THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.25046 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to entertain any applications that are being submitted by the third parties seeking sanction of building plan in respect of petitioner's landed property, being Plot No.55, admeasuring 300 square yards, and Plot Nos.57 and 66 admeasuring 600 square yards, in all, totalling to 900 square yards in Sy.Nos.78 to 93, situated at Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being contrary to the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, and the TS-bPASS Rules, 2020.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.
3. Petitioner claims to have purchased the landed property, admeasuring 900 square yards (300 + 600 sq. yds), under agreement of sale executed on 21.09.1992 and 05.10.1992 respectively and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Petitioner contends that pursuant to the agreement of sale entered into with their vendors and on payment of the agreed consideration, the petitioner was put in possession of the landed property 2 and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof till one Chintala Siva Lingam and their family members sought to dispossess the petitioner claiming title to the said land being the legal heirs of Chintala Pochaiah.
4. Petitioner further contends that when the said persons sought to dispossess/interfere with petitioner's possession, the petitioner had approached the police authorities and made a complaint of the said illegal acts resorted to by the legal heirs of Chintala Pochaiah, namely Chintala Siva Lingam and others. It is also contended by the petitioner that one M/s. Fateh Kishwari and others had filed a suit, being O.S.No.658 of 2010 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, against Sivalingam and others, for perpetual injunction; and that the concerned civil Court having jurisdiction, by its judgment, dated 19.12.2011, decreed the suit granting perpetual injunction in favour of Fateh Kishwari and others.
5. It is also contended by the petitioner that in spite of the said persons being injuncted by an order passed by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, the said persons without any valid claim are seeking to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in the land admeasuring 900 square yards and are approaching the respondents authorities by making an application for sanction of building plan. Thus, prays for a direction to the respondents not to grant/sanction any building plan.
3
6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that, the authorities while granting a building permission can only examine prima facie title of the applicant and that the said authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes.
7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
8. The petitioner is claiming title to the property on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 05.10.1992. The said agreement of sale relating to an immovable property and is required to be registered in terms of the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Thus, the said agreement of sale is an unauthorized document.
9. Further, as the petitioner is claiming title to the land on the basis of an unregistered agreement of sale from Chintala Pochaiah against whom an order of injunction dated 19.12.2011 has been passed by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction in O.S.No.658 of 2010, and since the said order attained finality; the claim of the petitioners that respondents authorities are seeking to grant permission to 3rd petitioner prima facie does not appeal to this Court for being interdicted.
10. Further, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the respondents authorities, while sanctioning building permit can only examine prima facie title of the applicant and cannot adjudicate the title dispute between the parties. The said position of law was reiterated in various 4 decisions, including the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Shalivahana Reddy v/s. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation 1 and erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v/s. Collector, Hyderabad 2 as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out in the present writ petition for granting any relief to the petitioner. However, it is open for the petitioner to avail remedy as available to him in accordance with law.
12. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:11.09.2023 GJ 1 W.P.Nos.14881 and 14885 of 2020 decided on 27.11.2020 2 2001 (3) ALD 600 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.25046 of 2023 11.09.2023 GJ