Telangana High Court
Sri Manorupa Meadows Pvt.Ltd, vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan on 31 October, 2025
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
****
W.P.No.3934 of 2013
Between:
Sri Manorupa Meadows Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its
Manaigng Director, M.Ramesh Babu
and another
.... Petitioners
And
The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development
Authority(HMDA) Rep. by its Commissioner/
Vice-Chairman, HUDA Complex, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad and two others.
...Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 31.10.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
_________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
+ W.P.No.3934 of 2013
% 31st October, 2025
W.P.No.3934 of 2013
# Sri Manorupa Meadows Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by
its Manaigng Director, M.Ramesh Babu
and another
.....Petitioners
VS.
$ The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development
Authority(HMDA) Rep. by its Commissioner/
Vice-Chairman, HUDA Complex, Tarnaka,
Hyderabad and two others.
......Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi
^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri V.Siddartha Goud,
representing Sri V.Narasimha
Goud, learned Standing Counsel
^ Counsel for respondent No.2 : Learned Government Pleader
for Municipal Administration &
Urban Development
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2004) 8 SCC 1
2. 1952 SCR 683
3. (2023) 19 Supreme Court Cases 30
4. (2017) 5 SCC 655
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
W.P.No.3934 of 2013
O R D E R:
The instant Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs:
"a) Declaring the Letter No.12175/Layout/HAMA/HMDA/2006, dt.22.11.2012 issued by the Respondent No.1 and also Letter No.17840/11/2010-1 MA dt.07.11.2012 of R2 rejecting the request of the petitioner and not granting sanction to the petitioners to develop on its own an extent of 3,632 sq. yards of land given by the petitioners for HADA area on payment of 1.5 times of market value and also to develop on its own an extent of 3,657 sq. yards of land meant for the EWS purpose, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.567 MA & UD (I1) Department, dt.31.07.2008, pertaining to the layout permit No.6/layout/HADA dt.12.06.2008 in file No.12175/layout/HADA/ 2006 belonging to the petitioners towards its land situated in Sy.No.28(P), 29(P), 30(P) & 31(P) of Chintapallyguda (V), Ibrahimpatnam (M), Ranga Reddy District, as bad illegal, arbitrary and violative of G.O.Ms.No.527 MA & UD (I1) Department, dt.31.07.2008, and
b) Consequently, direct the respondents to grant sanction to the petitioners to develop on its own an extent of 3,632 sq. yards of land given by the petitioners for HADA area on payment of 1.5 times of market value and also to develop on its own an extent of 3,657 sq. yards of land meant for the EWS purposes, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.567 MA & UD (I1) Department, dt.31.07.2008 pertaining to the layout permit No.6/layout/HADA, dt.12.06.2008 in file No.12175/layout/HADA/2006 belonging to the petitioners towards its land situated in Sy.No.28(P), 29(P), 30(P) & 31(P) of chintapallyguda(V), Ibrahimpatnam(M), Ranga Reddy District
c) to pass such other order..."
2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that 1st petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and it is engaged in the business of real estate and developing land into plots. That, on 13.10.2006, the 1st petitioner approached the then Hyderabad Airport Development Authority(HADA)-3rd respondent (which is now a functional agency 4 of HMDA-1st respondent), for approval of layout in an extent of Acres 15.18 guntas in Survey No.28(P), 29(P), 30(P) and 31(P) situated in Chintapallyguda(V), Ibrahimpatnam(M), Ranga Reddy District. The HADA had sanctioned and released a tentative draft layout vide layout permit No.6/layout/HADA, dt.12.06.007 in File No.12175/layout/ HADA/2006, for the total area of 60083.28 sq. mtrs i.e., Acres 14.85 cents, as per the existing draft regulations in force, pending finalization of final regulations, which were subsequently notified.
3. It is further contended by the petitioners that as per the approved layout total plotted area was divided into 118 plots apart from providing land for the amenities towards roads, parks, etc., and out of the said plotted area, an extent of 3632 sq.yards was kept aside as HADA area and 3657 sq. yards was set apart for development of LIG/EWS(being 5% + 5% =10% of the total land) as per the norms fixed by HADA as was in force at that time.
