HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.11782 OF 2021
ALONG WITH I.A. No.2 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to
11, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.
2. However, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos.12, 13 and 14 as the notices sent to their addresses returned un-served on the ground of 'addressee was out of station' and 'addressee left' respectively. Despite service of notice on respondent No.15, none appears on his behalf. According to Section - 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the notices sent to the addresses. Therefore, the aforesaid respondents shall be deemed to have been served.
3. This writ petition is filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 4 through their GPA Holder, Mr. S. Madhava Reddy, to declare that the action of respondent No.3 in processing the application for grant of building permission submitted by respondent Nos.7 to 11 and further sanctioning 2 KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 the same vide permit No.1/C3/05541/2021, dated 15.04.2021 in file No.1/C3/01220/2020 in violation of the orders, dated 07.12.2004 passed by this Court in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004, as illegal. Whereas, I.A. No.2 of 2021 is filed by respondent Nos.5 to 11 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 29.04.2021 passed by this Court in the writ petition.
4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
i) The father of petitioners, Annem Markandeya, had purchased plot Nos.10 and 11, admeasuring in an area of 500 square yards each, making a total extent of 1000 square yards, in Survey No.66/14, situated at Mansoorabad Village, Hyderabad East Taluk of Hyderabad District under registered documents bearing sale deed Nos.1590 of 1968 and 1589 of 1968, both dated 05.04.1968.
ii) Upon the death of the father of the petitioners, the said plots devolved upon his legal heirs, the petitioners herein.
iii) Whereas, vide G.O.Ms.No.426 of Revenue (Assignment-V) Department, dated 23.06.2001, Government had allotted land to an extent of 500 square yards in Survey No.66/15, situated at Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to respondent No.5 on account of death of her husband, A. Rambhupal Reddy, Security Officer in the Naxal Landmine Blast on 07.03.2000.
iv) Similarly, vide letter No.E4/2844/2001, dated 24.05.2001, issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the Deputy 3 KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar vide proceedings No.C/3138/2002, dated 30.07.2002, have allotted land to an extent of 500 square yards in Survey No.66/15, situated at Mansoorabad Village of Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondent No.6 on account of death of her husband, Mr. C. Niranjan, P.C. 309 in the very same incident.
v) Ring Road was laid in the year 1984 affecting the entire southern portion of Survey No.66/15, and also Plot No.9 in Survey No.66/14, and thereby the western boundary of the petitioners' plot Nos.10 and 11 abutted the ring road.
vi) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 started manipulating the official respondents to create false record as if the land on the western side of plot Nos.10 and 11 in Survey No.66/14 was allotted to them with a view to grab the valuable property of the petitioners as it abutting the ring road.
vii) Before allotment of the lands to respondent Nos.5 and 6, when the Mandal Revenue Officer at the instance of some local leaders tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' plot Nos.10 and 11, petitioner No.1 and his mother filed a suit in O.S. No.690 of 2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, East & North, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar against i) Smt. Rawath Shanthamma, ii) Mr. M.D. Mahaboob, iii) Mr. M. Mallaiah, and iv) The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, 4 KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 the Mandal Revenue Officer filed written statement contending that the land covered by the petitioners' plots are located in Survey No.66/14 and that it was declared as surplus land of original Vendor, Mr. P.T. Venkata Chary and that he surrendered the same. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners' plots are situated in Survey No.66/14.
viii) Thereafter, petitioner No.1 and his mother filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling (ULC), along with stay petition. As the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, failed to take up the said petition, they filed W.P. No.17599 of 2001 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.08.2001, directing the respondents therein to maintain status quo in all respects including possession obtaining as on that date until disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Commissioner, ULC.
