Back
's 820-Day Delay In Filing LRS Appeal Not Excused By Election Duties:
The has delivered a sharp rebuke to the ), dismissing its attempts to file appeals a staggering 820 and 794 days late after a Single Judge set aside revocation of (LRS) permissions. A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara held that ’s excuse of officials being occupied with election duties was “far-fetched” and that the Corporation itself had facilitated the very “” it now alleged.
A Tale of Two Appeals and a Staggering Delay
The dispute stemmed from two writ petitions filed by Siri Constructions and Darshinee Infra Projects, challenging ’s concerning Plot Nos. 22/A and 19/A. A learned Single Judge allowed these petitions on , setting aside the . resolved to challenge this order but only filed writ appeals in —prompting applications under to condone delays of 820 and 794 days.
attributed the delay to a series of administrative changes: on , the key zonal official, M. Narsimha Ramulu, was apprehended by the in a . A temporary replacement, K. Uma Devi, was appointed in-charge on April 29, followed by a regular appointee, K. Mallikarjun Rao, on . Then, on , the Corporation’s Standing Counsel was changed. When the respondents later sought restoration of building permissions, ’s file was put up in , but by then officials were busy with the Telangana Assembly and subsequent Parliamentary elections.
Election Duties Cannot Pause the Clock: Court’s Firm Stance
Opposing the condonation petitions, the developers pointed out that they had repeatedly submitted representations—on , and —enclosing the Single Judge’s order, yet took no action. They further highlighted that had sought time to file a counter in a fresh (W.P.No.10048 of ) seeking implementation of the order, only to suddenly file appeals when the court hinted at consequences.
The Division Bench found ’s explanations wholly unconvincing. “Even assuming that all the aforementioned sequence of events are for delay, the time period thereafter allegedly was taken up on account of entrustment of Special Election Duties for the State Telangana Assembly Elections followed by Parliament Elections. This reason seems far-fetched,” the court observed.
The judges noted that while lower staff may have been engaged in election duties, decision-makers like the Zonal Commissioner and City Planner could have consulted the Standing Counsel at any time. “Even in case the staff are busy, the Standing Counsel would not be engaged with election duties and therefore they could have always prepared the grounds of ,” they added.
Crucially, the court found that had not taken any initiative until faced with a coercive . The initial justification—the arrest of Mr. Ramulu—could at best explain a few months, but after a regular officer was appointed in August 2022, “a decision on filing the appeal ought to have been taken within a reasonable period thereafter.”
No When the Corporation Itself Collected Penalties
argued that the developers’ vendor had committed by obtaining LRS for an unapproved layout that converted open space meant for a park into plots numbered 19-A and 22-A, and that such vitiated all subsequent permissions. But the court turned this argument back on the Corporation.
“It is the petitioners who with full knowledge about shortfall of open area granted LRS proceedings and also granted building permissions,” the bench wrote. “This fact pattern shows that even in case the case of petitioners to condone delay is considered on the basis of merits, there is little scope for case of or .”
The court highlighted that had collected penal charges and pro-rata charges for the shortfall in open space before issuing the LRS permissions. Having accepted payment for the deficit, the Corporation could not now turn around and cry . The judges noted that the single judge had already set aside the , and ’s belated appeal lacked even a case.
Dismissal: Condonation Refused, Appeals Fall
Rejecting ’s reliance on Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji and Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh —which advocate a liberal approach to condonation—the court held that the facts did not warrant any indulgence. The decision-makers in were fully aware of the order and could have acted in time.
Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed both I.A. No. 1 of in W.A. No. 1028 of and I.A. No. 1 of in W.A. No. 1033 of , which sought condonation of delay. As a result, the writ appeals themselves were dismissed without any order as to costs.
“The reasons for delay consisting of apprehension of concerned official by , appointment of a regular officer after a gap of four months followed by change in the Standing Counsel… can all be considered. However, the staff of petitioner-corporation, being busy with State Elections or Parliament Elections, cannot be a ground for delay in seeking legal opinion,” the court concluded.
With this judgment, the has sent a clear message: municipal corporations cannot sleep on their rights and then plead administrative turmoil to excuse years of inaction. The developers, who have constructed about 90% of their buildings based on permissions granted by itself, can now move forward with obtaining occupancy certificates—a reminder that when the government collects penal charges for a shortfall, it cannot later claim it was kept in the dark.
