Telangana High Court

WP/33571/2026 of Dr Rupam Borgohain Vs The State of Telangana on 6 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITI ON NO:3357 1 0F 2026 t 3183I ...PETITIONER Between: AND Dr Rupam Borgohain, S/o Col Benudhar

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

WRIT PETITI ON NO:3357 1 0F 2026

t 3183I

...PETITIONER

Between:

AND

Dr Rupam Borgohain, S/o Col Benudhar Borgohain Age 64 Years Occ Docto.r ny"

-piot

ruoz6 (part) survey No86 part Richmond Park Kondapur (V)

Serilingampally (r/; nanga Reddy District TG

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by Principle Secretary Muncipalites administration Urban development Secretariat Hyderabad

2. The State of Telangana' Rep by its Principle Secretary Revenue (ULC) Department Secretariat Hyderabad

3. The Cyberabad [Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner at NAC Building Hitex Madhapur Hyderabad TG

4. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by Deputy Commissioner Circle No. 20 Serilingampally Ranga Reddy District

5. The Asst City Planner, Greater Hyderabad lr'4unicipal Corporation Serilingampally Ranga Reddy District

6. The District collector, lntegrated District office complexes Kangara^ Kalan

- ViiLge lbtrnimpatnam Man;al Ranga Reddy District Telangana 501 510 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybepleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus and declaring the action of the respondent No3 4 and 5 issuing the intimation Letter vide File No02'1601/CMC/o1974/5WBPlsLP2l2026-ADD dated 23-07 -2026 is arbitrary illegal and violative of Articles 14 21 and 300-A of 'EF4:r,4*q-<r-.- Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside intimation Letter vide File No021601/CMC/1974/SWBP/SLP212026-ADD dated 23-07-2026 and direct respondent No3 4 and 5 to process the Residential building permission for altered stilt 1st -3rd floor and proposed 4th floor admeasuring 469.44 Sq yards over an extent of 392.44 Sq Mt vide building permission File No 021601/CMC/01974/SWBP/S1P212026-AOD dated 06-07-2026 and issue work permit order in respect of Plot No25 (Part) admeasuring 469.44 Sq yards in Survey NoB6 P,art situated at Richmond Park Kondapur (V) Serilingampally (M) Ranga Reddy District TG and bounded by North Neighbour's South: Plot No25 (Part) East: Plot Nos26 and 27 West 40'Ft Road without insisting the production of clearance Certificate/NOC from ULC authorities 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 set aside intimation Letter vide File No021601/CMC/01974/SWBPISLP212O26-ADD dated 23- 07 -2026 and direct respondent No3 4 and 5 to process the Residential building permission for altered stilt + 1't - 3rd floor and proposed 4th floor admeasuring 469.44 Sq yards over an extent of 392.44 Sq Mt and issue work permit order in respect of Plot No25 (Pa() admeasuring 469.44 Sq yards in Survey NoB6 Part situated at Richmond Park Kondapur (V) Serilingampally (M) Ranga Reddy District TG and bounded by North Neighbours South Plot No25 (Part) East Plot Nos26 and 27 West 40 Ft Road without insistlng the production of clearance Certificate/NOC from ULC: authorities Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THAKUR ROOPA SINGH Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 6 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 : SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR cMc The Court made the following: ORDER

---- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TTIE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD THE HONOI]RABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITON No.33571 OF 2026 CNRNo.HBH 01068823202 DATE:06-10-2026 Between: Dr. Rupam Borgohain ... Petitioner AND The State ofTelangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ... Respondents ORDER: (ORAL) Heard Mrs. Thakur Roopa Singh, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, Ieamed standing counsel for Cyberabad Municipal Corporation (CMC) appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Plot No.25 (part) admesuring 469.44 square yards in Survey No.86 Part, situated at Richmond Park, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

BVR,J W.P. No.33571 of 2026 Disrict. Petitioner applied for building permission in File No.O 1 4963IGHM C I 04227 IABP I C20 I 2025 dated 0 1 .09.2025 for construction of stilt for parking + three (3) upper floors. After verification, petitioner was granted building permit order and work commencement letter on 09.09.2025. Petitioner constructed the building as per the sanctioned plan. Thereafter, petitioner intended to construct additional fourth (4ft) floor and accordingly, he submitted revised building permission in File No.021601/CMC/01974/SWBPlSLP2l2026-ADD dated 06.07.2026. Pursuant thereto, impugned intimation letter dated 23.07.2026 was issued to the petitioner stating that revised building permission application of the petitioner is kept on hold until report is received from the Revenue Department.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when building permit order and work commencement letter dated 09.09.2025 for construction of Stilt for parking + three (3) upper floors was granted, the objections with regard to RevenueAJrban Land Ceiling (ULC) are not taken, then the question of taking such the revised building permission does not arise. objections ln

BVR,J W.P. No.33571 of 2026 In fact, building has been constructed by the petitioner ln accordance with sanctioned plan and photographs to that affect are placed on record.

4. Learned standing counsel for CMC submitted that application of the petitioner has not been rejected, it is kept on hold, the title of the petitioner is being verihed and the application will be processed as expeditiously as possible.

5. It is permission 09.09.2025 the revised not in dispute, the petitioner was granted building for construction of Stilt + three (3) upper floors on and thereafter, petitioner constructed building. Thus, building permission cannot be kept on hold and it is {,.sustainable. It is settled law that building permission is granted based on prima facie title and this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad Districtr held that Municipal Corporation cannot insist for production of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Revenue Department' ' lzoor; : elo ooo

BVR,J

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed setting To, aside the impugned intimation letter in File No.02 L6OllCMCl 01974/SWBP/5LP212026-ADD dared 23.07.2026. Respondent Nos.3 to 5, as the case may be, are directed to consider the revised building permission application of the petitioner in File No.02l60l I C.MCl0l97 4ISWBP/SLP2/2026-ADD dated 06.07.2026, without reference to the impugned intimation letter dated 23.07.2026, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of twenty one (21) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. SD/. A,H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER

1. The Principle Secretary Muncipalites administration Urban development Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

2. The Principle Secretary Revenue (ULC) Department Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad --

3. The Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, at NAC Building Hitex t\/adhapur Hyderabad TG

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No. 20 Serilingampally Ranga Reddy District

5. The Asst City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Serilingampally Ranga Reddy District

6. The District Collector, lntegrated District Office Complexes Kangara Kalan Village lbrahimpatnam Mandal Ranga Reddy District Telangana 501510

7. One CC to SRI THAKUR ROOPA SINGH, Advocate [OPUC]

8. One CC to SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR CMC, Advocate [OPUC]

9. Two CCs to GP FOR IVCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] '10.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for The State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUT]

11. Two CD Copies PVL TKS ? \ \

HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012026

ORDER

WP.No.33571 ot 2026 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS CC.TODAY 1 Iilit ?026 I {')\l:/ -i? )t -1)Lo

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead