Telangana High Court
Smt. Tera Lidia Prameela vs The Government Of Telangana on 2 July, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.16941 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the absolute owner and possessor, along with three others, of the property bearing House No.27-41 on Plot No.359 admeasuring 266.66 square yards situated in Sy.Nos.68/1, 70/1 and 71/1 of Neredmet, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, having got the same under registered document dt.25.07.2014; and that in order to construct a building therein, she had approached the respondents- authorities and obtained building permission dt.04.03.2021 for construction of stilt + three upper floors.
3. Petitioner further contends that the respondents-authorities, on a purported a representation/complaint dt.06.05.2024 made by one Mohd.Ayub, who has no semblance of title to the subject property, have issued a notice dt.16.05.2024 under Section 461 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'), calling upon the 2 petitioner to produce copies of the ownership and link documents along with sanction plan within three days; and that the petitioner on receiving the aforesaid notice, had submitted explanation on 29.05.2024 enclosing therewith various documents as detailed therein.
4. Petitioner further contends that the respondents-authorities, without considering the explanation and the documents enclosed therewith, are interfering with the construction work that is being carried on as per the building permit order dt.04.03.2021, which it is contended is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4, on instructions, submits that one Mohd.Ayub had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a representation/complaint dt.06.05.2024, whereby it has been claimed that the said Mohd.Ayub was successful in civil proceedings initiated in respect of the subject property, and thus, he had sought for initiation of action against the building permission obtained by the petitioner.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that upon receiving the representation/complaint from Mohd.Ayub enclosing therewith copy of the judgment and decree passed in his favour by the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, the authorities have issued notice dt.16.05.2024 to the petitioner, calling upon her to produce the documents as detailed therein 3 to enable the authorities to verify as to whether the petitioner has a prima facie title to the subject property for obtaining building permission from the respondents-authorities.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the petitioner has submitted documents on 29.05.2024, the authorities would examine the same and take further action in the matter by following due process of law.
8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
9. It is trite law that the respondents-authorities while according building permission are required only to verify prima facie title and possession and cannot adjudicate title dispute. Since, the respondents- authorities claim that one Mohd.Ayub had approached the respondents- authorities and submitted representation/complaint dt.06.05.2024, along with a copy of the judgment and decree passed by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction with respect to his title to the subject property, and thus, the respondents-authorities having issued notice dt.16.05.2024 to the petitioner under Section 461 of the Act, calling upon her to produce the documents and the petitioner also having submitted her reply along with relevant documents on 29.05.2024, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities should be directed to consider the explanation 4 and the documents as submitted by the petitioner and take further action in the matter by following due process of law.
10. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
__________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:02.07.2024 Note:
Furnish CC by today. (B/o) GJ