THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.31935 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.3 in revoking the building permission granted through TS-bPASS, vide proceedings No.336514/ GHMC/18528/2023 dated 06.11.2023 by insisting the petitioner to produce NOC from ULC Department for Plot No.B- 368/A, admeasuring 200 square yards in Sy. No.74 situated at Kondapur village, Serelingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and contrary to law.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development for respondent No.1, Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
3. Petitioner contends that in similar circumstances this Court while disposing of a batch of Writ Petitions, vide W.P. No.21580 of 2008 & batch dated 28.0.2017 had held that the 2 lands in Sy. Nos.5 to 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 60, 71 to 77 of Kondapur village cannot be declared as surplus lands under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the ULC Act') and having vested with the State, since the ULC proceedings initiated have not come up to the stage of issuance of notification under Section 10(6) of the State ULC Act before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 was adopted by the State and thus, the proceedings against the subject lands stood abated.
4. Petitioner further contends that the said order of this Court dated 28.03.2017 had attained finality and, as such, the respondent authority cannot insist upon obtaining NOC from the revenue authorities on the ground the said lands are kept in prohibitory list on account of Government lands, being determined as ceiling surplus lands. Thus, the petitioner contends that the ground on which the authorities have issued the impugned proceedings dated 06.11.202 is invalid.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that even the other objection that the proposed site falls under the unapproved lay out and is not regularized under any G.O. is also incorrect as the petitioner had obtained regularization of the aforesaid plot under Lay-out Regularization (LRS) scheme, 3 vide G.O.Ms. No.151 M.A. dated 02.11.2015 vide proceedings dated 31.01.2020. Thus, the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner, without taking note of the fact that in so far as objection regarding NOC from ULC authorities is concerned, the same stands settled by the judgment of this Court, while in respect of requirement of obtaining regularization of the plot being in an unapproved lay out, the petitioner had submitted approval obtained while seeking building permission itself.
6. Learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents do not dispute the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to this Court holding the proceedings under ULC Act getting abated would however, submit that against the order of this Court in W.P. No.21580 of 2008 & batch, the respondent authorities had preferred an Intra Court Appeal, vide W.A. No.166 of 2018 and the said Writ Appeal is pending consideration. However, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents fairly submit that there is no stay/suspension of the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge in the above Writ Appeal.
4
7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
8. At the outset it is to be noted that mere obtaining granting of building permission does not confer or confirm the title of the applicant to the property. (See: Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector, Hyderabad District 1. It is equally well settled that while granting building permission, the authorities are only required to see the prima facie title and possession.
9. Further, a Division bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.9248 of 2021 decided on 28.08.2021 while taking into consideration the law laid down in the case of Sub-Registrar, Shameerpet v. K. Ramakrishna Raju 2, had held that it is only the State Government which has the power to issue any notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration has no authority to direct properties to be included in prohibitory list.
10. If the analogy of the aforesaid decision is applied to the facts of this case, the impugned proceeding which refers to the subject land being put in prohibitory list claiming that the same to be a ceiling surplus land in absence of any G.O. being issued 1 2001(13) ALD 600 2 Order dated 21.07.2004 in W.A. No.707 of 2002 5 by the Government to the aforesaid fact cannot be held to be valid. Further, it is also not shown to this Court that any G.O. in respect of the aforesaid land being declared as ceiling surplus land and being directed to be placed under prohibitory list is issued in exercise of powers under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the impugned revocation letter issued by the respondent No.3 authority on the ground that the subject land has been entered in the prohibitory watch list as ceiling surplus land cannot be held to be valid ground for revocation/rejection of the building permission sought for by the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order to that extent is set aside.
13. However, with regard to the other ground of revocation of the permission that the subject plot is situated in unapproved lay out and the same is not regularized under any G.O, though it was contended before this Court that the petitioner had obtained regularization under G.O.Ms. No.151 MA dated 02.11.2015, vide proceedings dated 31.01.2020, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is to be directed to submit the aforesaid approval obtained from the authorities concerned to 6 the respondent authorities enabling the said authorities to consider the same for grant of building permission. On petitioner submitting the approval obtained regularizing the plot under the LRS, the authorities are directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of building permission by considering the same without reference to the objection relating to the said land having been entered in prohibitory watch register by showing the same as ceiling surplus land and calling upon the petitioner to obtain NOC from the competent authority under ULC Act.
14. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
___________________
Date: 18.11.2023 T. VINOD KUMAR, J
MRKR