Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed Sri Sai Builders and Modi Ventures, real estate developers challenging the levy of about Rs 25 lakh as layout regularisation scheme (LRS) charges. The judge upheld the action of the municipal authorities in demanding the charges under the LRS framework for an apartment project in Mallapur, Kapra of Rangareddy district. The petitioners contended that it initially purchased four acres of land in Survey No.s 93, 94, and 95 and constructed five apartment blocks after securing due approvals. Later, they acquired an adjoining parcel of 1.18 acres in the same survey numbers, intending to build two more apartment blocks. The writ petitioners said that for this new construction, they applied to the municipal authority for permission in April 2008. The authority, via a letter issued on November 25, 2008, demanded payment of ₹55 lakh under various heads, including ₹25.54 lakh specifically under ‘Layout Regularisation Scheme charges’. The developers protested the demand, arguing that the LRS charges were only applicable to unauthorised or unapproved layouts where land was divided into individual plots and sold without approvals. Counsel for the petitioner cited government orders and argued that newly acquired land was not plotted or sold as individual units, but intended for group housing. He contended that despite their representation contesting the charge, the municipal authority reiterated its demand through a follow-up letter in January 2009, warning of application closure if the amount was not paid. Faced with this ultimatum and the urgency to proceed with construction, the developers paid the charges and later filed the writ petition seeking refund of the amount with 18 per cent interest, claiming the demand to be arbitrary, illegal, and outside the scope of the GHMC Act, 1955. In a detailed judgment, Justice T. Vinod Kumar analysed the legal framework and clarified that the concept of an “unapproved/illegal layout” under GO Ms. No.902 included any subdivision of land into plots with or without developed infrastructure and without the approval of the competent authority. The court observed that even if the land was not physically divided into plots, the act of selling built-up apartments along with an undivided share in the land constituted a form of division of interest, thereby bringing the transaction under the purview of the LRS scheme. The court interpreted Section 388 of the GHMC Act, 1955, noting that the provision applied not only to the division of land into building plots but also covered land “used or intended to be used for building purposes.” Since the petitioners planned to construct apartments and subsequently transfer ownership to buyers along with undivided land share, this amounted to a building layout requiring regularisation. The judge dismissed the argument that a specific threshold or minimum size was required for land to be treated as a “plot” under the LRS scheme. Citing Table 1 of the GO, Justice Vinod Kumar stated that any extent of land, regardless of size, would qualify as a plot if used for building purposes without prior approval.
HC reinforces property rights of daughters
Justice T. Vinod Kumar and Justice P. Sree Sudha of the Telangana High Court, sitting in vacation bench, reinforced the rights of daughters in ancestral property disputes by allowing civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the eldest daughter which alleged that multiple sale and gift deeds were executed without her consent, in violation of her lawful share. The appeals arose out of interlocutory orders in a partition suit pending before the IX Additional District Judge, Rangareddy district at LB Nagar. The appeals were filed by a woman challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant interim injunctions sought against her father, sister, and brother-in-law (respondents). The appellant, the elder daughter of the respondents, sought partition and separate possession of ancestral properties, claiming a one-third share for herself, her father, and her sister. The crux of her plea included a prayer to declare multiple property transactions including a registered gift settlement deed (2007), a development agreement-cum-irrevocable GPA (2016), and subsequent sale and ratification deeds as null and void, alleging they were executed without her consent and in violation of her lawful share. She sought interim injunctions to prevent further alienation or change in the nature of the subject properties. The trial court dismissed her applications, prompting the present appeals. The panel, after examining the nature of the claims, observed that the appellant had raised serious triable issues regarding the validity of the disputed transactions and the status of the properties as joint family assets. The panel held that maintaining the status quo was necessary to prevent irreversible changes pending adjudication. Accordingly, the panel allowed the civil miscellaneous appeals, set aside the trial court’s orders, and granted the appellant interim relief by restraining the respondents from alienating or altering the nature of the subject properties until final disposal of the suit.
Issue show cause notice first: HC
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court, sitting in vacation court, set aside a demolition notice issued by the panchayat secretary of Madnoor, Kamareddy district, and directed that it be treated as a show cause notice. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Gaddamwar Saheb Rao, challenging the notice issued by the panchayat secretary, directing petitioner to remove the third floor of his house within five days. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued without prior intimation, explanation, or opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the Constitution. The petitioner contended that he purchased the land through a registered sale deed in 2007, constructed the house after obtaining permission from the gram panchayat, and was regularly paying property tax. The petitioner further contended that the impugned notice was issued arbitrarily and at the instance of local political influence. On the other hand, standing counsel for the panchayat authorities submitted that the petitioner made unauthorised constructions despite oral instructions and that the notice was issued under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act. The judge observed that the authorities had straightaway issued a demolition direction without issuing a show cause notice or providing an opportunity to the petitioner. The judge accordingly held that the impugned notice shall be treated as a show cause notice and directed the petitioner to submit an explanation within three weeks. The judge also directed the panchayat authorities to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within six weeks thereafter, after affording a personal hearing. Till such time, the judge directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps and the petitioner from undertaking further construction.
