THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.347 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. L.Rama, learned counsel for the
appellants; Ms. B.Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for
respondent No.1; Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned
Standing Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4; and Mr. Jalli Narender, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.44607 of 2022 filed by the appellants as the writ petitioners.
3. Appellants had filed the related writ petition praying for the following relief:
To issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents No.3 and 4 in 2 issuing the letter vide Lr.No.590/ TPS/CRZ/GHMC/2022 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and also in violation of Articles 19, 21, 31 and 300A of Indian Constitution and in violation of GHMC Act. Consequently to direct respondents No.3 and 4 to cancel the building construction permit order vide No.1256/GHMC/CHR/2022-BP dt.04.05.2022 pending disposal of the O.S.No.178/2020 before the IX Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad.
4. From a perusal of the materials on record including the order dated 13.12.2022 we find that Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has issued building permit order dated 04.05.2022 in favour of respondent No.5 and others for construction of building in respect of land to the extent of Acs.3.04 guntas in Survey Nos.295 and 296 of Gaddinnaram Village.
5. According to learned counsel for the appellants, they are the holders of occupancy rights certificate. However, over a period of time their possession and other rights over the said land came to be disturbed by various persons who thereafter lodged claim over the said land by virtue of 3 forged and fabricated sale deeds. In this connection, appellants have instituted O.S.No.178 of 2020 on the file of learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge held as follows:
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel, the complaint is given by one Shaik Sultan Ahmed in the year 2019 stating that he is GPA holder of legal heirs of Late M. Venkatarama Rao. When it comes to the present writ petition, the same is filed by four persons represented by their GPA holder S. Sudhir and the complainant himself in the said representation admits that there are certain sale deeds in favour of the applicant or the unofficial respondent who has obtained permission. When a complaint is filed before the respondents seeking building permission, they can only look at the prima facie title to the property and legal possession. It is an admitted fact that there are documents of title and however, according to the petitioners, they are fabricated documents. Hence, the respondents have rightly come to the conclusion that they cannot decide all these issues and also whatever suits that are pending before the courts, there are no restraint orders against the GHMC from granting any permission to the unofficial respondent. In view of the 4 same, mere pendency of suits is not a ground for the respondent municipality not to grant any permission.
8. In the considered opinion of this court, the respondent municipality has rightly rejected the complaint of the petitioners and if the petitioners want any relief, the only remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the competent civil court. Hence, this court finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned proceedings passed by the respondents.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. According to learned Single Judge, GHMC at the time of granting building permission has only to examine prima facie title and possession of the claimant over the subject land. Insofar the civil suit is concerned, there is no restraint order against the GHMC from granting building permission.
8. We concur with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge.
9. On a query by the Court as to whether GHMC is a defendant in O.S.No.178 of 2020, learned counsel for the 5 appellants submits that GHMC is not a party to the said suit.
10. That being the position, we find no good ground to entertain the appeal. However, it is open to the appellants to avail their remedy in the pending civil suit which, in fact, was observed by the learned Single Judge.
11. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 17.03.2023 vs