HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.15931 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard Mr. A. Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. This writ petition is filed to declare the building permit No.3068/NA/2021/1038, dated 17.05.2021 issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3 and also the endorsement No.G1/1337/BDPL/ 2021, dated 08.06.2021 as illegal and consequently to set aside the same.
3. CASE OF THE PETITIONER:
i) The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of plot Nos.1 to 4 C1, admeasuring 800 square yards in Survey No.67, situated at Badepally under the Jadcherla Municipality, Mahaboobnagar District, which is hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property'.
ii) The petitioner claims that originally his father, late K. Sayanna, had purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.54 of 1972, dated 11.01.1972, from Gandhinagar Trust, Jadcherla represented by its Secretary, Mr.G. Yuganand. Thereafter, a 2 KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021 rectification deed bearing document No.1068 of 1972 dated 03.08.1972 was also executed correcting the wrong boundaries. From the date of purchase, the father of the petitioner was in possession of the subject property. He had made an application for grant of building permission and the same was granted on 22.03.1972 by the then Gram Panchayath. The said permission was renewed vide proceedings dated 23.05.1973 for a further period from 22.03.1973 to 21.03.1974 and, thereafter, further extension was granted on 09.01.1979. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1979.
iii) Respondent No.3 herein had purchased an extent of 400 square yards under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4337 of 2008 and appears to have submitted an application with respondent No.2 for grant of building permission. Respondent No.3 had also purchased 400 square yards of land from the Gandhinagar Trust which forms part of the subject property, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.14902 of 2020, and on the strength of the said document, respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 with a request to grant building permission.
iv) On coming to know about the same, the petitioner herein had given a complaint dated 20.04.2021, and respondent No.2 vide its notice dated 05.06.2021 requested respondent No.3 to submit her explanation along with documents. Respondent No.3 had submitted reply on 17.05.2021. Vide proceedings dated 21.05.2021, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner and respondent No.3 that on verification of documents by both parties, it is found that the said plots seem to be in 3 KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021 dispute with regard to the ownership of the plots, and that both the parties are claiming the same plots which belong to them and, therefore, the matter comes in civil dispute, they were advised to approach the appropriate civil Court.
v) Thereafter, vide show-cause notice dated 03.06.2021, respondent No.2 had informed respondent No.3 to approach Civil Court for redressal of the title dispute with a direction not to commence the construction work until title dispute is resolved in appropriate forum. A similar notice dated 04.06.2021 was also issued to both the petitioner and respondent No.3 directing them to submit certain documents including ownership, link documents etc. Thereafter, vide endorsement dated 08.06.2021, respondent No.2 had informed the petitioner that on verification of all the documents including the proceedings dated 09.07.2012 issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad pertaining to Badepally Gram Panchayat, and as per the said record, there is no approved layout pertaining to Gandhi Trust and there are no records available in the Municipal Office and, as such, treating as the plot belonging to respondent No.3 falls in an unapproved layout, it had collected necessary layout regularization charges as per G.O.Ms.Nos.131 and 135 while granting building permission. There is dispute of ownership over the site and the petitioner is claiming ownership without having any details of survey number and inappropriate schedule of boundaries, which is purely a private dispute 4 KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021 and, accordingly, informed the petitioner that it cannot interfere into private legal dispute.
vi) Mr. A. Giridhar Rao, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Palle Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that respondent No.3 had obtained building permit dated 17.05.2021 by making false statement and by misrepresentation and suppression of facts and, therefore, respondent No.2 is having power to revoke the said building permit issued in favour of respondent No.3 under Section - 176 (9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.
vii) The learned senior counsel would further submit that vide proceedings dated 03.06.2021, respondent No.2 had directed respondent No.3 not to commence the construction work (if commenced, the same has to be stopped). Despite the same, respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 08.06.2021, directed the petitioner herein to approach the Civil Court since the dispute between them is a title dispute and, therefore, it cannot interfere into a private legal dispute, which is illegal.
viii) With the aforesaid submissions, the learned senior counsel sought to set aside the building permit dated 17.05.2021 and also the endorsement dated 08.06.2021 issued by respondent No.2.
4. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.2:
i) Respondent No.2 has filed counter contending that respondent No.3 has submitted an application dated 02.02.2021 seeking permission 5 KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021 to construct a building. In view of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3, it had not issued building permission immediately. Therefore, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 07.05.2021 intimated respondent No.2 that it had not considered the building permission application submitted by her within the stipulated period of 21 days, and thereby respondent No.2 neither rejected, nor considered the said application. As such, she informed respondent No.2 that she is commencing the construction work on the ground of deemed permission and requested respondent No.2 to drop further proceedings.
ii) According to respondent No.2, the building permission was obtained in Survey No.67 by mentioning open plot, whereas, according to the petitioner, he is the owner of plot Nos.1 to 4 C1, which is contrary to the lay out plans submitted by him on various occasions. The land in Sy.No.67 of Badepally village was subdivided into plots and sold to various persons through registered sale deeds. The plot extent which the father of petitioner had purchased is the piece of land in Sy.No.67 to an extent of 800 square yards in the year 1972 vide document No.54 from the authorized signatory of Gandhinagar Trust, whereas, the plans submitted by the petitioner on various occasions are contradictory to each other. The petitioner had not submitted the rectification deed correcting the boundary and also encumbrance certificate. The Layout Plan was approved by the Chief Town Planner with no schedule which is contrary. Respondent No.3 has approached respondent No.2 seeking building permission through OnLine dated 17.05.2021, and on the basis of merit 6 KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021 of the documents, it had accorded building permit to her. However, respondent No.2 had issued a notice dated 06.05.2021 to submit the relevant documents as she had commenced the building work as permission was delayed beyond 21 days. Respondent No.2 had also directed her not to proceed with construction.
iii) The building permission dated 17.05.2021 was accorded by duly collecting layout fee as the layout was not in the same shape as approved by the then Chief Town Planner in the year 1954. Respondent No.2 had also intimated both the petitioner and respondent No.3 to approach Civil Court vide proceedings dated 03.06.2021 and 08.06.2021. Though the petitioner's father had purchased the subject property in the year 1972, obtained Gram Panchayat permission in the year 1974 as claimed by the petitioner, he is not in possession of the subject property. Thus, the petitioner and respondent No.3 are making claim over the subject property and respondent No.2 has already informed them to approach Civil Court to finalize the land dispute and proceed further.
iv) With the aforesaid submissions, respondent No.2 sought to dismiss the writ petition.
5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.3:
i) Respondent No.3 has filed counter contending that she had purchased 400 square yards of land in Block No.1 of Survey No.67 of Badepaly Village under a registered document No.14902 of 2020, dated 25.07.2020 from Gandhinagar Trust represented by its Convenor Mr. Sitaram Jawahar. She is claiming that she had purchased very same 7 KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021 property from one Mr. Mohd. Habeeb, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4337 of 2008, dated 29.07.2008. Though respondent No.3 has claimed that she has purchased 400 square yards of land in Sy.No.67 of Badepally Village under the above said sale deeds, boundaries are different.
ii) There is no explanation from her with regard to the purchase of the very same property under two sale deeds. However, she claims that she is owner of 400 square yards of land in Sy.No.67 of Badepally village under a registered sale deed bearing document No.14902 of 2020, dated 25.07.2020. She has approached respondent No.2 by way of submitting an application seeking permission for construction of residential house, but respondent No.2 neither rejected, nor considered the same within the stipulated period of 21 days and, therefore, she has commenced the construction work by duly intimating respondent No.2 by availing the deemed provision. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had issued building permit order dated 17.05.2021 to respondent No.3. Therefore, according to respondent No.3, the petitioner is claiming right over the subject property without there being any basis and documents in support of his claim. As such, there is no irregularity in issuing the building permit dated 17.05.2021 by respondent No.2 and the endorsement dated 18.06.2021 advising the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal.
iii) Referring to the legal notice dated 05.06.2013 got issued by the petitioner, Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would 8 KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021 contend that through the said legal notice, the petitioner herein has requested Gandhinagar Trust, Badepally, to register 11 plots admeasuring 200 square yards each in Sy.No.67 in the name of the petitioner. In the recitals of the sale deed bearing document No.14902 of 2020, there is mention about the order dated 12.03.2003 passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.5491 of 2001.
iv) As per the said judgment, the said Trust is having power to sell schedule 'A' property, and to develop Schedule 'B' property. Therefore, according to respondent No.3, she had purchased the said land from the said Trust. A copy of the order in CRP is also filed. But, there is no explanation with regard to purchase of the very same property by her under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4337 of 2008 from Mr.Mohd. Habeeb, who had purchased the same from one Mr. Ramakrishna Reddy under a registered sale deed bearing document No.5912 of 2007, and the said Ramakrishna Reddy had purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.490 of 1982. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for respondent No.3, there is no irregularity in respondent No.2 issuing a building permit dated 17.05.2021 and the endorsement dated 08.06.2021. There is no false statement, suppression and misrepresentation of facts by respondent No.3 in obtaining the said building permit.
v) With the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the writ petition.
