact - Conditions in layout approval expressly state that approval does not confer title - If no evidence proves that plots were sold before approval, revocation on that ground is unsustainable.

(B) Locus standi - Subsequent purchaser of land steps into the shoes of the original owner - Original owner who has sold the land cannot maintain a writ petition challenging revocation of layout after alienation.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner owned land in Sy.Nos.40 and 47. She alienated part of it in 1995, and later applied for a layout, which was granted in November 2018. She then sold the remaining land to respondent Nos.24-28. Objections were filed by other claimed plot owners, and the layout was revoked in July 2019. The petitioner challenged the revocation, and the subsequent purchasers filed a separate writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the revocation lacked adequate reasoning because there was no evidence that the plots in the layout were sold before approval. It also noted that the respondent authorities did not prove the alleged undertaking or the genuineness of the prior layout. The Court held that the quasi-judicial authority could not decide disputed questions of title. Consequently, the subsequent purchasers' writ petition was allowed, while the original owner's writ petition was dismissed for lack of locus.

Issues: The main issues were whether the HMDA authority could revoke the layout based on unsubstantiated objections and whether the original owner had standing to challenge the revocation after selling the land.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the quasi-judicial authority under Section 22-A cannot adjudicate serious title disputes and must rely on material evidence. Since the revocation was not supported by evidence and the original owner had no locus after alienation, the subsequent purchasers are entitled to relief.

Result: Writ Petition No.18776 of 2019 allowed; Writ Petition No.4326 of 2020 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. introductory paragraphs framing the petitions and parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual background and procedural history of layout approval and objections. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. legal submissions by counsel regarding the scope of enquiry, authenticity of documents, and maintainability. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court's evaluation of facts, evidence, and burden of proof on the respondents. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. doctrine of limited scope and finding of lack of evidence for revocation. (Para 15 , 16)
6. final conclusion on locus standi and order allowing wp 18776 and dismissing wp 4326. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

ORDER:

Both the Writ Petitions are filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 27.07.2019 passed by respondent No.3 vide proceedings No.013034/GHT/LT/U6/HMDA/2018, whereby the draft layout permission granted in favour of Merreddy Shantha @ Shantha Sen in respect of property admeasuring Acs.5.1 guntas in Sy.No.40/E and 47/U of Surmayiguda Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was revoked, as illegal, arbitrary and beyond the powers conferred under the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘the HMDA Act’).

2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.18776 of 2019 are the subsequent purchasers of plots from the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4326 of 2020. Since the order impugned in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, for convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in Writ Petition No.4326 of 2020 and the facts as narrated in Writ Petition No.4326 of 2020 are adverted to.

3. Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri C.Naresh Reddy, learned counsel-on-record for petitioner, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, learned Standing Counsel No.5 and Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 13, 17, 19, 20 and 22.

Writ Petition No.4326 of 2020

4. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit, are that the petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Acs.5.26 guntas in Sy.No.40 and Acs.2.25 guntas in Sy.No.47, totaling to Acs.8.11 guntas situated at Surmaiguda Village, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.14408 of 1988, dated 30.11.1988; that her name has been mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were granted in her favour; while so, in the year 1995, the petitioner alienated an extent of Acs.2.10 guntas in Sy.No.40 in favour of M/s Prithvi Sai Real Estate Pvt Ltd, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.2202 of 1995, dated 12.10.1995, and further, an extent of Ac.0.30 guntas in the form of plots was also alienated to the persons nominated by M/s Prithvi Sai Real Estate Pvt Ltd. through registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.2203, 2204 and 2205 of 1995, dated 12.10.1995; thus, the petitioner is left with an extent of Acs.2.26 guntas in Sy.No.40/E and an extent of Acs.2.25 guntas in Sy.No.47/U total admeasuring Acs.5.11 guntas; and that when M/s Prithvi Sai Real Estate Pvt Ltd and others interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid remaining extents of land, the petitioner filed a suit in OS.No.873 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for perpetual injunction and the same was decreed on 12.02.2014.

4.1. It is further averred that the petitioner agreed to alienate the balance extent of Acs.5.11 guntas in favour of respondent Nos.24 and 28 and on their request, she submitted an application to respondent Nos.2 and 3 for sanction of layout permission; that respondent Nos.2 and 3, on due inspection, have approved the layout vide proceedings No.013034/GHT/LT/U6/HMDA/25062018, dated 09.11.2018; that subsequently, the petitioner sold the said land to respondent Nos.24 to 28 vide registered sale deed bearing document No.9600 of 2018, d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18412

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADLaxmi Narayana Alishetty, JMerreddy Shantha @ Shantha Sen – AppellantVersusState of Telangana – RespondentWP.No.4326 of 2020 | WP.No.18776 of 2019

Quasi-judicial authorities under Section 22-A of the HMDA Act cannot revoke approved layouts based on unsubstantiated title disputes; they must strictly follow the statutory scope and evidence requirements.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J
Merreddy Shantha @ Shantha Sen – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WP.No.4326 of 2020 | WP.No.18776 of 2019