WP/34384/2026 of Jannam Kailasam Vs The State of Telangana on 12 October 2026

1. The state of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal and Urban Development Department, Secretariat' Hyderabad

2. Mancherial Municipal corporation, rep by its commissioner, Mancherial, Mancherial District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of [\,4andamus declaring that the impugned Speaking Order in Roc No' GUN/UC/1 19/2026, dated 01.10.2026, passed by Respondent No. 2 as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the TG-bPASS Act,2020 and Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, as well as Articles 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and construction of the house over Plot No. 283, in Sy No. 42PP, admeasuring 175 Sq. yards situated at TNGO s Housing colony, Naspur Village, Mancherial District in the interest of justice.

l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including the operation and implementation of the impugned Speaking Order Roc No. G1/N/UC/11912026, dated 01.'10.2026, passed by Respondent No. 2, and restrain the Respondents, their officers, agents' and sub- ordinates f-om demolishing, altering, or interfering with the Petit oners ongoing constriction of house over Plot No. 283, in Sy No. 42PP, admeasuring 175 Sq. yards situated at TNGO s Housing Colony, Naspur Village, Manchbrial District pending disposal of the main writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P N V MAHALAKSHMI Gounsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Gounsel for the Respondent No.2 : : SRl. KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA SC FOR MUNCIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER

- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 343840F 2026 CNR.No.HB 0107063420 Date:12.10.2026 Between: Jannam Kailasam .. Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and another. .. Respondents ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed challenging the speaking order in ROC.No.G1/N tUCl11912026 dated 01.10.2026 issued by respondent No.2

2. Heard Ms. P.N.V. Mahalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2; and perused the material available on record

3. lt is the case of the petitioner that the impugned speaking order in ROC.No.G1/NtUCt11gl2O26, dated 01.10.2026, is passed in -

BV&J W.P No.34384 2026 contravention of the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for sho( 'Act 2019') and in violation of the principles of natural justice. lt is stated that the impugned order was passed without conducting a site inspection and that no allegations of violations of setbacks or deviations from the sanctioned plan were made in the impugned order. Thus, according to the petitioner, the allegation of unauthorised construction is incorrect. The petitioner further contends that he came to know, subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, that a notice of revocation daled 28.02.2026 had been issued under Sections 174 (4) and (10) of the Act 2019. lt is also contended that the said notice was not served on the petitioner. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks to have the impugned order set aside.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Corporation furnished written instructions and submitted that the building application was submitted by the petitioner on 28 01 .2025 and the that provisional permission was granted under the instant approval/self-certification mechanism. lt was further submitted that the petitioner has undertaken construction even before the issuance of the final building permit. During site inspection by the post-verification team, it was allegedly found that the petitioner had obtained provisional permission by making false statements and misrepresentation of facts, - J BVR,J w.P.No.34384 2026 as such, the building permission granted to the petitioner was revoked by notice dated 28.02.2026. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 16.09.2026 was issued to the petitioner in respect of the alleged unauthorised construction. The petitioner submitted his explanation on '18.09.2026, and upon consideration of the same, the impugned speaking order was passed by following the principles of natural justice.

5. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had submitted patta certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mancherial Mandal, as proof of ownership of the subject property. Respondent No.2, vide letter No. G 1 /TG-bPASS/LD/47 626812025 dated 07.05'2025, addressed to the District Collector, Mancherial District, requested for verification of the genuineness of the said patta certificate and sought clarification as to whether the subject plot falls within the land allotted to the TNGO's Housing Society. Accordingly, the petitioner's application was triggered to the Revenue Department for necessary clarification and further processing. ln the meanwhile, the Government introduced the BuildNow portal in place of the TG-bPASS portal, pursuance to which all pending applications under the earlier portal were closed, and con5gquently, the permission earlier granted to the petitioner was revoked vlde notice daled 28.02.2026.

I-

BV&J W.P.No.343E4 2026

6. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that under the notice of revocation daled 28.02.2026, the petitioner was advised to submit a fresh building application through the BuildNow portal. However, the petitioner did not chose to do so. 7 . From the above submissions, it is clear that the clarification sought by respondent No.2 from the Revenue Department regarding the genuineness of the patta certificate and the status of the subject plot had not been received so far. Moreover, the only objection raised by respondent No.2 appears to be that the petitioner had not submitted a fresh application through the BuildNow portal. Learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that if a fresh application is submitted, the same will be processed in accordance with law. The record further discloses that the petitioner proceeded with the construction on the basis of the permission dated 28.01 .2025 (Ex.Pa) issued under the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the permission dated 28.01.2025 was final building permission and that the petitioner had undertaken construction on the strength of the said perm ission. .--2'

-

BVR,J w.P.No.34384 2026

9. ln the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application for building permission through BuildNow Portal in respect of Plot No.282, admeasuring '175 square yards, in Survey No.42PP situated at TNGO's Housing Colony, Naspur Village, Mancherial District. The permission fee already paid by the petitioner pursuant to the building permit order dated 28.01.2025 shall be adjusted against the fee payable in respect of the fresh application. The fresh application so filed by the petitioner shall be disposed of by respondent No.2 within a period of twenty-one

(21) days from the date of its submission. Until the building permission is granted, the petitioner shall not proceed with further construction. Sfafus quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. Respondent No.2 is also directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner until the fresh building permission application submitted through the BuildNow portal is processed and considered in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications' if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Urban DeveloPment DePartment,

The Principal Secretary, Municipal and State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner' Mancherial District. To, Mancherial Municipal Corporation, Mancherial,

( One CC to SRl. P N V MAHALAKSHMI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR IVCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA SC FOR MUNC|PAL|T|ES) loPUCl Two CD Copies V

DAN PB

HIGH COURT DATED: 1211012026

ORDER

WP.No.34384 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS CC TODAY riE S i{ rg )) !) U t r)Fe,'rr- P 16 acT 2W >ii 2tl cii A.,,, t'r,,/ I to[?x g