ix) In the said writ petition, respondent No.5 herein has filed a review petition vide Review WPMP No.30060 of 2001, and this Court vide order dated 08.11.2001, disposed of the said review petition maintaining the earlier order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition dated 24.08.2001. However, in the said order it was observed that the petitioners herein have no claim over the land in Survey No.66/15, while respondent No.5 herein has no claim over the land in survey No.66/14, and that if there was any dispute with regard to identification of the property, the parties were directed to approach a competent Civil Court. 5
KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021
x) Pursuant to the said observations, petitioner No.1 and his mother filed a civil suit in O.S. No.1166 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar, Hyderabad, against respondent No.5 and the Government, seeking for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing Plot Nos.10 and 11, admeasuring 1000 square yards in Survey No.66/14 of Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the said suit, the Government has contended that petitioner No.1 and his mother land is in Survey No.66/14 and that they are trying to encroach into the land in Survey No.66/15. Thus, the respondents never interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment. However, the said suit was decreed in part by the trial Court to the extent of granting the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the said plots, but rejected the relief of perpetual injunction, vide judgment and decree dated 13.02.2004.
xi) Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, dated 13.02.2004 to the extent of rejecting the relief of perpetual injunction, petitioner No.1 and his mother preferred appeal vide A.S. No.2322 of 2004 before this Court, along with petition in C.M.P.No.10240 of 2004, for interim injunction. This Court after hearing both parties vide order dated 07.12.2004, directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004.
xii) The appeal filed by the petitioners was allowed on 22.01.2005 by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administrative, Hyderabad, and all 6 KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 the plots covered by the sale deeds executed and registered in the years 1966 and 1967 including the petitioners were excluded from the holding of Mr. P.T. Venkatachari, and the matter was remitted back to the Special Officer & Competent Authority (SO & CA), ULC, Hyderabad for disposal. Finally, the SO & CA, by order dated 18.07.2005 declared Mr. P.T. Venkatachari as Non-surplus holder and, thus, the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were concluded in favour of the petitioners and other plot owners, and the said orders became final. Therefore, the very basis of respondents' case in the said suit is flawed.
xiii) Despite the status quo order dated 07.12.2004 in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004, respondent No.5 and others tried to encroach on the said property, petitioner No.1 and his mother filed a Contempt Petition and the same is pending.
xiv) On the application filed by the petitioners, this Court vide order dated 07.03.2007 in A.S.M.P. No.10240 of 2013 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004 directed the District Collector to submit the entire allotment record.
xv) While the matter stood thus, as part of their illegal attempts to encroach upon the petitioners' property and in violation of status quo orders granted by this Court, respondent No.5 has executed a registered gift deed bearing document No.3928 of 2019, dated 24.07.2019 gifting the said 500 square yards of land in Survey No.66/15 in favour of her sons, respondent Nos.7 and 8. Like-wise, respondent No.6 has also gifted 7 KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 the said extent of 500 square yards in favour of her sons and daughter, respondent Nos.9 to 11 under Gift Deed bearing document No.3861 of 2019, dated 17.07.2019. By virtue of the said two gift deeds, respondent Nos.7 to 11 have entered into a registered Development Agreement - cum - General Power of Attorney with Builders, respondent Nos.12 to 15 vide document No.776 of 2020, dated 31.08.2019. Thereafter, respondent Nos.7 to 11 have also executed simple mortgage deed in favour of GHMC under a registered document No.1768 of 2021, dated 05.03.2021.
xvi) The aforesaid documents were executed in violation of status quo order dated 07.12.2004 passed by this Court in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004.
xvii) Pursuant to the said gift deeds and development agreement, the unofficial respondents approached respondent No.3 for grant of approval / construction permission in respect of the petitioners' property i.e., plot Nos.10 and 11, admeasuring 500 square yards each, showing the said plots within Sy.No.66/15 of Mansoorabad Village. Then, the petitioners herein have filed W.P. No.2464 of 2021, and this Court has passed an interim order on 22.02.2021, directing the official respondents to consider the objections / representations made by the petitioners before granting building permission to respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the subject property.
8
KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 xviii) On coming to know about the mortgage deed, the petitioners herein have submitted a representation dated 16.03.2021 to respondent No.3 informing all the aforesaid facts and requested not to grant building permission for construction of a Commercial Complex in favour of the unofficial respondents. Respondent No.3 - GHMC vide its letter dated 15.04.2021, requested the petitioners herein to settle the matter with regard to the title dispute in the appropriate department and forum. Respondent No.3 accordingly granted building permit in favour of unofficial respondents. Therefore, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition to cancel the said building permit dated 15.04.2021 issued in favour of unofficial respondents on the ground that they have obtained the same by misrepresentation and suppression of facts including the status quo order dated 07.12.2004 granted by this Court in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004.
xix) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to set aside the impugned building permit dated 15.04.2021 issued in favour of unofficial respondents.
