1. The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in insisting the petitioners to execute mortgage deed in respect of 10% of built up area and to get it registered as a precondition to release building permission, as the same is in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.168 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 07.04.2012 and Rule 25(d) of G.O.Ms.No.168 and not accepting notarized affidavit submitted by the petitioners in application No.001381/HMDA/ 00370/SWBP/MDL1/2025 as being arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are absolute owners and possessors of land bearing Plot Nos.15 and 16 in Sy.Nos.347/A and 358/A, situated at Tumkunta village, Shameerpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, admeasuring 396.27 square meters. The said plots were part of an unapproved layout, as such, they made applications for regularization by paying necessary charges thereof under the Land Regularization Scheme of G.O.Ms.No.131 (Municipal Administration and Urban Development) Plg.III Department dated 31.08.2020 and the respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.M/THUM/005900/2020 dated 21.05.2024 and No.M/THUM/005903 dated 18.05.2024 in respect of Plot Nos.15 & 16 respectively, each of them admeasuring 204.38 square meters. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for building permission vide the building application No.011437/BP/HMDA/3026/MED/2024 dated 17.10.2024 consisting of stilt for parking and four upper floors.

3. It is stated that the respondent No.4 delayed processing the building permission of the petitioners and on representation submitted by them, the respondent No.4 issued TG-bPASS shortfall letter dated 20.11.024 taking objections without application of mind. It is stated that for extraneous reason and only to trouble the petitioners, the said shortfall letter was issued. The petitioners submitted online representation on 23.11.2024 clarifying the shortfall objections. The building application of the petitioners was rejected on 21.12.2024 stating that the proposal submitted by the petitioners was not in conformity with the rules and regulations and that the petitioners had not complied with the short falls. Thereafter, the petitioners filed WP.No.37044 of 2024, which was allowed by order dated 02.01.2025 directing the respondent No.2 to consider explanation of the petitioners dated 23.11.2024 and pass orders.

4. It is stated that in pursuance of the said order, the respondent No.2 issued notice dated 30.01.2025 directing the petitioners to appear for personal hearing on 08.02.2025. The petitioner No.1 appeared before the respondent No.2 and tried to explain about relevant G.Os., but the same was not considered. Subsequently, speaking order dated 15.02.2025 was issued by the respondent No.2 directing the petitioners to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Hakimpet Airport station. The petitioners submitted detailed explanation in that regard and the respondents accepted the building application of the petitioners. However, the respondents raised new plea that the building application of the petitioners was under TS-bAPSS, which is no more in existence and directed the petitioners to submit application in "Build Now" portal. Accordingly, the petitioners made a fresh application on such portal seeking approval of building permission by paying necessary fees on 21.05.2025 vide transaction No.2514184900400. The respondent No.2 issued fee intimation letter dated 13.06.2025 directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2,95,132.51 paisa, which was duly paid by the petitioners vide online payment transaction No.4899788162091 dated 21.06.2025. Under the said fee intimation letter conditions, the petitioners were asked to mortgage 10% of built up area in the ground floor or first floor or the second floor, through registered mortgage deed in favour of VC, HMDA as per G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012.

5. Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012, more particularly, Rule 25(d) of G.O.Ms.No.168 does not say anything about registered mortgage deed. It only speaks about executing an affidavit on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper to be submitted by an applicant for handing over 10% of the built up area. In compliance of the same, the petitioners got an affidavit made on 20.06.2025 and uploaded it on the portal on 21.06.2025 and requested the respondents to release the building permission by issuing necessary proceedings. It is contended that the action of the respondents in insisting execution of registered mortgage deed by the petitioners is arbitrary and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent – HMDA, it is stated that though the petitioners relied on Rule 25(d) of G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012, which speaks about notarized affidavit, the said Rule is inapplicable to the present case since TSbPASS Act 2020 and the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.201 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.III) Department dated 16.11.2020 have been enforced, which have overriding effect. Under Rules 10 and 11 of G.O.Ms.No.201 of 2020 dated 16.11.2020, the condition of registered mortgage deed of 10% built up area is mandatory before release of building permission. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that notarized affidavit dated 22.06.2025 would suffice has not legal sanctity.

7. Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned standing counsel for HMDA, submitted that the registered mortgage deed was insisted upon to ensure compliance of the conditions in the building permission when it is released and to safeguard public interest. There is no violation of statutory or constitutional right, more particularly, Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

8. Rule 11 of G.O.Ms.No.201 Municipal Administration and Urban Development dated 16.11.2020 clearly says that mortgage of 10% built up area is required for buildings of plot area above 500 sq. meters or height above 10 meters and all non-residential buildings, irrespective of plot size and height of the building. The petitioner applied for construction of commercial (non-residential) building. Thus, there can be no escape for the petitioners from executing mortgage deed.

9. There is no rebuttal by the learned counsel for the petitioners as to the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.201 to the building application made by the petitioners under the Build Now portal and to the requirement of executing mortgage deed as per Rule 11 of G.O.Ms.No.201 dated 16.11.2020. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the building application of the petitioners is being delayed for extraneous reasons, the respondent authorities are directed to release the building permission of the petitioners within a period of twenty one (21) days from the date of execution of mortgage deed by the petitioners to an extent of 10% of the built up area.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.