Telangana High Court
Gangadi Mohan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 25 November, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
W.P. Nos.24947 OF 2022 AND 31861 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. E. Venkat Siddharth, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.24947 of 2022 and respondent No.5 in W.P. No.31861 of 2024, Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GWMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 in both the writ petitions and Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. Kanumuri Kalyani, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.P. No.24947 of 2022 and petitioner in W.P. No.31861 of 2024.
2. The petitioner in W.P. No.24947 of 2022 is arrayed as respondent No.5, while respondent No.5 is the petitioner in W.P. No.31861 of 2024 and the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC) and its officials are arrayed as respondent Nos.2 to 4 in both the writ petitions. Therefore, as the parties and lis involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, both the writ petitions were heard together and the same are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2
KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024
3. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No.24947 of 2022.
4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
i) The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the open plot bearing Plot No.7, admeasuring 248.44 square yards or 207.72 square metres in Survey No.240/B, situated at Lashkar Singaram Revenue Village, Hanamkonda Mandal and District, within the limits of GWMC (which is hereinafter referred to as 'subject plot'), on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.28619 of 2021, dated 23.11.2021.
ii) He has obtained instant approval building permit order dated 28.11.2021 from respondent No.2 for construction of Stilt for Parking + 2 Upper Floors under TS-bPASS. Thereafter, he also obtained letter of approval for commencement of work dated 21.12.2021 issued by GWMC in his favour. He commenced construction strictly in accordance with the building permit order and there is no deviation. He has laid slabs over stilt and two upper floors. Brick work was also completed.
3
KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024
iii) At that stage, he received a Notice dated 24.05.2022 from respondent No.2 stating that respondent No.5 submitted representations dated 14.02.2022 and 25.04.2022 contending that he (respondent No.5) is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject plot and the petitioner tried to grab the same. The petitioner obtained the building permit order dated 28.11.2021 and the letter of approval for commencement of work dated 21.12.2021 in collusion with respondent Nos.2 to 4. Therefore, he sought revocation of the said building permit order issued in favour of the petitioner and also a direction to the petitioner to stop the construction.
iv) On receipt of the said representations, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 12.05.2022 and conducted hearing on 21.05.2022. Both the petitioner and respondent No.5 appeared and made their submissions along with documents in proof of their title over the subject plot.
v) After hearing both the parties, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 24.05.2022, wherein it was observed that on receipt of application from the petitioner under TS-bPASS seeking building permission to construct a building along with self-certification, 4 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 respondent No.2 after verifying prima facie title, issued building permit order dated 28.11.2021 in favour of the petitioner and thereafter the letter of approval for commencement of work dated 21.12.2021. Respondent No.5 is also claiming right over the subject plot along with his wife, Smt. Sujatha, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.24746 of 2021, dated 25.09.2021 executed by Mr. K. Naveen Kumar. Thus, both the petitioner and respondent No.5 are claiming right over the subject property and there is title dispute. Civil Court has to decide the title dispute and respondent No.2 has no power to resolve the same. By stating so, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to stop further construction and also directed both the parties to approach competent Civil Court to resolve their dispute and thereafter approach respondent No.2 subject to the result of the same.
vi) Challenging the said order dated 24.05.2022, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.5:
i) Respondent No.5 is claiming that he along with his wife is the absolute owners and possessors of the subject plot admeasuring 5 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 233.47 square yards on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.24746 of 2021, dated 25.09.2021 executed by Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar @ Naveen S/o Ramchandram. He was in possession of the subject plot.
ii) He came to know that the petitioner obtained building permit order dated 28.11.2021 and also letter of approval for commencement of work dated 21.12.2021 under TS-bPASS and started construction by dispossessing him. Then, he enquired with his Vendor, Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar, who informed him that he never executed any agreement of sale and that his father, Mr. Ramchandram also confirmed that he never executed any document. The petitioner in collusion with others created documents by forging their signatures with an intention to grab the subject plot. He was dispossessed subsequently. Therefore, he has submitted a representation dated 14.02.2022 to respondent No.2 with a request to revoke the building permit order dated 28.11.2021 issued in favour of the petitioner and stop the construction.