5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.5 to 11:
i) Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 11, would submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable since the grievance of the petitioners herein is in violation of orders passed by this Court in CMP No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004, and they have already filed a contempt petition. 9
KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 Therefore, the present writ petition has to be dismissed on the said ground alone.
ii) He would further submit that the petitioners have alternative remedy, and without availing the same, they have filed the present writ petition. The Court below has passed a reasoned judgment in O.S. No.1166 of 2021 wherein it was specifically observed that the petitioners herein are not having any right or title or possession over the subject property.
iii) Referring to the findings of the Court below in the judgment dated 13.02.2004 in O.S. No.1166 of 2001, learned counsel would submit that, the said findings are reasoned and are based on both oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the Court below has dismissed the suit with regard to the relief of perpetual injunction. Therefore, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have executed respective gift deeds in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 11 respectively, who in turn executed a development agreement-cum-GPA in favour of respondent Nos.12 to 15. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity in it.
iv) With the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel sought to dismiss the present writ petition.
6. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF GHMC:
i) Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, would submit that, respondent No.3 does not have any power to go into the title of the parties. It only 10 KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 examines prima facie title and possession of the person seeking building permission. If at all, the parties have a dispute involving title, they have to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication. Therefore, respondent No.3, vide its letter dated 15.04.2021, requested the petitioners to settle the dispute before the appropriate department or forum. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity in the said letter as well as the building permit granted in favour of the unofficial respondents.
ii) With the above said submissions, learned standing counsel sought to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) The above said facts as well as submissions made by the respective counsel would reveal that the petitioners herein are claiming that they are the owners of Plot Nos.10 and 11, admeasuring 500 square yards each, making a total extent of 1000 square yards in Survey No.66/14, situated at Mansoorabad Village, Hyderabad East Taluk of Hyderabad District, under registered documents bearing Sale Deed Nos.1590 of 1968 and 1589 of 1968, both dated 05.04.1968. Whereas, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are claiming that they are owners of land, admeasuring 500 square yards each, in Sy.No.66/15 of the very same village by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.426 of Revenue (Assignment-V) Department, dated 23.06.2001 and letter No.E4/2844/2001, dated 24.05.2001 of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the proceedings No.C/3138/2002, dated 30.07.2002, of the Deputy Collector 11 KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 and Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar, respectively, as the said lands were allotted to them on account of death of their husbands, A. Rambhupal Reddy and Mr. C. Niranjan, Security Officer and P.C. 309 in the Naxal Landmine Blast on 07.03.2000. Petitioner No.1 and his mother had filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No.1166 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar, Hyderabad, against respondent Nos.2 and 5 and also the Government, seeking for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of said Plot Nos.10 and 11. The said suit was decreed in part by the trial Court to the extent of granting the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the said plots, but rejected the relief of perpetual injunction, vide judgment and decree dated 13.02.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein preferred first appeal vide A.S. No.2322 of 2004, and this Court vide order dated 07.12.2004 in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004 directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day. Further, this Court vide order dated 07.03.2017 directed the Registry to summon the entire record pertaining to the allotment of land in Sy.No.66/15 of Mansoorabad village along with File No.LC2/7803/98 from respondent No.2 - District Collector.
ii) Thus, the above said facts would reveal that, there is a dispute with regard to the identification of property, as the petitioners herein are claiming that they are the owners of plot Nos.10 and 11 in Sy.No.66/14, whereas, unofficial respondents are claiming that they are the owners of land in Sy.No.66/15. Thus, there is a cloud over the title of both the 12 KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 parties. A suit vide O.S. No.1166 of 20021 was filed for declaration and perpetual injunction and the same was decreed in part. An appeal vide A.S. No.2322 of 2004 is filed and it is pending. There is an order dated 07.12.2004 to maintain status quo, which was passed after hearing both parties. The said order is subsisting.
