Raidurg Plot Buyer Wins on GHMC's Revenue NOC Demand, but the Land Dispute Stays Open

On 4 January 2021, a buyer registered a sale deed for a 400 square yard plot in Survey No. 66/3 at Raidurg, Serilingampally Mandal. The seller's side had already paid Rs. 6,80,232 in regularisation charges, and the plot had been regularised by the Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone, on 29 May 2018. The buyer then applied to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) for permission to build a house. On 8 October 2021 the reply came back as a shortfall letter: demarcate the site and bring a No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department. Five years later, on 6 November 2026, the Telangana High Court set that letter aside.

The order, in Sri Gadde Bhaskara Rao v. The State of Telangana, Writ Petition No. 35149 of 2021, was pronounced by Justice Pulla Karthik. It matters to anyone buying an individual plot in Raidurg and the wider Serilingampally area, because it shows how revenue records, layout regularisation and building permission can point in different directions.

The short answer. The High Court held that GHMC "cannot insist upon an NOC from the Revenue Department merely on the ground that the subject property is recorded as Government land", set aside the shortfall letter dated 08.10.2021, and directed GHMC to process the building application "without insisting upon such NOC, subject to compliance with other applicable statutory requirements." The trade-off for buyers: the ruling clears a permission hurdle, but GHMC told the court it would re-examine the 2018 regularisation and may take steps to revoke it, and the State says Survey No. 66 is Government land. A building permission is not a title certificate.

What did the High Court decide on 6 November 2026?

It allowed the writ petition. The court framed the question as "whether the respondent Corporation is justified in insisting upon the petitioner to produce a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Revenue Department for processing the building application, on the ground that the subject property is recorded as Government land in the revenue records." Its answer was no, on these facts.

The judge noted that the petitioner "relies upon a chain of registered documents commencing from the year 1986" and on the regularisation proceedings bearing No. LRS29052018032542 dated 29.05.2018, issued on payment of Rs. 6,80,232. Applying earlier rulings of the same court, the judge set aside the shortfall letter, bearing File No. 002836/GHMC/1652/SLP2/2021-BP, and told the respondents to consider and process the application in accordance with law. There was no order as to costs.

The case was reserved on 16.10.2026 and pronounced on 06.11.2026, about five years after the 2021 writ petition was filed.

Why did GHMC ask for a Revenue Department NOC?

Because the land appears on a Government land list. GHMC's standing counsel told the court that "the subject property falls within Government land, as per the list of Government lands furnished by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal." Counsel also relied on a letter from the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, No. E1/889/2022 dated 10.03.2022, stating that building permissions for properties in Sy. No. 66 of Raidurg village "be issued only after verifying the No Objection Certificate (NOC), if any, issued by the competent authority, i.e., the Collector, Ranga Reddy District."

GHMC added that, as per the classification furnished by the Revenue Department, land in Raidurg Panmaktha village in Sy. No. 66/3 is classified as "Gairan," which counsel described as indicating Government land.

What does the State say about Survey No. 66?

The Government Pleader for Revenue filed a counter affidavit with a more serious account. According to the order, the State's case is that Sy. No. 66, admeasuring Acs. 279-22 gts at Raidurg village, is Government land under the category "Poramboke Sarkari" as per the Survey and Settlement records. The State said "The then Patwari of the village, without obtaining any valid orders from the competent authority, bifurcated Sy.No.66 into two parts", recording Acs. 129-30 gts in the pahani of Raidurg Nowkhalsa village and Acs. 149-32 gts in the pahani of Raidurg Panmaqta village.

The State also contended that the land originally belonged to the Government and that "certain cases relating to the said land are pending before this Court." The High Court did not decide any of this. Its ruling is limited to how GHMC must handle a building application.

What principle did the court apply?

It relied on Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District, reported as 2001 (3) ALD 600. The passage quoted in the order says: "Applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. The Commissioner is required to make a pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants."

The same passage adds the line every buyer should remember: "The decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor would it take away the rights of the Government or any individual to assert their right, title and interest in the land in accordance with law." It also says the Commissioner "is not entitled to decide disputed questions of title or ownership."