iii) On receipt of the said representation dated 14.02.2022, respondent No.3 issued Intimation letter dated 04.04.2022 informing 6 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 him that there is title dispute between him and the petitioner which respondent No.2 cannot resolve. Thus, respondent No.2 advised him to settle the subject matter in appropriate forum i.e., Civil Court.
iv) Thereafter, respondent No.5 submitted another representation dated 25.04.2022 to respondent No.2, who in turn after issuing notice dated 12.05.2022 to both the parties and after hearing both sides and after perusing the documents submitted by them, respondent No.2 also passed order dated 24.05.2022 directing both parties to approach Civil Court for deciding their title, however, directed the petitioner to stop the construction. Challenging the said order dated 24.05.2022, respondent No.5 herein filed the aforesaid writ petition i.e., W.P. No.31861 of 2024.
6. CONTENTIONS OF GWMC:
i) Respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed counter contending that the petitioner submitted an application dated 28.11.2021 under TS-bPASS seeking permission to construct building in respect of the subject plot.
He has declared himself as the owner of the property and he has submitted self-certification that he is the owner of the subject plot. On verification of prima facie title, respondent No.2 has issued building 7 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 permit order dated 28.11.2021 for construction of Stilt for Parking + 2 Upper Floors under TS-bPASS and subsequently issued letter of approval for commencement of work dated 21.12.2021. The petitioner is proceeding with construction.
ii) While the things stood thus, respondent No.5 submitted a representation dated 14.02.2022 stating that the petitioner obtained building permit order by forging the signatures and by creating documents. Therefore, he sought to revoke the building permit order issued in favour of the petitioner and to stop the construction. Vide intimation dated 04.04.2022, respondent No.3 informed respondent No.5 stating that since both the parties are claiming right over the subject plot, it is a civil dispute and they have to settle the same in appropriate forum.
iii) Thereafter, respondent No.5 again submitted another representation dated 25.04.2022 to respondent No.2, who in turn, considering the same and also earlier representation dated 14.02.2022, issued a hearing notice dated 12.05.2022 to both the petitioner and respondent No.5. Since both the parties are claiming right over the subject property basing on registered documents, an enquiry was 8 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 conducted by way of issuing notice dated 12.05.2022, and both the petitioner and respondent No.5 appeared before respondent No.2 on 21.05.2022 and submitted their contentions by producing relevant documents. Thus, there is serious title dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 in respect of the subject plot, which respondent No.2 cannot resolve and it is for the Civil Court to decide the same. Therefore, vide order dated 24.05.2022, respondent No.2 informed both the parties to approach Civil Court to resolve the said title dispute, however, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to stop construction. Thus, there is no irregularity in passing the said order. In view of the same, they sought to dismiss both the writ petitions.
7. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) I gave thoughtful and earnest consideration to the submissions made by the parties. Perused the record.
ii) Perusal of record would reveal that originally Mr. Bommati Ramaswamy was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject plot.
The said Bommati Ramaswamy sold the subject plot to Smt. Samindla Shyamalamba, wife of Mr. Komuraiah under a registered sale deed 9 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 bearing document No.1026 of 1970, dated 16.06.1970. The said Smt. Samindla Shyamalamba sold the said subject plot to Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar @ Naveen S/o Ram Chandram under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4048 of 1982, dated 16.08.1982. At the time of purchase of the subject plot, the said Kandukuri Naveen Kumar was aged nine (09) years being minor represented by his father, Mr. Kandukuri Ram Chandra as guardian. The said Kandukuri Naveen Kumar, aged fifteen (15) years being minor represented by his natural father as guardian, sold the said subject plot to Smt. Konda Saraswati, wife of Sarangapani under an unregistered notarized agreement of sale dated 08.06.1988. At the time of sale, the said Kandukuri Naveen Kumar was minor and any sale by a minor without prior permission from competent Civil Court is a voidable transaction as envisaged under Section - 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Smt. Konda Saraswathi had gifted the subject plot in favour of her younger son, Mr. Konda Sagarnath under a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.8127 of 2011, dated 02.11.2011. The said Konda Sagarnath sold the said plot to his elder brother, Mr. Konda Sandeep Kumar under a registered sale deed bearing document No.9108 of 2021, dated 10.03.2021. The said 10 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 Konda Sandeep Kumar sold the subject plot to the petitioner herein under a registered sale deed bearing document No.28619 of 2021, dated 23.11.2021. Thus, the petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property.
