THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
W.A.No.874 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. U.Shanthibhushan Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant; Ms. B.Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban
Development representing respondent No.1; Mr. S.Surender
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC) representing respondents No.2 and 3; Mr. P.Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA) representing respondent No.4; and Mr. G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 11.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.35746 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition seeking a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 for revoking the building ::2::
permission granted to respondents No.5 to 11 in respect of the subject land on 04.08.2022.
4. Appellant had contended before the learned Single Judge that there are civil disputes between the appellant and respondents No.5 to 11 with regard to the subject land; if respondents No.5 to 11 are permitted to proceed with the building construction, it would cause prejudice to the claim of the appellant in the civil suit i.e., O.S.No.981 of 2022 instituted by him and pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Appellant further contended that the subject land has intruded into his bigger plot of land and being aggrieved by such intrusion, he had submitted representations before respondents No.2 and 3 on 16.07.2022 and 19.07.2022 seeking revocation of building permission already granted in favour of respondents No.5 to 11 in respect of the subject land.
5. Learned Government Pleader had pointed out before the learned Single Judge that respondents No.2 and 3 were only required to have prima facie satisfaction as regards title and ::3::
possession of the appellant in respect of the subject land in which permission for construction is sought; upon verification of the documents submitted by respondents No.5 to 11, respondents No.2 and 3 were prima facie satisfied about their title and possession over the subject land and accordingly granted building permission; the same cannot be revoked now by the said respondents.
6. Learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition vide the order dated 16.09.2022, relevant portion of which reads as under:
This Court has time and again held that GHMC/Municipal Authorities are only required to verify as to the existence of prima facie title while granting permission and cannot adjudicate on the title dispute between the parties.
Admittedly, the sale deeds show the title of unofficial respondents to the subject property, for which the respondent-authorities have granted building permission. If that be so, mere pendency of a suit between the parties cannot be taken note of by the respondent-authorities either to deny grant of permission or revoke the permission granted.
::4::
Further, mere grant of permission building permission would not confer any title and grant of such building permission would be subject to the orders passed by the competent Civil Court and the construction, if any, made by the unofficial respondents on the suit schedule property would be governed by doctrine of lis pendens.
In view of the same, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). The costs shall be paid to the High Court State Legal Services Committee within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to clause (b) of the letter of approval for commencement of work dated 04.08.2022 issued by respondent No.2 and submits that the extent of plot in respect of which building permission is sought should not be part of a bigger plot split for the purpose of obtaining permission for building construction. He submits that if respondents No.5 to 11 are permitted to proceed with the construction in terms of the letter of approval dated 04.08.2022, ::5::
the same would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the appellant in O.S.No.981 of 2022 where he is the plaintiff.
8. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to such contention of learned counsel for the appellant.
9. Respondents No.2 and 3, on verification of the documents submitted by respondents No.5 to 11, had granted building permission for construction of ground floor plus one upper floor in plot No.NIL, locality: URSU, Survey No.308B (old 308), Urus Village, Kashibugga, GWMC (M), GWMC, Warangal (Urban) District (already referred to as the subject land). It is not the case of the appellant that respondents No.5 to 11 have violated the conditions of building permission or had obtained the same by mis- representation.
10. On a query by the Court as to whether any injunction has been granted by the civil court in O.S.No.981 of 2022, learned counsel for the appellant submits that till date no injunction order has been passed.
::6::
11. That being the position, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact, learned Single Judge has safeguarded the interest of the appellant by holding that mere grant of building permission would not confer any title and grant of such building permission would be subject to such orders that may be passed by the competent civil court and would also be covered by the doctrine of lis pendens. That being the position, no case for interference is made out.
12. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 06.02.2023 LUR