iii) It is relevant to note that the appeal filed by petitioner No.1 and his mother was allowed on 22.01.2005 by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administrative, Hyderabad, and all the plots covered by the sale deeds executed and registered in the years 1966 and 1967 including the petitioners were excluded from the holding of Mr. P.T. Venkatachari and the matter was remitted back to the Special Officer & Competent Authority (SO & CA), ULC, Hyderabad for disposal afresh. Pursuant to the same, the SO & CA, by order dated 18.07.2005 declared Mr. P.T. Venkatachari as Non-surplus holder. Thus, the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were concluded in favour of the petitioners and other plot owners, and the said orders became final. Therefore, the very basis of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the said suit is lost.
iv) During subsistence of status quo orders dated 07.12.2004 passed by this Court in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004, respondent Nos.5 and 6 had executed Gift Deeds bearing document Nos.3928 of 2019 and 3861 of 2019, dated 24.07.2019 and 17.07.2019 gifting the said 500 square yards of land each in Survey No.66/15 in 13 KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 favour of their children, respondent Nos.7 to 11 respectively. Respondent Nos.7 to 11, in turn, entered into a registered Development Agreement - cum - General Power of Attorney with respondent Nos.12 to 15 vide document No.776 of 2020, dated 31.08.2019 in respect of the said land for development of the said property into a commercial complex. Respondent Nos.7 to 11 have also executed simple mortgage deed in favour of GHMC under a registered document No.1768 of 2021, dated 05.03.2021. Pursuant to the said development agreement, the unofficial respondents have submitted an application with respondent No.3 on 21.01.2020 for building permission showing the subject property in an area of 836.12 square meters as vacant plot in Sy.No.66/15 situated at Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, for the purpose of development of the said land into Commercial Complex consisting of One Cellar, Ground + 4 Upper Floors. On coming to know about the attempts made by respondent Nos.7 to 15 to obtain building permit, the petitioners herein have filed W.P. No.2464 of 2021, seeking a direction against respondent No.3, not to grant any construction permission to respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the petitioners' property i.e., Plot Nos.10 and 11, admeasuring 500 square yards each in Sy.No.66/14 of Mansoorabad Village, and this Court vide order dated 22.02.2021, passed the following:
The Court made the following ORDER: "Notice before admission.14
KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to take out personal notice to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and file proof of service into the Registry. Post on 30-03-2021.
The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, has stated that as on date there is no system of verifying as to whether any application for building permission is made by any person in respect of the subject property, and whether any objections are filed to the same, like that of a Caveat in the Courts. Moreover, as of now, the entire system has become online under the TS-bPASS. Therefore, it is only on the self- certification made by the applicants, the building permissions are granted. The learned Standing Counsel has further stated that in case a specific direction is issued by the Courts, the Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, will try to verify whether any applications or objections are pending, to the best extent possible.
In view of the above made submissions, the official respondents are directed to take into consideration the objections/representations made by the petitioners before granting building permission to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in respect of the subject proper."
Thus, this Court directed respondent No.3 to take into consideration of the objections / representations made by the petitioners before granting building permission in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein in respect of the subject property. A similar order was passed in W.P. No.2353 of 2021 on 02.02.2021.
15
KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021
v) The petitioners submitted a representation dated 16.03.2021, to respondent No.3, informing all the aforesaid facts and requested not to grant building permission for construction of a Commercial Complex in favour of the unofficial respondents. Respondent No.3 - GHMC vide its letter dated 15.04.2021, requested the petitioners herein to settle the matter with regard to the title dispute before the appropriate department or forum. Respondent No.3, accordingly granted building permit in favour of unofficial respondents. Therefore, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition to cancel the said building permit dated 15.04.2021, issued in favour of unofficial respondents on the ground that they have obtained the same by misrepresentation and suppression of facts including the pendency of the appeal and status quo order dated 07.12.2004 granted by this Court in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004.