iii) Perusal of the said unregistered agreement of sale dated 08.06.1988 executed by Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar in favour of Mrs. Konda Saraswati would reveal that Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar claimed that he had purchased the open plot bearing No.7 admeasuring 233.47 square yards in Survey No.240/B, situated at Lashkar Singaram Village, Hanamkonda, Warangal District under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4048 of 1982, dated 16.08.1982. He sold the said property to Mrs. Konda Saraswati, wife of Sarangapani, for a total sale consideration of Rs.18,210/-. He received advance amount of Rs.17,210/- and Mrs. Konda Saraswati, the Purchaser, agreed to pay balance sale consideration amount of Rs.1,000/- at the time of taking possession or at the time of registration. Thus, it was only an agreement of sale. The said Mrs. Konda Saraswati did not obtain registered sale deed in her favour by paying balance sale consideration of Rs.1,000/- to her vendor, Mr. 11 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 Kandukuri Naveen Kumar. Possession of the subject plot was also not delivered in her favour. Even then, she had gifted the subject plot to her younger son, Mr. Konda Sagarnath vide a registered Settlement Deed bearing document No.8127 of 2011, dated 02.11.2011.
iv) Perusal of the said Gift Settlement Deed would reveal that Smt. Konda Saraswati stated that she had purchased the subject plot under a notarized agreement of sale dated 08.06.1988 from Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar and also purchased an extent of 14.97 square yards through a simple deed from him. Thus, she became absolute owner and possessor of the subject plot admeasuring 248.44 square yards in Survey No.240/B, situated at Lashkar Singaram Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, within the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation limits.
v) There is no explanation from her as to the payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.1,000/- to Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar or his father, and basing on a notarized agreement of sale, dated 08.06.1988, she cannot gift the subject plot to her younger son under a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.8127 of 2011, dated 02.11.2011. Thereafter, her younger son sold the said plot 12 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 to his elder brother, Mr. Konda Sandeep Kumar under a registered sale deed bearing document No.9108 of 2021, dated 10.03.2021. The said Konda Sandeep Kumar sold the subject plot to the petitioner herein under a registered sale deed bearing document No.28619 of 2021, dated 23.11.2021.
vi) Thus, prima facie, there is cloud over the tile of the petitioner. However, according to respondent No.5, he along with his wife purchased the subject plot i.e., Plot No.7 admeasuring 233.47 square yards from Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar under a registered sale deed bearing document No.24746 of 2021, dated 25.09.2021. Perusal of the recitals of the said sale deed would reveal that the said Kandukuri Naveen Kumar purchased the subject plot from Mrs. Samindla Shyamalamba, wife of Mr. Komuraiah through a registered sale deed bearing document No.4048 of 1982. Mrs. Samindla Shyamalamba purchased the subject plot under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1026 of 1970. Possession was also delivered in their favour.
