THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.67 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Maruthi Jadhav, learned Assistant
Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned
Advocate General appearing for the appellants and
Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing
Mr. Vishal Porandla, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.24451 of 2022 filed by the respondent as the writ petitioner. Appellants herein were arrayed as respondents in the writ proceedings.
3. Respondent had filed the related writ petition for quashing of shortfall intimation letter dated 26.06.2021 issued by the 2nd appellant and for a direction to the 2 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.67 of 2023 appellants to reconsider the application of the respondent dated 04.05.2021 for grant of building permission.
4. Case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that it had entered into a Development Agreement- cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) with one Sri B.Raghuveera, who is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring 795.40 square yards in Plot Nos.21, 22 Part, 27 Part and 28, forming part of Survey No.41/8 & 9 of Khanamet Village in Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'subject land'). Respondent thereafter made an application before the appellants through the owner for grant of building permission. Instead of granting building permission, appellants issued the impugned letter stating that the subject land is recorded as government assigned land as per letter of the District Collector of Ranga Reddy District. It was asserted before the learned Single Judge by the respondent that the subject land is a private property and at no point of time it was recorded as government land or assigned land. Owner of the subject land 3 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.67 of 2023 had purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 02.05.2006 and 04.05.2006.
5. Learned Single Judge referred to and relied upon a decision of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District1 whereafter she came to the conclusion that refusal on the part of the appellants to grant building permission was not justified. All that appellants were required to ascertain was prima facie title and possession of the applicant. As a matter of fact, learned Single Judge found that building permissions for construction of several buildings in the same survey number were granted by the appellants earlier. If it is government or assigned land, appellants could not have granted such building permission. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated 26.10.2022 allowed the writ petition holding as follows:
"In the light of the law laid down by this Court, 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 1 2001 (3) ALD 600 4 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.67 of 2023 department. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner - company has entered into a development agreement-cum-GPA with one Sri B. Raghuveera, who is the owner and possessor of land in Plot Nos. 21, 22 Part, 27 Part and 28 admeasuring 795.40 square yards forming part of Survey No. 41/8 & 9 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide document dated 22.02.2022. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there are several buildings constructed and the municipality has granted permission. When the counter is silent on this aspect, it has to be presumed that the respondent Corporation is admitting the fact that they have granted permission in the very same locality. Further, it is the case of the respondents that the lands in Sy.No. 41/1 to 41/13 situated at Khanamet Village of Serilingampally Mandal are government lands and are attracted by the provisions of Telangana Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and further several litigations are also pending on subject lands, 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 order impugned is set aside. The respondents shall process the building Application of the petitioner in accordance with law without insisting on production of 'NOC' from the revenue authorities and without taking into consideration the letter of the District Collector dated 06.11.2018.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."
5 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.67 of 2023
6. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
7. This aspect of the matter was also gone into by a division bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.403 of 2022 (Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. Mr. Syed Iftekhar Ahmed), decided on 05.07.2022 and very recently in Writ Appeal No.30 of 2023 (State of Telangana v. M/s. Blue Wings Developers LLP), decided on 06.01.2023.
8. In Writ Appeal No.30 of 2023 (supra), this Court held as follows:
"9. Learned Single Judge held that all that GHMC is required to examine at the time of granting permission is prima facie title of an applicant. If the State has a better claim to the subject property, it has the remedy to establish its claim. Further, entries in revenue records are not conclusive of title; neither does it confer any title. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Potteries [2010 (5) SCC 382].
6 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.67 of 2023
10. From the materials on record, learned Single Judge recorded the finding of fact that writ petitioners could establish that they are in possession of the subject property since last eighty years; on the same subject property, earlier municipal permissions were granted in 1973 and 1974 to Sri Vishram Patel for building construction; therefore, it is not open to GHMC to raise new objection every time fresh building permission is sought for; barring the land revenue records, there is no other document to even prima facie support the claim of the Government.
11. Similar is the view taken by a learned Single Judge in the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.16868 of 2022 (Syed Iftekhar Ahmed v. Commissioner, GHMC). Appeal filed by the GHMC against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge being WA.No.403 of 2022 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide the order dated 05.07.2022.
12. On thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge to warrant interference."
9. Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that if the State has a better claim to the subject property, it has the remedy to establish its claim. Till such time, it cannot have a veto over grant of building permission by the municipal authorities if the latter is prima facie satisfied 7 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.67 of 2023 about the title and possession of the subject land by the applicant.
10. That being the position and upon thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we do not find any good ground to entertain the appeal.
11. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 19.01.2023 KL