THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.404 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. P.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for
the appellant; Ms. B.Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Department for
respondent No.1; Mr. M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing
Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) for respondents No.2 and 3; Mr. D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4; and Mr. K.S.Suneel, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. This appeal is directed against the interim order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6680 of 2023 filed by respondent No.5 as the writ petitioner.
2
3. Respondent No.5 has filed the related writ petition seeking the following relief:
To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the order dt.03.03.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.683/TPS/CP/ LDNZ/GHMC/2022 to the extent of cancelling the permission granted in favour of the petitioner vide Permit No.2/C3/17656/2018 dt.13.11.2018 and directing the petitioner not proceed further with the construction activity, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and also against the settled principles of law and consequently set-aside the same.
4. An interlocutory application has also been filed, being I.A.No.1 of 2023, for stay of the order dated 03.03.2023.
5. On 17.03.2023, learned Single Judge ordered as follows:
Heard both sides.
There shall be interim suspension as prayed for. However, any constructions carried out on the subject 3 property are subject to further orders being passed by this Court.
List on 16.06.2023.
6. From the materials on record we find that appellant has raised a dispute qua respondent No.5 in respect of plot Nos.474 and 475 out of Survey Nos.66/11, Plot Nos.474 and 475 out of Survey No.66/12 and Plot No.79 out of Survey No.66/14 situated at Rock Town Colony, Mansoorabad Village (hereinafter referred to as, 'the subject land).
7. We find that the injunction suit filed by the appellant was dismissed all throughout right up to the Supreme Court. Thereafter appellant has filed a declaratory suit without any injunction. Notwithstanding the same, appellant lodged representation before the GHMC to stop construction carried out by respondent No.5 over the subject land. We may mention that respondent No.5 was granted building permission by GHMC on 13.11.2018. 4
8. After a lengthy narration, GHMC has passed the following order on 03.03.2023:
There are various sale deeds in favour of all the parties and all the parties are claiming the same land on registered documents. There are O.S.No.758 of 2017 & O.S.No.878 of 2017 cases pending prior to the building permission and O.S.No.454 of 2019, O.S.No.1652 of 2022, C.R.P.No.2886 of 2022 & W.P.No.7656 of 2021 are pending after the building permission. The permission was granted to the respondent/applicant (i.e., G.Lalithamma) on 13-11-2018, but not started construction within the time and subsequently Chitta Santhisri applied building permission vide application No.2/C3/08056/2021 dated 28.06.2021 got fee intimation letter on the same land and paid the fees. Hence, the permission granted in favour of G.Lalithamma and fee intimation issued in favour of Chitta Santhisri are stands cancelled. G.Lalithamma is hereby directed not to proceed further with the construction activity. All the parties are hereby directed to approach civil court to establish their title, as all the parties are having registered sale deeds. After that only they can apply for building permission, as the GHMC is not competent authority to decide title disputes.
9. From the above, it is seen that GHMC has cancelled the permission granted to respondent No.5 on the ground 5 that there are multiple sale deeds in respect of the subject land and all the parties are claiming ownership. It is this order which is under impugnment before the learned Single Judge.
10. Learned Single Judge has posted the matter on 16.06.2023 and in the meanwhile directed interim suspension of the order dated 03.03.2023, however, making it clear that any construction carried out on the subject land would be subject to further orders by the Court.
11. Since the above is an interim order, we see no good reason to interfere with the same in appeal proceeding. It is open to the appellant to contest the writ petition and also seek vacation of the interim order.
12. Without expressing any opinion on merit, we decline to entertain the writ appeal.
13. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 31.03.2023 vs