WP/20643/2015 of G. Naresh Reddy, s/o. G. Ramakrishna Reddy, Vs Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, on 25 February 2026

ORDER:

The instant writ pr.tition has been filed declaring the action of the respondent-Corporation in issuing the impugned refusal of building permission oirle Memo bcaring Roc.No.G1/17578/2015, dated 08.06.2015, AS arbitrarv, illegal and u nconstitutional and violative of Article,s 1.1 .rnd 300-4 of the Constitution of India an<1 consequently, direct the respondent to grant building sanction permission by setting aside the impugned memo

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 1056 square yards in Sy.No.1066 situated at Balasamudram, Hanamkonda Village, Warangal Diskict. The petitioner has purchased the said land aide registered sale deed bearing document No.'L l()' ,/2015 dated 05.02.2015 from his vendor Mr. D.Siddaiah, who in t rrn purchased the said land from the respondent-Corporatio Ir , i'ic registerecl Document No.37/.1965 after paying the substantial ',al considcration to tl-re respon<lent-Corporation. Initially, the origin;rl 'iot rn'hich n'as allotted to Mr. D.Siddaiah on pavment of con-.i,1 'r'atron b1' the Corporation was found to be allotted to anotlr I pcrsotl, thc respondent-Corporation has executed a R,r:i ii:z-rtion Deed No.206/1966 dated 18.01.1966 allotting thc'strbjci:t l, tl trr lir:u of the receipt of earlier consideration paicl by Mr. I).Sidtl. lrir. z\pparerrtll', the respondent-Corporation itself has conveyed rl said ptot by executing the document in favour of Mr. I .Sicldaiah and subsequently, the petitioner has purchased thc 1 ltrnd z,irlc tl-re registered sale deed duly executed arrd registcrecl I,' \tr. D.Sitltlaiah

3. In the above said factual matrix, initiallv he respondent- Corporation made a layout at Balasamudram, Har i rnkonda village, Warangal District in the year 1963, and sold out \r,r r.)us plots in the said layout to prospective buyers upon receiving r,i le consideration One such plot is purchased by the vendor of thc retitioner herein, and further, at the time of allotment itself, due tc nadvertence, the said plot originally allottel to the allottee - Sri D.Si i laiah i.0., r,endor of the petitioner was already allotted to some other person, as such, the open space in the very sarne layout rvas allotted in place of earlier plot and the respondent-Corporation executed a Ratification Deed in the year 7966 to that extent duly' transierring the said open space to the venclor of the petitioner

4. Further, the pctitioncr so as to clcvclop the said properfy filed an application dated 0,1.04.2015 seekiug permission for construction of compound wall and RCC shed antl the respondent-Corporation has rejected the saicl aprplication lirlc Refusal Memo bearing No.CA/ 17578/2075, dated 08.06.2015 stating that in view of G.O.Ms.No.72, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated 20.02.2002, the open spaces in the lavouts cannot be kansferred by the Municipal authorities ancl, therefore, the huilding sanction was refused as the petitioner cannot seck permissiorr in the open space of the layout and assailing the same, the ir.rstant \4,rit petition is filed.

Heard Mr. Avinash Desai, Iearned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Kopal Sharraf, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel for Warangal Municipal Corporation for respondent, and having given earnest consideration to their submissions, perused the material on record. a I

6. Learned Scnior Counsel Mr. Avinash Desa for Petitioner submitted that the said allotment of open sPace v,',I granted r'r'ay- back in the year 1965 to one Mr. D.Sicldaiah t:idc rai! ' erecl salc' cleecl document No.37/ 1965 and Ratification Dced docuru ' rt No.206/ I996 dated 18.01.1996 anci subsequently, Petitioner has 1-' 1 ; lrusctl the saitl open spacc frorn Mr. D.Siddaiah. Further it is ontendccl that admittedly the open space is not a park or place l.'t for any othcr amenities. Ilven G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 20.02.2002 c,r I catne rt'ctrntly much later after cxecution of sale deed in favt-'t r o[ petilioner- Further, it is stated that the purport of the said (, ( t , is to prohibit construction in the open spaces, which are left for r t;'ks or for other arnenities. It is contended that however, in the Presl rt case, thc'open space which l-ras been allotted to the vendor oI t' ' pctitioucr w.ts neither earmarked for park uor for any such otht'r rmenities .rttd in such view of the matter, the said G.O.Ms.No.71l, .latt-d 20.02.2002 will not prohibit consLruction and is not applicablt' .tr the plot of the petitioner. Conveyed by the respondent way-back rr the year 1966

7. Further, the learned Senior Counsel has pla< t d reiiance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalorr: Medical Trust v.