9
KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021
6. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein are claiming right over the very same property. No civil suits are pending between them. Respondent No.3 is claiming that she is owner of the land to an extent of 400 square yards in Sy.No.67 of Badepally Village under Jadcherla Municipality presently under a registered sale deed bearing document No.14902 of 2020, dated 25.07.2020. On the strength of the said document, she had made an application dated 02.02.2021 with respondent No.2 seeking building permission and accordingly respondent No.2 had issued building permission dated 17.05.2021 for construction of a Ground + 1 Upper Floor. According to respondent No.3, she is making constructions strictly in accordance with the said building permit order.
ii) The petitioner herein vide his representation dated 20.04.2021 requested respondent No.2 to stop the construction work on the ground that respondent No.3 is making construction over his property on the strength of fictitious and fake documents, and it is a double registration. Thus, according to the petitioner, there is double registration of plots. On receipt of the said representation, dated 20.04.2021, respondent No.2 had requested the petitioner and respondent No.3 to submit their documents in proof of their claims. Accordingly, they have submitted their documents including building permission dated 24.09.2014 already issued in favour of respondent No.3 by the then Badepally Grama Panchayath. She has also submitted application for building permission 10 KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021 through OnLine. Thus, on verification of all the documents, as both the petitioner and respondent No.3 are claiming title over the very same property and it is a civil dispute, they were advised to approach the appropriate Civil Court.
iii) Vide proceedings dated 03.06.2021, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to approach Civil Court for redressal of title dispute with a further direction not to commence the construction work (if commence, the same has to be stopped) until the title dispute is redressed in appropriate Court. Vide notice dated 04.06.2021, respondent No.2 had requested the petitioner to submit certain documents including linked documents, E.C., copy of approved layout etc. Vide endorsement dated 08.06.2021, respondent No.2 had informed the petitioner herein that respondent No.3 has submitted all the documents including copy of Layout vide letter No.5855/2012/H, dated 09.07.2012 pertains to Badepally Municipality. As per the said record, there is no approved layout pertaining to Gandhi Trust and there are no records available in the municipal office. As such, treating the plot belonging to respondent No.3 falls in an approved Layout, it had collected necessary layout regularization charges as per G.O.Ms.Nos.131 and 135 while granting building permission. There is a dispute of ownership over the site and the petitioner is claiming without having any details of survey number and inappropriate schedule of boundaries which is purely a civil dispute. Respondent No.2 further informed the petitioner that it cannot interfere into private legal dispute.
11
KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021
iv) Thus, the above facts would reveal that there are disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3 with regard to the title over the very same property. There is no explanation from the petitioner with regard to his lapses in not proceeding with the construction and approaching respondent No.2 complaining about the illegal construction. There is also no explanation from respondent No.3 with regard to obtaining two sale deeds. The boundaries mentioned in both the sale deeds are different and, therefore, there is a dispute between them with regard to the title which has to be resolved by a competent Civil Court, but not either respondent No.2 or this Court under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India.
v) Now, the petitioner is challenging the very building permit dated 17.05.2021 on the ground that respondent No.3 had obtained the same by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. As per Section - 176 (9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, the Commissioner is having power to revoke the building permission whenever he finds that it was obtained by making false statement or misrepresentation of any material facts or violation of law by duly following the prescribed procedure. There is no suppression or misrepresentation of facts by respondent No.3 and she has not made false statement. She had submitted an application on 02.02.2021 seeking building permission from respondent No.2 on the strength of above two sale deeds. She had produced layout and also paid regularization fee. As 12 KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021 rightly informed by respondent No.2, the petitioner and respondent No.3 have to approach competent Civil Court for resolving their title dispute.
7. CONCLUSION:
i) Thus, this Court is of the considered view that there is no suppression and misrepresentation of facts by respondent No.3 while obtaining building permission dated 17.05.2021 and that she had not made any false statement before respondent No.2 in obtaining building permit as alleged by the petitioner. There are serious disputes and complicated questions of facts involved in the matter including title dispute over the subject property. As stated above, it appears that as on today, neither the petitioner, nor respondent No.3 has approached the competent Civil Court by filing appropriate suit. Further, there is no irregularity or illegality in issuing building permit order dated 17.05.2021 by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3. Thus, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
ii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 27th October, 2021 Mgr