vii) In the counter filed in W.P. No.24947 of 2022 and in the writ affidavit filed in W.P. No.31861 of 2024, respondent No.5 13 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 specifically contended that he along with his wife purchased the subject plot under the aforesaid sale deed, they were put in possession and they were dispossessed subsequently. The petitioner obtained building permit order dated 28.11.2021 and proceeding with the construction over the subject plot. Therefore, he enquired with his vendor and his father and both of them confirmed that they never executed any sale deed in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner forged their signatures, created documents, obtained building permit order and proceeding with construction. Thus, respondent No.5 and his wife filed a suit vide O.S. No.453 of 2022, pending on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, against the petitioner and 3 others seeking declaration of title and consequential relief of recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. The said suit is pending before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. They filed the said suit on 07.03.2022. Even in the plaint, respondent No.5 contended that Mrs. Konda Saraswathi has no title. Therefore, question of her executing Gift Settlement Deed in favour of her younger son, who in turn, executing a sale deed in favour of his elder brother does not arise. Respondent No.5 is a resident of Hyderabad. Taking advantage of the same, Mr. Konda Sagarnath attempted to 14 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 grab the subject plot, therefore, he has informed the said fact to his vendor, Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar, who in turn lodged a complaint with respondent No.2 on 30.07.2021. The same is pending with respondent No.2. Respondent No.5 also submitted another complaint with respondent No.2 on 15.02.2022. He also issued notice dated 16.02.2022. The same were not considered. The petitioner obtained building permit order dated 21.12.2021 under TS-bPASS on self-certification. The petitioner criminally trespassed into the subject plot on 18.02.2022 and commenced the construction work in the suit schedule property. Therefore, they filed the said suit to declare them as owners of the subject plot, recovery of possession and also perpetual injunction. The said suit is pending. Interlocutory application filed by them seeking ad interim injunction is also pending. There is no interim order of injunction.
viii) The aforesaid facts would reveal that both the petitioner and respondent No.5 are claiming right over the subject plot under the respective documents mentioned above. The petitioner obtained instant building permit order dated 28.11.2021 by submitting an application on self-declaration and self-certification under TS-bPASS and thereafter he has also obtained letter of approval for 15 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 commencement of work dated 21.12.2021. It is relevant to note that on receipt of the said building application along with self-declaration and self-certification, respondent No.2 has issued instant building permit order dated 28.11.2021 to the petitioner for construction of Stilt for Parking + 2 Upper Floor and thereafter letter of approval for commencement of work dated 21.12.2021.
ix) Section - 7 of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2020 deals with 'approval of building permissions' and the same is relevant which is extracted as under:
"7. (1) No piece of land shall be used as a site for the construction of a building, and no building shall be constructed or reconstructed, and no addition or alteration shall be made to an existing building without the self certification based declarations or the required approval in the manner prescribed, relating to the use of building sites or the construction or reconstruction of buildings:
Provided that the Government may exempt certain buildings from taking building permission under this section, in the manner prescribed.
(2) For plot size upto 75 square yards (63 square meters), and the construction of ground or ground 16 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 plus one floor, will not require any permission.
The applicant however need to register online with a token amount of Rs.1 and duly self certifying his title, the size of the plot and floors, it shall also not require a completion certificate or occupancy certificate. Any plot bigger than 75 sq yards cannot be split for this purpose or this provision cannot be misused for taking up constructions in government or prohibited or disputed land and action as prescribed shall be initiated for violations noticed. (3) Plot size upto 500 square meters and height upto 10 meters: The permission applications for all the individual residential buildings having plot area of 500 square meters and less and building height of 10 meters as specified, shall be processed through an online based Self-Certification System in accordance with the Master Plan or Detailed Planning Scheme or Local Area Plan and the building rules and in the manner prescribed, and upon furnishing all required information details shall get instant online approval.
(4) The onus to ensure authenticity of self-
certification and compliance with the self- certification lies with the applicant, who shall be held personally accountable and liable in case of false declaration and action shall be initiated against the said person, as prescribed.
17
KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 (5) The owner or developer shall along with the building application form, submit an undertaking that in case of any actual construction made by him or her in violation of sanctioned plan, the Government or the Commissioner or the Agency authorized by him or her shall take-up the demolition without issuance of any notice. Further, the District level committee may verify the documents so submitted, and in case of any misrepresentation or false statement, the action shall be taken as prescribed.
(6) Citizens shall be encouraged to bring to the notice of Municipality and District Collector cases where unauthorized construction or construction in violation of or in excess of permissions, in the manner prescribed. The identity of such informers shall be kept confidential. All such cases shall be examined within a week from such information and appropriate action initiated. The informant shall be incentivized in all such cases where the information furnished by him is found to be correct.
(7) Plot size above 500 square meters and height above 10 meters: There shall be a single window system in case of applications for building permission in plots of area above 500 square meters and height above 10 meters and all Commercial Buildings, High Rise Buildings, 18 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 Group Development Schemes, Group Housing, Apartment Complexes, Multiplexes, Non Residential Buildings and other such constructions, which require multiple NOCs, one common application form shall be submitted through web based online system as prescribed.