4. It is further contended that as there were large number of representations received from the land developers, builders and others, an addendum notification was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, by substituting Regulation 30 and 36 with the following, for G.O.Ms.No.287, dt.03.04.2008: 5
"I Regulation 30 shall be substituted with the following:
30(ii) Minimum area & other requirement for Layout Development:
a) The minimum area for layout development shall be 4 hectares. Out of the total areas, 10% of the land shall be set apart for open spaces for recreation and community purposes. This will also include up to 2.5% land required to be set apart for social infrastructure.
b) From the developable area, 5% of area is to be given to Hyderabad Airport Development Authority free of cost for capitalization towards provision of Master Plan facilities. This condition is applicable only to sites located outside Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits. The owner/developer has the option of paying 1.5 times the basic value of such land to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority/Hyderabad Airport Development Authority in lieu of such land to be given to Hyderabad Airport Development Authority.
c) At least 5% of the developable land to be developed within the site for Economically Weaker Sections of Society (EWS) housing facility with maximum plot size of 50 sq. m. and at least 5% for Lower Income Group housing facility with maximum plot size of 100 sq. m. The developer can also opt for developing only EWS plots in lieu of LIG Housing.
d) In case it is not found feasible to provide the minimum 5% EWS and 5% LIG plots within his site, the owner/developer is given option to develop the minimum required number of plots under both categories in any land within 5 km. radius of the existing site with minimum BT road connectivity of 12 m. Alternatively, the owner/developer may hand over equivalent land to Hyderabad Airport Development Authority for development of EWS/LIG plots by Hyderabad Airport Development Authority/public agency within 5 km radius of the existing site.
II. Regulation 36 shall be substituted with the following:
36. Group Housing Schemes:
i) In respect of Group Housing Projects (which included apartment block/blocks, row housing, cluster housing, mixed housing units, gated developments and residential enclaves) in sites 4000 sq. m. and above out of the total site area:
a) the developer shall set apart 3% of the land and give to Hyderabad Airport Development Authority free of cost for capitalization towards provision of Master Plan facilities. This condition shall apply only to sites located outside Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits.
The owner/developer has the option of paying 1.5 times the basic value of such land to Hyderabad Airport Development Authority in lieu of such land to be given to Hyderabad Airport Development Authority.
b) At least 5% of the total units shall be set apart and developed for Economically Weaker Sections of Society (EWS) dwelling units with maximum plinth area of 25 sq. m;
6
c) At least 5% of the total units shall be set apart and developed for Lower Income Group (LIG) dwelling units with maximum plinth area of 40 sq. mt; For providing all above dwelling units with the site, the owner/developer is given freedom to build these units in a separate block with separate access.
ii) In case it is not found feasible by the owner/developer to provide the above EWs and LIG dwelling units within his site, the owner/developer is given option to develop the required number of units under both categories in any land within 5 km radius of the existing site with maximum BT road connectivity of 12 m. Alternatively, the owner/developer is given option to hand over the equivalent land within 5 km radius with minimum BT road connectivity of 12 m to Hyderabad Airport Development Authority for facilitating development of EWS/LIG housing.
iii) Servant quarters constructed shall be reckoned towards EWS housing requirements in Group Housing Schemes. In case of gated community developments and row housing, such quarters shall be detached from the main building and may also be allowed in the rear setback provided the total length shall not exceed 1/3rd of plot width and only single storied structure shall be allowed. As an option in gated developments and row housing, the EWS and LIG dwelling units can be accommodated in a separate block or blocks. In case of Residential Complexes, the servant quarters may be within the same block provided it is constructed with separate entrance and with separate kitchenette and toilet facility. Such servant quarters only will qualify to be reckoned as EWS units. Alternatively, the EWS and LIG dwelling units in such complexes can be accommodated in a separate block or blocks.
III After a) Regulation 36 a new Regulation shall be added as follows:
36 A. Incentives:
In order to encourage social housing mix in housing projects and to augment the supply of EWS and LIG Housing, the following incentives shall be available to owners/developers:
a) No fees and other charges will be levied for EWS plots or dwelling units;
b) Only 25% of fees and other charges will be levied for LIG plots/dwelling units;
c) In case of alternative lands are provided by owner/developer for EWS/LIG housing, there will be automatic conversion of land use from conservation to residential use"
5. It is further contended that as per condition 36(c)(ii), in case, it is not feasible by the owner/developer to provide EWS/LIG dwelling units within the site, owner/developer has given option to 7 develop the required number of units under both categories in any land within 5 km radius of the existing site with minimum BT road connectivity of 12 m and alternatively, the owner/developer is given option to hand over the equivalent land within 5 km radius with minimum BT road connectivity of 12m to HADA for facilitating development of EWS/LIG housing.
