THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 10352 OF 2021
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" .... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Ex.P1 Rejection Letter dated 10.12.2020 in respect of building permission application bearing File No. 2/C21/15507/2020 dated 16.11.2020 and refusing to consider the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of GHMC Act and the common order passed in W.P.Nos. 14881 and 14885 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020 and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to grant building permission to the petitioner firm in respect of plot Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 38 admeasuring to an extent of 800 sq. yards in Sy.Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as prayed in Application bearing File No. 2/C21/15507/2020 dated 16.11.2020 as directed in W.P.Nos. 14881 and 14885 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S. Sridhar submits that one Alhaj Shaik Fareed executed a registered an agreement of sale -cum- General Power of attorney dated 07.01.2013 in favour of the petitioner firm conveying rights and possession in respect of plot bearing Nos. 35, 36 and 37 in Survey Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 totally admeasuring 600 square 2 yards situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal. It is submitted that Smt. Vasireddy Arundhathi executed and registered a development agreement in respect of plot No. 38 in Survey Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 admeasuring 200 square yards of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, the petitioner has made an Application to the respondents for construction of a residential building duly submitting all relevant documents showing title and possession. It is submitted that the petitioner's Application was rejected vide letter dated 10.12.2020 on the ground that the site under reference in Sy.Nos 41/12 and 41/13 of Khanamet Village is recorded as Poramboke and as per Prohibited list of Registration and Stamps Departments of Telangana Sy. Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 of Khanamet Village is recorded as government land. He submits that in the very same locality where the respondents are claiming that this is an assigned land, several constructions have come up and bank loans were also granted and constructions have been in existence from several years. He submits that in view of the law laid down in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District1, 1 2001(3) ALD 600 3 they cannot insist on production of "NOC'. It is submitted that when plot Nos. 140, 141, 154, 155, 172 and 173 of Survey No. 78 of Hafeezpet Village were rejected on the ground that the said lands are government lands, the owners of plots filed Writ Petitions No. 14881 and 14885 of 2020 challenging the rejection orders. The Division Bench of this Court has set aside the said orders and directed the respondents to grant building permission to the applicants. It is submitted that in spite of the repeated orders passed by this court, the respondents on extraneous reasons rejected the building permission.
3. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation. Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel submits that as per the records available, the land situated in Survey No. 41/12 and 41/13 is recorded as government assigned land. It is submitted that the respondent Corporation having verified the records has rejected the building permission as they have taken into consideration the letter addressed by the District Collector and the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and further as the property is placed under the prohibitory list. Further, it is submitted that the said site is getting affected in the maser plan road. According to the 4 learned Standing Counsel, as the land is government land, the Corporation has rightly refused to grant permission.
4. In Hyderabad Potteries case (cited supra), it is observed that:
" Of course, the Commissioner has to consider the objections, if any, raised for grant of permission. But, an objection raised by a member of the Committee itself would not be enough to reject the application for grant of permission. The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants. The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objector (s), whether the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. All that the Commissioner required to do is to find out pram facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purpose of granting permission and nothing more."
In the light of the law laid down by this Court in the above judgment, while granting permission to the applicant, they can only look at the prima facie title and lawful possession, apart from that they cannot insist for NOC from the Revenue or any other department. It is the specific case of the petitioner that 5 there are documents to show that the Sri Alhaj Shaik Fareed and Vasireddy Arundhathi are owners of the respective plots and have executed the development agreement in favour of the petitioner. Further, it is the specific case of the petitioner that there are several buildings constructed and the municipality has granted permission. The counter is very much silent on this aspect, then it has to be presumed that they are admitting the fact that they have granted permission in the very same locality. When it is the case of the respondents that Survey No. 41/12 and 41/13 is a government land and they are not granting permission, it is not stated in the counter on what basis they have granted permission to other applicants. Further, the ground that petitioner's case cannot be considered as it is going to be affected as per the master plan has also no legs to stand as they have already granted permission.
5. In the light of the law laid down in Hyderabad Potteries Case (supra) and also in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 403 of 2022, dated 05.07.2022, the respondents shall process the building Application of the petitioner in accordance with law without taking into consideration the report of the District Collector.
6
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 26th October 2022 ksld 7 8