B.S.Muddappa and othersl, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if the open spaces reserved for public park and playgrounds, if permission is sought, the permission cannot be granted in such areas. I lowevc-r, if the said open space are llot earmarked in the lavout as pl.rygrouncls, parks or for any otl-rer amenities, there is no prohibition. The l{on'ble Division Bench of tl.ris Court in W.P.Nos.12538 of 1999 and 25738 of 1997, dated 04.10.2023 has also categorically held that permission cannot be granted in open spaces, which are ean-narkec'l for parks anc{ such other amenities only

8. Learned Senior Counsel w,ould contend that as the open space, which has been transferred in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, is not earmarked for parks or for such other amenities, as such, the impugned order in rejecting the buitding permission for conskuction of compound wall and RCC shed is unwarranted and liabte to be set aside by directing the responden t-Corporation to grant permission forthwith by following due procedure of law.

9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation would contend that though the open space has been ' lrssrla scc s+ ti sold by the respondent-Corporation way-back in tht .'ear 1963,but, horvever, fairll, subrnitted that the subiect op{'r r space is trot earmarked for parks and such other amenities. It is c-'rtended as it is open spacc, the G.O.M.s.No.72, datec{ 20.0'.1 . \'.)2, prol'ribits construction thereupon, thus, contended that the inr -' rgncd \le rno is valicl and intcrfe-re'nce of this Court is unwarranted .10. The only point which falls for consideration f . ' deterrlin.rtion of the issue in thc lvrit pctition is, whether the ope'r, :l;rcc ri'gistcrecl irr favour of the vendor of the petitioner is earmarl e cl for parks or anv other amenitics, which would disentitle the pr-'' i iotrer to sratlt a building permission

11. Evidently, ir.r the layout prepared in I ( ( I by the thcrr Municipal Corporation, Warangal, open space rvl r:h was solcl in fayour the petitioner's vendor is not earmarked i<, public parks or anv such other amenities and admittedly, the sair'l operl spacc \^ras solcl by the then Warangal Municipal Corpora: rn by receiving substantial sale consideration from the vendor ol' t re petitioner ancl subsequently the petitioner has purchased it by r registered saie deed. In that view of the matter, G.O.Ms.No.72. clated 20.02.2002 prohibits construction in the open spaces earmark: I in the layout as :t. l I I I i I I i l I I lj

I public parks and other amenities places only. Admittedly, as the subject open space of thc petitioner is not coming under the Purview of the said amenities or park, thus, the impugnc'd order rejecting the building pen-nission for constructiolr oI compouncl wall along lr'ith RCC shed is r.rot tenable and is liable tc be set asicle arrd the point framed for consideration is answcred accordirrgly

72. ln that view of the matter, the impugncd proceeding No.G1/17578/2015 datecl 08.06 2015 is hereby set aside and quaslied. 1 he rcspondent-Corporation hereby clirected to consider the I IS building permission of the petitioner iu accordar.rce with law. As it is submitted that the procedure for obtaining permission for construction of the building is governed by the relevant Building Rules under 'Buildnow' or Online Format, the petitioner is at libcrty to file application under the said rules and uploacl all the necessary documents by submitting the appropriate application onlinc, and upon payment of the requisite charges, the same shall be processed forthwith by the respondent-Corporation as Per the procedure established under law and grant Permission to the petitioner or any subsequent valid purchaser, in accordance with law. \

To SA BS

13. The Writ I']etition is accordingly allowed. 'l'here shall be no ordel as to costs Pending rniscellirneous pctitions if4ry shall sta; J closccl SD/-C. DEEPIKA ASSJ{ NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 5E TION OFFICER

1. The Commisstoner, Greater Warangal Municipal Corpor? ton' Warangal, Warangal District 2 one ca to SRI KOPAL SHARRAF, Advocate IOPUC] 3 One CC to SRI PASHAM MOHITH (SC WARANGAL tu - \llclPAL CORP) Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED:2510212026

ORDER

WP.No.20643 of 2015 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. rrE S 1,',Q TtllF

oo t C) \ t ,) S 9.Jet I i Aet b