(8) The online application has to be submitted with all requisite documents as may be prescribed. The online system shall not accept the application unless all such documents are submitted. Such documents upon submission shall be examined by the single window committee set up for this purpose and shortfalls or incompleteness or cases where further information or clarification is needed shall be communicated to the applicant within 10 days from the date of applying, in such manner, as may be prescribed.
(9) In all other cases, the applications for building permissions accompanied by all valid and required documents, as required and prescribed, shall be sanctioned within 21 days and in such manner, as may be prescribed.
(10) If no order is issued on the building application within the time prescribed, then the approval will be deemed to have been issued, as may be prescribed. The official concerned shall be liable for disciplinary action, if there has been a 19 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 delay in arriving at a decision within the time period.
(11) The permission issued under deemed clause can be revoked by the commissioner within 21 days from the date of deemed approval if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by mis-representation of the facts or false statements, and/or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions."
x) As per sub-Section (11) of Section - 7 of TS-bPASS Act, 2020, permission issued under deemed clause can be revoked by the commissioner within 21 days from the date of deemed approval if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by misrepresentation of the facts or false statements, and/or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions
xi) Referring to the said provision, Mr. E. Venkat Siddharth, learned counsel, would contend that respondent No.2 cannot revoke the building permit order dated 21.12.2021issued in favour of the petitioner and cannot pass order dated 24.05.2022 directing the petitioner to stop construction. Respondent No.2 cannot decide title dispute and it is for Civil Court to decide the same. On receipt of complaints dated 14.02.2022 and 25.04.2022 from respondent No.5, 20 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 instead of advising him to approach Civil Court to decide title dispute, vide impugned order dated 24.05.2022 respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to stop the work. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.05.2022 is illegal. He would further contend that on receipt of complaint from respondent No.5, respondent No.2 vide intimation dated 04.04.2022 informed respondent No.5 to approach Civil Court. Having advised him to approach Civil Court, respondent No.2 cannot pass impugned order dated 24.05.2022 directing the petitioner to stop construction that too, on receipt of representation dated 25.04.2022 from respondent No.5. Thus, the order dated 24.05.2022 passed by respondent No.2 is illegal. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in A. Shalivahana Reddy v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation 1.
xii) The issue as to whether respondent No.2 - Municipality can revoke or keep permission in abeyance after expiry of twenty one (21) days after date of deemed approval in terms of Section - 7 (11) of the TS-bPASS Act, 2020, fell for consideration before this Court in Smt. Lalitha Srikrish v. The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal 1 . 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1569 21 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 Secretary, MA & UD 2. This Court placing reliance on the principle laid down by various judgments including A. Shalivahana Reddy1 and after considering the provisions of TS-bPASS Act, 2020 held that timeline mentioned in Section - 7 (11) i.e., 21 days is only directory and it is not mandatory. Respondent No.2 has power to revoke building permit approval dated 28.11.2021 and the subsequent letter of approval for commencement of work dated 21.12.2021 beyond 21 days from the date of deemed approval. Therefore, the contention of Mr. E. Venkat Siddharth, learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 cannot consider the representation submitted by respondent No.5 beyond 21 days of building permit order dated 28.11.2021 obtained by the petitioner and the letter of approval for commencement of work dated 21.12.2021 is unsustainable.
