THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 27339 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 4th respondent in rejecting the petitioner's representation / explanation dated 08.07.2021 to the shortfall notice vide proceedings Lr.No. 6657/TPS/Cir-21/SLZ/GHMC/2021, dated 03.08.2021 and not granting permission on the petitioner's application No. 2/C21/06657/2021 dated 14.04.2021 for construction of stilt + 4 building in the property bearing Plot No.42 in Sy.No. 41/11, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and set aside the proceedings dated 03.08.2021 and consequently direct the Respondents No. 2 to 4 to grant permission for construction pursuant to the application of the petitioner No. 2/C21/06657/2021 dated 14.04.2021 and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kona N.D.V. Ramana Rao submits that petitioner is the owner and possessor of Plot No. 42 in Survey No. 41/11 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He submits that petitioner submitted Application for construction of building vide Application No. 2/C21/06657/2021 dated 14.04.2021 before Respondents 2 and 3. Learned counsel submits that the respondents refused to act on the said Application in view of the 2 letter dated 06.11.2018 issued by the 5th respondent to the 2nd respondent requesting not to grant permission in respect of lands situated in Sy.No. 41/1 to 41/13 stating that they are assigned lands.
Learned counsel submits that this action of the respondents in issuing the shortfall letter dated 03.08.2021 is contrary to law. It is submitted that whenever an Application for building permission is filed, the respondents are bound to consider the same if they are prima facie satisfied with the title and possession of the applicant. Here, the respondents though having satisfied with the prima facie title have gone into the other aspects which are irrelevant and rejected the Application of the petitioner. He submits that this order of the respondents is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District1. It is submitted that aggrieved by the order dated 14.04.2021, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 12106 of 2021 and this Court by order dated 22.06.2021 directed to submit the representation / explanation to the shortfall notice and the respondent Corporation shall consider the same and pass necessary orders. It is further submitted that she had submitted representation / explanation dated 08.07.2021 bringing all facts to the notice of the respondents. Learned counsel 1 2001(3) ALD 600 3 submits that when once GHMC had regularized the plot under LRS scheme on thorough enquiry, now, it cannot be termed as a government land. It is submitted that without taking into consideration all these aspects, the 4th respondent had passed the impugned order dated 03.08.2021 rejecting the explanation dated 08.07.2021.
3. Heard Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.
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."4
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 there are several buildings constructed and the municipality has granted permission. When it is the case of the respondents that Survey No. 41/12 and 41/13 are government land and they are not granting permission, it is not stated on what basis they have granted permission in favour of other persons.
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. 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 5 6