6. It is further contended that under the provisions contained in Section 3-A of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975(for short 'the Act, 1975'), the HADA was formed as a Special Area Development Authority vide G.O.Ms.No.352 MA dt.30.06.2001, by which certain villages coming under Airport Safety Zones and Zonal restrictions for Hyderabad International Airport, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, which were earlier under the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), have now vested with the jurisdiction of HADA.
7. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent initially permitted the 3rd respondent to follow draft regulations till finally approved by the Government in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1975, and thereafter, the draft layout was merged with the Final Master Plan and Regulations vide G.O.Ms.No.287, dt.03.04.2008 and subsequently, vide G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, the earlier 8 Regulation 30 framed in G.O.Ms.No.287, dt.03.04.2008 was substituted.
8. It is further contended that as the 2nd respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, clearly substituting the existing Regulation 30 in G.O.Ms.No.287, the petitioners are entitled for the release of the land handed over to HADA and also the land earmarked as per the norms fixed in the above GO.
9. It is also contended that though the petitioners already expressed their willingness to pay 1.5 times of the market value for the release of the land given to HADA for development on its own and also other 5% land kept apart for development of EWS/LIG, as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, by making several requests to the authorities, the 1st respondent, referring to the communication of the 2nd respondent, vide letter dt.07.11.2012 rejected the petitioners' request. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the present Writ Petition is filed.
10. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the contention of the petitioners that GO.Ms.No527, dt.31.07.2008 holds the field since inception of HADA, and would contend that since the amendment to Regulation 30 is subordinate legislation, it will 9 come into force only prospectively and in any event, as the land in question has already been vested with the then HADA, the question of returning the said land does not arise at this stage and that the government has rightly rejected the petitioners' application for returning the land in question, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
11. Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Siddartha Goud, representing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.2.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the petitioners given sanction as per Draft Regulations, which was revised and approved finally on 03.04.2008, once the Regulation 30 framed in G.O.Ms.No.287, dt.03.04.2008 was substituted by issuing an addendum vide G.O.Ms.No.587, dt.31.07.2008, the Regulation 30 as substituted only holds the field since inception of HADA, and thus, the petitioners who intend to take benefit of the said G.O.Ms.No.587, cannot be denied on the ground that a draft layout in favour of the petitioners having been released even 10 before the issuance of the said G.O.Ms.No.527, and contended that as the regulations were substituted by the addendum GO, the same shall be retrospective in effect.
13. It is further contended by the counsel for petitioners that while G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008 was issued for HADA area, likewise G.O.Ms.No.526, dt.31.07.2008 was also issued for HUDA areas on the same footing and since it is a beneficial regulation framed by the 2nd respondent by taking into consideration the difficult of the land developers, builders and others and in view of the directions of this Court in WP.No.14897 of 2008, dt.11.08.2008, the letter issued by the 1st respondent vide Letter No.17840/11/2010-1 MA dt.07.11.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioners and not granting sanction to the petitioners to develop an extent of 3,657 sq. yards of land given by the petitioners for HADA area on payment of 1.5 times of market value, is ex facie illegal and is not in consonance with the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, which has been issued as an addendum substituting certain regulations, and as such, the GO.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, is applicable as is in retrospective in nature, and thus, prayed to allow the writ petition. 11
14. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 1st respondent, while reiterating the contents of the counter, stated that the Governments Orders are prospective in nature and thus, the addendum GO cannot be made applicable to the instant case, and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
15. The said stand of the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA was reiterated by the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent No.2 and prayed to dismiss the writ petit6ion.
16. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side and perused the material on record.
17. The only point that arises for consideration is that when once G.O.Ms.No.527 MA & UD (I1) Department, dt.31.07.2008 has been issued as an addendum to the original G.O.Ms.No.287 MA & UD (I1) Department, dt.03.04.2008, by substituting Regulation 30, whether the subsequent GO substituting certain regulations can be applied retrospectively, or such substitution can be prospectively applied and the benefit of the same cannot be extended to the petitioners.