The court further noted that in W.P. No. 16868 of 2022, decided on 26.04.2022, it had held that a municipal authority cannot reject a building application solely on the basis of revenue entries or insist upon an NOC without examining the material on record, and that this was affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 403 of 2022 on 05.07.2022.

Does this mean regularised plots in Raidurg are safe to buy?

No, and the order itself shows why. GHMC's standing counsel told the court that the corporation "would re-examine the regularisation proceedings issued to the petitioner's vendor, as the same may have been issued erroneously and that necessary steps would be taken for revocation of the regularisation proceedings." The order does not say whether that step has been taken.

So the buyer in this case has a direction to have the building application processed, a regularisation order that the corporation has said it may revisit, and a State that maintains the survey number is Government land. Each of those can move independently. The court's direction is also conditioned on "compliance with other applicable statutory requirements", which leaves GHMC free to examine the application on every other ground.

The regularisation route itself came from the Government's rules for regularisation of unapproved and illegal layouts, which the Government Pleader said were issued vide G.O.Ms. No. 151 dated 02.11.2015 and came into force from 28.10.2015. The order shows that regularisation alone did not prevent the dispute.

PropNewz has looked at how the State's prohibited and Government land lists interact with registration in its explainer on 22-A relief for approved plots and flats, and at a registration refusal tied to an unauthorised layout in the Ameenpur sale deed case.

What should a plot buyer check before paying?

Look beyond the registered deeds. In this case the deeds ran back to 1986, but the revenue classification, the Collector's 2022 letter and the pending cases on the survey number were the real risk. Before you pay an advance for an individual plot, especially one in a regularised rather than approved layout, work through this list.

1. Collect every link document back at least to the earliest registered sale deed, and note any agreement of sale cum GPA in the chain.
2. Ask the seller for the LRS proceedings and payment receipts, and confirm the plot number and survey number match the deed.
3. Ask the Tahsildar's office or a lawyer to check whether the survey number appears on any Government land or prohibited list.
4. Check the revenue classification of the survey number and ask how the pahani records describe it.
5. Ask whether any Collector's letter or circular restricts building permissions in that survey number.
6. Check for pending court cases on the survey number, not only on the specific plot.
7. Before final payment, ask the seller whether a building application was ever filed and what GHMC replied.

These checks do not guarantee a clear title, but they surface this kind of dispute before money moves.

What happens next in this case?

GHMC has been directed to process the application in accordance with law without insisting on the Revenue NOC. The order directs the registry to "Issue C.C. in one week". It does not set a deadline for GHMC's decision. Whether the corporation moves to revoke the 2018 regularisation, and whether the State's pending cases on Sy. No. 66 affect this plot, are matters the order leaves open.

PropNewz will track whether GHMC issues permission or acts on the regularisation. Buyers holding plots in the same survey number should watch for any such step, because the Collector's letter covers properties in Sy. No. 66 of Raidurg village as a whole.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Telangana High Court decide in Gadde Bhaskara Rao v. State of Telangana?

Justice Pulla Karthik set aside GHMC's shortfall letter dated 08.10.2021 for a Raidurg plot and directed GHMC to process the building application without insisting on a Revenue Department NOC, subject to other statutory requirements. The court held the NOC could not be demanded merely because the land is recorded as Government land.

Does a building permission prove that a plot buyer owns the land?

No, according to the precedent the court applied. The Hyderabad Potteries passage quoted in the order says grant of permission would not confer any title and would not take away the rights of the Government or anyone else to assert title in accordance with law. The Commissioner checks only prima facie title and possession.

Can GHMC still cancel the regularisation of this plot?

GHMC's counsel told the court it would re-examine the 2018 regularisation, which may have been issued erroneously, and take steps to revoke it. The order does not say whether that has happened or decide whether revocation would be valid, so the regularisation's future remains open.

What should buyers of plots in Survey No. 66, Raidurg, watch for?

The State says Sy. No. 66 is Government land, cases on it are pending, and a Collector's letter of 10.03.2022 links building permissions there to a Collector NOC. Buyers should check the revenue classification, pending cases and any GHMC action on regularisation before paying for a plot.

This article summarises a court order for general information and is not legal or investment advice. The High Court did not decide title to the plot or to Survey No. 66.

Last updated 2026-11-08. PropNewz Team.