WP/32296/2026 of Busani Jagdiswar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 28 September 2026

1. The state of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Secretariat Building, Telangana

2. fhe Municipal Corporation of Nalgonda, Rep. by its Commissioner At Nalgonda Town and 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 directions more particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly that of respondent No.2 in revoking the layout regularized by the respondent No.2 in File No. M/NALG/0g3O81t2O2O is revoked by issuing proceedings dated 15.09.2026 in order No.13/2026ITPS/NLG in so far as I am concerned and the revocation order dated 15.09.2026 in Order No11l2O26fiPS/NLG and order No. 12I2026/TPS/NLG dated 15.09.2026. The order bearing No. 13 is filed in respect of my land bearing sy No. 1496 and 1497 admeasuring Ac. 3-36 gts (A schedule), an extent of Ac. 0-39 gtsinSyNo'1496/RubelongingtoBusaniRangareddyandanextentofAc'2-00gts in sy No. .t496/RU belonging to Gaggenepalli Sunitha and vadlapalli Anitha and consequently set aside the impugned order dated 15.09.2026 vide Order No.13/2026|TPSINLG, 1212026|TPS/NLG, 11I2026/TPS/NLG in respect of Ac. 6-35 gts of land in Sy Nos. 1496 and 1497 admeasuring Ac. 3-36 gts out of Ac. 5-00 gts allotted to petitioner, Sy Nos. 1496/Ru admeasuring Ac. 0-39 gts allotted to Rangareddy and Sy Nos 1496/Ru admeasuring Ac. 2-00 gts allotted to Sunitha and Anitha situated at Block No.2 Thirumala Nagar, Ajalbai Area, Town and District Nalgonda and direct the respondent No.2 to accord and opportunity to the petitioner and the other applicants to demonstrate that the requirements of GO satisfied and that the petitioner and other applicants have sold plots out of 128 plots. l.A. NO: 1 OF 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 suspend the operation of the impugned order dated 15.09.2026 vide Order No.1312026fiPSlNLG. 12I2026ITPS/NLG, 11I2026/TPS/NLG in respect of Ac 6-35 gts of land in Sy Nos. '1496 and 1497 admeasuring Ac. 3-36 gts out of Ac. 5-00 gts allotted to petitioner, Sy Nos. 1496/Ru admeasuring Ac.0-39 gts allotted to Rangarecldy and Sy Nos. 1496/Ru admeasuring Ac. 2-00 gts allotted to Sunitha and Anithasituated at Block No.2, Thirumala Nagar, Ajalbal Area, Town and District Nalgonda. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VIJAY B PAROPAKARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUTTA KRISHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TIYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B' VIJAYSEN REDDY WRITPETITON No.322960F 2026

Between: Mr. Busani Jagadiswar ReddY CNRNo.I{BHCOl 0664 DATE: 28-09 -2026 AND

... Petitioner The State of Tela-ngana Reo. BY its PrinciPal Secretary' MuniciPal Administration and Ur Secretaiiat, HYderabad, and other ban DeveloPment DePartment' ,.. ResPondents ORDER: (ORAL) Heard Mr' Vijay B' Paropakari' learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr' Putta Krishna Reddy' Ieamed standing counsel for Municipalities appearing for respondent No'2'

2. The impugned revocation orders vide Order Nos'13/2026l TPS,NLG, l2l2O26lTPSlNLG and 11/2026lTPStf{LG' all dated 15.09.2026 were passed by respondent No'2 revoking Land Regularization Scheme (LRS) proceedings issued in favour of the petitioner, Mrs. G' Sunitha' Mr' V' Anitha and Mr' B' Ranga

BVR,J W.P. No.32296 of 2026 Reddy vide proceedings Nos.M/NALG103908112020, M/NALG/03903712020 and M/NALG/00921612020 all dated 09.05.2025. Show-cause notice No.13/2026ITPS/NI-G dated 05.06.2026 was issued to the petitioner stating that he has obtained the LRS proceedings through misrepresentation. Petitioner submitted reply along with supporting documents. Upon considering the reply, it was found that the original unapproved layout comprised of 129 plots and it was subsequently sub-divided into three (3) parts for which separate LRS applications have been submitted in the names of Mr. Busani Ranga Reddl', Mrs. G. Sunitha, Mrs. V. Anitha and Mr. B. Jagadiswar Reddy (petitioner herein).

3. It is noted in the impugned proceedings that as per G.O. Ms.No. 131 dated 31.08.2020, a layout owner is eligible for regularization of unsold plots only where there are at least 10 percent of the plots in the unapproved layout had been sold through registered sale deeds on or before 26.08.2020 i.e., cut off date. Thus, this requirement could be satisfied only by establishing that

BVR,J W.P. No.32296 of 2026 not less than 13 plots had been sold under registered sale deeds before the cut off date. It is further stated in the impugned order that rhe documents submitted by the petitioner disclose sale of only eleven (ll) plots (Plot Nos.l, 2,3,4,5, 9, 10, 17,12, 13 and 14) out of 129 which constitute approximately 8'52%o and did not satisff the prescribed minimum requirement' Thus' LRS proceedings have been revoked'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not properly advised and due to paucity of time all the required documents were not submitted. In fact, the petitioner has sold 13 plots, which is supported by the Encumbrance Certificate under Ex.P7. Thus, when 13 plots are taken into consideration' it will satisff the 10o% norm for considering the regularization under LRS'

5. Leamed standing counsel for respondent No'2 fumished written instructions and submitted that records, documents produced by the petitioner were duly verified and it was found that layout owners have sold only 11 plots out of 129 plots which constitute 8.52%. Thus, the impugned orders are passed'

BVR,J W.P. No.32296 of 2026

6. In view of the above, considering the submissions of leamed counsel for the petitioner that thirteen ( 13) plots have been sold and if reasonable opportunity is given, necessary documents along with EC will be fumished to respondent No.2 to substantiate the case of the petitioner that more than 10Yo of the plots have been sold, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit representation along with all the documents in support of his claim to respondent No.2 to substantiate that that 13 plots out of 129 plots have been sold under registered sale deeds. As and when such application is filed, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the same and pass orders, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other concerned/interested persons, within a period of four (4) weeks thereof. In case, if it is found that 13 plots out of 129 plots have been sold (which constitute l0% of total plots) under registered sale deeds before the cut of'f date i.e., 26.08.2020, then respondent No.2 shall recall the impugned orders dated 15.09.2026. There shall be no order as to costs.

BVR,J W.P. No.32296 of 2026 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications' if any' pending in the writ petition stand closed' ,ITRUE COPYI' iBt,[;1R;H"11?ffiH G SECTION OFFICER To, u:,5::i:i'3ifi [{:lH.'ff tt,Tffi:fl{t:T;;"::i:':,'"* The Commissioner The :"J"#i"11'"if r t P aropakari' Advocate !9 : y-"\",","rment, H ish cou rt ini:J"t#jl"u*:::wnu';:tigj':;:,,o One CC to Sri Putta Krish

2. Two CD CoPies TJ PSK

HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED: 2810912026

ORDER

WP.No.32296 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. -'::== ()R'1ttl. s?';i 1 [[T 286 F":: i\ A I 0' + () U "5- ji , .