12
18. As seen from the record, the very genesis of G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008 issued as an addendum substituting the Regulations 30 & 36 of G.O.Ms.No.287, is based on the representations made by the land developers/builders and representation of Commerce & Industry, the question of not giving the benefit of the said G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, to the petitioners, is ex facie appears to be unreasonable and unjustified, as has been held by the Apex Court in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and Others 1 as under:
"13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. But the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only 'nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis' __ a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past....
14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes .In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is 'to explain' an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospective. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect.
1 (2004) 8 SCC 1 13
15. ...........Four factors are suggested as relevant: (i) general scope and purview of the statute; (ii) the remedy sought to be applied; (iii) the former state of the law; and (iv) what it was the legislature contemplated.
22. ..............The absence of a provision expressly giving a retrospective operation to the legislation is not determinative of its prospectivity or retrospectivity. Intrinsic evidence may be available to show that the amendment was necessarily intended to have the retrospective effect and if the Court can unhesitatingly conclude in favour of retrospectivity, the Court would not hesitate in giving the Act that operation unless prevented from doing so by any mandate contained in law or an established principle of interpretation of statutes.
24. The substitution of one text for the other pre-existing text is one of the known and well-recognised practices employed in legislative drafting. 'Substitution' has to be distinguished from 'supersession' or a mere repeal of an existing provision.
25. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision..........."
19. The said principle finds force from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamrao V. Parulekar v. District Magistrate, Thana2.
20. Recently, in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others v. Dr. Manu and Another 3 also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"31. It is trite that any legislation or instrument having the force of law, which is clarificatory or explanatory in nature and purport and which seeks to clear doubts or correct an obvious omission in a statute, would generally be retrospective in operation, vide State of 2 1952 SCR 683 3 (2023) 19 Supreme Court Cases 30 14 Bihar v. Ramesh Prasad Verma4. Therefore, in order to determine whether the Government Order dated 29.03.2001 may be made applicable retrospectively, it is necessary to consider whether the said order was a clarification or a substantive amendment.
32. In order to effectively deal with the aspect as to retrospective operation of the Government Order dated 29-3-2001 it may be useful to refer to the following extract from the treatise. Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 11 th Edn. (2008) by Justice G.P. Singh on the sweep of a clarificatory /declaratory/explanatory provision:
"The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes. As stated in Craries and approved by the Supreme Court: For modern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retrospective.
[....] An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended. The language 'shall be deemed always to have meant' or "shall be deemed never to have included" is declaratory and is in plain terms retrospective. In the absence of clear words indicating that the amending Act is declaratory, it would not be so construed when the amended provision was clear and unambiguous. An amending Act may be purely clarificatory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect and, therefore, if the principal Act was existing law when the Constitution came into force, the amending Act also will be part of the existing law."(emphasis supplied).
4 (2017) 5 SCC 655 15
35. The proposition of law that a clarificatory provision may be made applicable retrospectively is so well established that we do not wish to burden this judgment by referring to rulings in the same vein. However, it is necessary to dilate on the role of a clarification/explanation to a statute and how the same may be identified and distinguished from a substantive amendment."
21. In the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the addendum issued vide G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, is in the nature of clarificatory/explanatory substituting the regulations, and there is no mention in the said GO as to its operation only from the date of issue. It is trite law that substitution of Government Orders are retrospective in effect, and as such, the letter, dt.22.11.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioners not giving the benefit of said G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, in spite of the entitlement of the petitioners in pursuant to the said GO, is untenable, and thus, the rejection is not justified and is liable to set aside.
22. As such, in the considered view of this Court, the reasons mentioned in the letter, dt.22.11.2012, issued by the 1st respondent for rejecting the petitioners' request is erroneous and that the said letter is hereby set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioners in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, within a period 16 of (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioners shall abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the respondents and also pay the amount of 1.5 times of the present market value in lieu of the land to be given for HADA area (now HMDA) and petitioners shall also develop on its own an extent of 3,657 sq. yards of land meant for EWS purpose in terms of G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, by following the conditions stated in Regulation 30 of the said GO. Needless to say that, the petitioners shall file all the documents before the respondents, which are necessary for passing of the appropriate orders.
23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Dt.31.10.2025 gra