Telangana HC Rejects GHMC's Bid to Condone 820-Day Delay in Challenging LRS Revocation Order
The Telangana High Court dismissed GHMC's applications to condone delays of 820 and 794 days in filing writ appeals, finding election duties and staff transfers insufficient cause when decision-makers were available throughout.
A Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara, on 6 August 2026 dismissed the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation's applications to condone delays of 820 days and 794 days in filing writ appeals against a Single Judge order that had set aside GHMC's own revocation notices. The revocation notices, issued in July 2018 against plots regularised under the Layout Regularisation Scheme, had been struck down by the Single Judge in April 2022. GHMC filed appeals only in 2024, after the respondents — Siri Constructions and Darshinee Infra Projects — moved a fresh writ petition to compel implementation of the earlier order. The Division Bench found the corporation's explanations inadequate and dismissed the appeals as a consequence.
The LRS Revocation Notices and the Single Judge's Order
GHMC had issued two revocation notices on 23 July 2018, served on 2 August 2018: revocation notice No.LRS/432/Cr-11/WZ/GHMC/2012-18 relating to Plot No.22/A and revocation notice No.LRS/919/Cr-11/WZ/GHMC/2012-18 relating to Plot No.19/A. Both notices sought to withdraw Layout Regularisation Scheme proceedings that GHMC itself had granted in 2012 — LRS proceedings dated 14 June 2012 and 8 October 2012 respectively.
The respondents challenged those revocation notices by filing W.P.Nos.27793 and 27784 of 2018 before a Single Judge. On 25 April 2022, the Single Judge allowed both writ petitions and set aside the revocation notices. GHMC did not file writ appeals immediately. Instead, more than two years passed before W.A.Nos.1028 and 1033 of 2024 were eventually lodged, each accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay.
GHMC's Explanation for the Delay
GHMC rested its case for condonation on a chain of administrative events. M. Narsimha Ramulu, the Zonal Level Official handling the subject matter, was apprehended by the Inspector of Police (CIU), Anti-Corruption Bureau on 21 April 2022 — four days before the Single Judge's order. K. Uma Devi, City Planner, Kukatpally Zone was posted as in-charge by Proceeding No.B/943/TPS/HO/GHMC/2022/432 dated 28/29 April 2022, officiating in addition to her regular duties. A regular City Planner, K. Mallikarjun Rao, was appointed by Proceeding No.B/270/TPS/HO/GHMC/2020-22/830 dated 11 August 2022.
GHMC further pleaded that its Standing Counsel was changed pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.517 dated 10 October 2022, so the order of 25 April 2022 did not come to the notice of concerned officials. When the respondents submitted a representation to GHMC on 9 November 2023 seeking restoration of building permission, officials put up the file for approval. By that point, however, the Legislative Assembly Code of Conduct was in force and all staff were occupied with State Assembly elections followed by Parliament elections. GHMC contended this prevented the file from reaching the Standing Counsel for a legal opinion on whether to appeal.
In an additional affidavit, GHMC's Petitioner No.3 relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs v. Union of India [(2023) 10 SC 531] and on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107] to argue for a liberal, justice-oriented approach. GHMC also pointed to a Division Bench order in W.A.No.269 of 2024 dated 23 June 2025, where a delay of 759 days had been condoned.
During arguments, the Advocate General additionally raised a substantive fraud argument: that the vendors of the respondents had misrepresented the layout by creating Plot Nos.19-A and 22-A, which were out of the normal sequence, within an area earmarked as an open park space. GHMC contended that since the LRS was procured by fraud, all subsequent permissions were void and the public interest in open spaces justified condoning the delay.
Respondents' Counter: Prior Knowledge and Deliberate Inaction
Counsel for the respondents, Mr. K. Durga Prasad, opposed the applications on two distinct grounds: the inadequacy of the stated reasons, and GHMC's demonstrated prior knowledge of the 2022 order.
