THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.585 OF 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Bhaskar Reddy)
This writ appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order
dated 04.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.26991 of 2022 allowing the writ petition.
2. The appellant is respondent No.5 in the writ
petition. Respondent No.5 herein is the writ petitioner. The writ petition has been filed to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 and 3 in revoking the building permission No.174509/GWMC/ 3416 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022, vide proceedings in File No.R-237229/GWMC/TP/2022, dated 20.06.2022, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to restore the building permission granted in her favour.
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner, claiming to be the owner of plot admeasuring 215.25 square yards situated in Survey No.157(new) and 552 (old) of Waddepally Revenue Village, Hanumakonda Mandal, Warangal City and Urban District, has applied for 2 building permission duly enclosing the necessary documents and respondent No.2 after considering the said documents granted building permission in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings No.174509/GWMC/ 3416 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022. However, the said permission was revoked by respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.R- 237229/GWMC/TP/2022 dated 20.06.2022, on the sole ground that a civil suit i.e., O.S.No.477 of 2020 is pending against the vendor of the petitioner and the appellant (respondent No.5 in the writ petition) and the vendor of the petitioner, to create dispute over the property, during the pendency of the suit has disposed of the property in favour of the petitioner and suppressing the fact of pendency of O.S.No.477 of 2020 the petitioner has obtained building permission from the respondent authority. The grievance of the petitioner as ventilated in the writ petition is that respondent No.2, in exercise of powers under Section 176(9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (briefly "the Act", hereinafter), has erroneously revoked the building permission on the ground of misrepresentation of facts and admittedly the petitioner is not a party to the suit, as such it cannot be 3 said that she has suppressed the said fact in her application. Respondent No.2 on being satisfied that the writ petitioner is having prima facie title has granted permission, whereas respondent No.5 in the writ petition (appellant) relying on the agreement of sale dated 01.08.2003 and the LRS proceedings dated 20.04.2018, has submitted objections and in fact respondent No.5 in the writ petition is not having any title or ownership over the subject property and thus prayed for allowing the writ petition.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the contesting respondent No.5 in the writ petition stating that the petitioner has suppressed the factum of pendency of the suit i.e., O.S.No.477 of 2020 on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, and originally his wife has purchased the property from Renuka Co-operative Housing Society Limited under agreement of sale dated 01.04.2003 and thereafter executed a registered gift deed in his favour on 21.10.2010 and as such he is the titleholder of the property. The petitioner knowing very well about the said fact purchased the subject property during the pendency of the suit and suppressing the said 4 fact, she obtained building permission and respondent No.2 has rightly revoked the order and the same does not warrant inference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition stating that the petitioner and the unofficial respondent No.5 in the writ petition are claiming the same property in respect of which a suit is pending before the civil court; the respondent corporation is not empowered to decide the title; if any permission is granted, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings; as such they have rightly revoked the building permission; and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 20.06.2022 impugned in the writ petition.
7. We have heard Mr. A. Rajendera Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondent No.1; Ms. P. Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3; Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.4; and 5 Mr. J. Dheeraj Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5, and perused the material on record.
8. The appellant is claiming title relying on a gift deed dated 21.10.2010 executed in his favour by his wife, who in turn said to have purchased the property vide agreement of sale dated 01.04.2003 from Housing Society Limited. Except stating that the appellant availed the benefit of the scheme introduced in G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 02.11.2015 for regularisation of unapproved layouts, no document of title is placed in support of his contention that he is the absolute owner of the property.
9. It is settled proposition of law that mere regularisation or payment of tax does not confer title in the property. Further, the suit instituted by the appellant is against the vendor of the petitioner, that too a suit for injunction simplicitor, which does not decide the inter se dispute with regard to title or ownership. The appellant knowing very well that the petitioner has purchased the property through a registered sale deed, vide document bearing No.13985 of 2021 dated 26.04.2021, and her vendor in turn purchased the same through a registered sale deed vide document No.22232 6 of 2019 dated 31.08.2019, did not take any steps for impleading the petitioner as a party defendant in the pending suit. Further, except submitting objection petition to the municipal corporation, the appellant has not instituted any suit disputing the title or obtained any orders restraining the Commissioner from entertaining the building application. Unless there are prohibitory/restraining orders, the statutory authorities can proceed to examine the claims of the parties. As per provisions of Sections 428 and 439 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (briefly "the GHMC Act", hereinafter) the Commissioner is empowered to examine the building applications basing on the title deeds. While examining prima facie verification of the title, the Commissioner cannot assume the role of an adjudicator or arbitrator to decide the inter se title disputes between the applicant for building permission and the objector. If the applicant is able to show prima facie title and he has right to proceed with the construction in conformity with the building permission granted by the Corporation.
7
10. Section 450 of the GHMC Act prescribes that at any time after permission to proceed with any building or work has been given, if the Commissioner is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under Section 428 or 433, he is empowered to cancel building permission.
11. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Commissioner has not given any reasons stating that the petitioner has suppressed the material information. Moreover, the petitioner is not a party to the pending suit and further the title of the petitioner is traceable to the registered documents, whereas the title of the appellant is based upon the agreement of sale. The Commissioner while exercising powers to grant building permission, if any objections regarding title are received, he is required to prima facie satisfy about the title of the applicant and he cannot decide the title dispute because he is not provided the adjudication machinery to resolve the inter se disputes.
8
12. It is also a settled principle that the person setting up a rival claim of title is free to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate relief in that regard. If the applications for building permission are rejected, merely on the ground of third party claims or disputes of title, it may result in serious hardship to the owners of the properties. Since the Commissioner has not applied his mind while issuing revocation orders, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition which does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of Letters Patent jurisdiction.
13. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 18.10.2022 JSU