vi) A perusal of the proceedings dated 15.04.2021, would reveal that though respondent No.3 mentions that the objections submitted by the petitioners herein are considered and examined in detail with regard to the land in Sy.No.66/14, and directed the petitioners to settle the matter with regard to the title disputes before the appropriate department or forum, respondent No.3 has not considered the contentions / objections raised by the petitioners herein including the fact of pendency of A.S. No.2322 of 2004, which is pending before this Court, and also the status quo orders passed therein on 07.12.2004 in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004, and also the contention that the 16 KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 unofficial respondents have applied for building permission by misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
8. CONCLUSION:
i) There is dispute with regard to the identification of property as the petitioners are claiming that the subject plots are situated in Sy.No.66/14, whereas, unofficial respondents are claiming that their property is in Sy.No.66/15. The appeal filed by the petitioners is pending for adjudication before this Court with regard to the relief of perpetual injunction which was rejected by the trial Court, though a decree for declaration was granted declaring the petitioners as owners of plot Nos.10 and 11 in Sy.No.66/14. During pendency of the said appeal, this Court vide order dated 07.12.2004, granted status quo in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004, and the said orders are still subsisting. Despite of the said status quo orders, respondent No.5 has executed Gift Deed, bearing document No.3928 of 2019 dated 24.07.2019, gifting the said 500 square yards of land in Survey No.66/15 in favour of her children, respondent Nos.7 and 8. Respondent No.6 had also executed gift deed No.3861 of 2019 dated 17.07.2019, gifting the said land admeasuring 500 square yards in Sy.No.66/15 of Mansoorabad Village in favour of her children, respondent Noso.9 to 11. Respondent Nos.7 to 11 in turn entered into a registered Development Agreement - cum - General Power of Attorney with Builders, respondent Nos.12 to 15 vide document No.776 of 2020, dated 31.08.2019 in respect of the said land for development of the said property into commercial complex. 17
KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021 Respondent Nos.7 to 11 have also executed simple mortgage deed in favour of GHMC under a registered document No.1768 of 2021, dated 05.03.2021. Basing on the said documents, the unofficial respondents have obtained the building permission dated 15.04.2021 and there is no mention about pendency of the said appeal and granting of status quo orders etc. Thus, there is clear misrepresentation and suppression of facts by the unofficial respondents while making the application dated 21.01.2020 to respondent No.3 for building permission. Even, respondent No.3 without considering the said facts and also the objections raised by the petitioners including the status quo orders granted by this Court, granted building permission in favour of unofficial respondents on 15.04.2021. On the other hand, respondent No.3 directed the petitioners to settle the title dispute in the appropriate department and forum. Thus, it is clear that respondent No.3 has not considered the objections raised by the petitioners in proper perspective while according building permission in favour of unofficial respondents. Viewed from any angle, the action of respondent No.3 in granting building permit dated 15.04.2021 in favour of unofficial respondents is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and so also the proceedings dated 15.04.2021. Respondent No.3 failed to consider that there is dispute with regard to the identification of property and if respondent Nos.7 to 15 proceed with construction, the interest and claim of the petitioners in A.S. No.2322 of 2004 will be defeated.
18
KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021
ii) As observed above, the husbands of respondent Nos.5 and 6, A. Rambhupal Reddy and Mr. C. Niranjan, Security Officer and Police Constable - 309 respectively while on duty of late A. Madhava Reddy, the then Minister for Panchayat Raj, died in the Naxal Landmine Blast on 07.03.2000. The Government have allotted the land to an extent of 500 square yards each in Sy.No.66/15 of Mansoorabad Vilage by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.426 of Revenue (Assignment-V) Department, dated 23.06.2001 and letter No.E4/2844/2001, dated 24.05.2001 of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the proceedings No.C/3138/2002, dated 30.07.2002, of the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar, respectively. But, though the land was allotted by the Government, unfortunately, respondent No.5 is facing problem due to the dispute with regard to the identification of property. In view of the same, the purpose for which the land allotted to respondent No.5, as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.1409 of Revenue, dated 19.08.1978 and G.O.Ms.No.155 of G.A.(SC.C) Department, dated 14.04.1997 would be defeated. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to lok into the matter personally and take necessary steps to resolve the issue as early as possible890, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, and the building permit No.1/C3/05541/2021, dated 15.04.2021, accorded by respondent No.3 in file No.1/C3/01220/2020 in favour of unofficial respondents is hereby set aside.
19
KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021
iv) For the foregoing discussion, I.A. No.2 of 2021 is dismissed.
v) 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 3rd September, 2021 Mgr