On knowledge, the respondents pointed to a representation they had filed with GHMC on 24 May 2022 — within a month of the Single Judge's order — enclosing a copy of the order and seeking restoration of building permission and an Occupancy Certificate. A second representation was submitted on 7 March 2023. When neither produced a response, the respondents filed W.P.No.10048 of 2024 on 16 April 2024 seeking a direction to implement the 2022 order. In that writ petition, GHMC's counsel took time to file a counter on 9 July 2024, and the matter was posted for orders on 12 July 2024. Only on 30 July 2024 did GHMC's counsel report that writ appeals had been filed. The respondents argued that it was the Bench's query in W.P.No.10048 of 2024 — as to how GHMC could evade implementation without challenging the order — that prompted the belated appeals.
On the fraud argument, the respondents countered that GHMC itself had conducted enquiries before issuing the LRS proceedings and building permissions. GHMC had collected penal charges and pro-rata charges for the shortfall of open area in the unapproved layout before regularising it. Having done so, GHMC could not now turn around and allege fraud. The respondents noted that about 90% of the buildings had been constructed on the basis of permissions GHMC granted, and significant amounts had been invested.
How the Division Bench Reasoned
Justice Renuka Yara, writing the common judgment, analysed each stated ground for delay individually before addressing the fraud argument on its merits.
On the ACB apprehension of Narsimha Ramulu: the bench accepted that this event could justify some delay, but only up to the appointment of a regular officer. K. Mallikarjun Rao was appointed City Planner by August 2022. From that point, the bench held, the corporation had a decision-maker in place and should have moved within a reasonable time, at most by September 2022.
On the change of Standing Counsel under G.O.Ms.No.517 dated 10 October 2022: the bench acknowledged that transition time was reasonable, but observed that more than a year passed — until November 2023 — without the file being put up at all. The initiative came only when the respondents filed W.P.No.10048 of 2024, not from within GHMC.
On the election duties argument: the bench rejected it squarely. The reasoning was that while administrative staff may have been on election duty, the Zonal Commissioner and the City Planner were decision-makers who could at any time have directed the Standing Counsel — who would not have been on election duty — to prepare grounds of appeal. Waiting to seek a legal opinion until after elections concluded was not a convincing explanation.
On the Division Bench precedent in W.A.No.269 of 2024: the bench distinguished it. In that case, there had been continuous correspondence between JNTU and the State regarding the court order, its implementation, and contempt proceedings, with two institutions and different officers involved. In the present case, the decision-making authority remained within GHMC's own structure throughout.
On knowledge: the bench found it impossible to accept a claim of ignorance. The respondents had filed a representation on 24 May 2022 and again on 7 March 2023, enclosing the order, and had eventually filed W.P.No.10048 of 2024 specifically to enforce it. The bench concluded that GHMC had knowledge of the order but took no steps.
Turning to the fraud argument raised to strengthen the case for condonation on merits, the bench observed that GHMC itself had collected penal charges and pro-rata charges for shortfall of open area before issuing the LRS proceedings. That fact negated any suggestion that the respondents' vendor had kept GHMC in the dark about the reduction of open space. The bench held that “there is little scope for prima facie case of fraud or misrepresentation” on this fact pattern, and the merits argument therefore provided no additional basis to condone the delay.
The bench also addressed the Supreme Court's observation in Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 600] that merits must not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation. It accepted the principle but found it did not assist GHMC: even on merits, the fraud plea was weak given GHMC's own conduct in collecting charges before regularising the plots.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.A.No.1028 of 2024 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.A.No.1033 of 2024, thereby refusing to condone the delays of 820 days and 794 days respectively. As a consequence, W.A.Nos.1028 and 1033 of 2024 were also dismissed. No order as to costs was made. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the proceedings were directed to stand closed.
The Single Judge's common order dated 25 April 2022 setting aside the revocation notices No.LRS/432/Cr-11/WZ/GHMC/2012-18 and No.LRS/919/Cr-11/WZ/GHMC/2012-18 stands undisturbed.