xiii) As discussed above, the petitioner obtained building permit order dated 28.11.2021 under TS-bPASS on self-declaration and self-certification. On verification of prima facie title of the petitioner, respondent No.2 has issued letter of approval for commencement of work dated 21.12.2021 in favour of the petitioner for construction of Stilt for Parking + 2 Upper Floor. Respondent 2 . 2023 (3) ALD 291 22 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 No.5 along with his wife purchased the subject plot under a registered sale deed bearing document No.24746 of 2021, dated 25.09.2021. According to him, they were put in possession of the subject property by their vendor and thereafter they were dispossessed from the subject property. It is his case that the petitioner forged the signatures of Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar and his father, Mr. Ramachandram and created a notarized agreement of sale dated 08.06.1988. It is not his case that the petitioner obtained instant building approval dated 28.11.2021 and the letter of commencement for work dated 21.12.2021 by misrepresentation of facts. The petitioner criminally trespassed into the subject plot and started making construction, but he did not lodge any complaint with police. Neither respondent No.5, nor Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar and his father lodged any complaint stating that the signature of Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar and his father, vendor of the petitioner, was forged. According to respondent No.5, he was dispossessed from the subject plot on 18.02.2022. He filed the aforesaid suit vide O.S. No.453 of 2022 against the petitioner and 3 others only on 07.03.2022. There is no interim injunction order. The said suit is pending. 23
KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024
xiv) As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, on verification of prima facie title, respondent No.2 granted building permit order dated 28.11.2021 and subsequent letter of approval for commencement of work in favour of the petitioner. On receipt of the complaint dated 14.02.2022 from respondent No.5, respondent No.3 advised him to approach Civil Court for resolving title dispute vide proceedings dated 04.04.2022. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot pass order dated 24.05.2022 directing the petitioner to stop construction. Thus, there is nothing wrong in issuing intimation dated 04.04.2022 by respondent No.3 to respondent No.5 advising him to approach Civil Court.
xv) Perusal of photographs filed by the petitioner would reveal that he has raised three slabs. Brick work was also completed. It is a semi-finished stage. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot direct the petitioner to stop the work. Having advised respondent No.5 vide intimation dated 04.04.2022, entertaining the representations of respondent No.5 dated 14.02.2022 and 25.04.2022 and passing orders thereon dated 25.04.2022 itself is illegal. 24
KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 xvi) At the cost of repetition, as discussed above, on receipt of representation dated 14.02.2022 from respondent No.5, respondent No.3 vide intimation dated 04.04.2022 advised respondent No.5 to approach Civil Court for resolving title dispute. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot entertain the second complaint dated 25.04.2022 and pass order dated 24.05.2022 directing the petitioner to stop the work. The said procedure adopted by respondent No.2 is illegal and contrary to the procedure laid down under TS-bPASS Act, 2020.
xvii) As discussed above, the petitioner purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.28619 of 2021, dated 23.11.2021. He placed reliance on the registered sale deed bearing document No.9108 of 2021, dated 10.03.2021, registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.8127 of 2011, dated 11.11.2011 and unregistered agreement of sale dated 08.06.1988 and registered sale deed bearing document No.4048 of 1982, dated 16.08.1982. By virtue of sale deed bearing document No.4048 of 1982, Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar purchased the subject plot from Mrs. Samandla Shyamalamba, wife of Kamuraiah, whereas, respondent No.5 placed reliance on the registered sale deed bearing 25 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 document No.24746 of 2021, dated 25.09.2021 executed by the very same Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar. Therefore, this Court suo motu reopened the case and listed the matters for further hearing on 19.11.2024.
xviii) On 19.11.2024, Mr. E. Venkat Siddharth, learned counsel representing Ms. Kowluru Archana, learned counsel for the petitioner, has produced original sale deed bearing document No.4048 of 1982, dated 16.08.1982 executed by Mrs. Samandla Shyamalamba in favour of the said Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar and after perusing the same, the said document was returned to learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, the said original document bearing No.4048 of 1982 is in possession of the petitioner, but not in the possession of respondent No.5, who has filed the aforesaid suit only on 07.03.2022 contending that he was dispossessed from the subject property on 18.02.2022. The petitioner obtained instant building permit order dated 28.11.2021 and subsequent letter of approval for commencement of work dated 21.12.2021 under TS-bPASS. As on this day, the said suit is pending. Thus, there is no misrepresentation of fact and suppression of material facts by the petitioner. That is not the allegation made by respondent No.5 against the petitioner. The allegation made by respondent No.5 26 KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 against the petitioner is that the petitioner's vendor got obtained notarized agreement of sale dated 08.06.1988 from the father of vendor of respondent No.5 by forging the signatures of Mr. Ramchandram, son of vendor of respondent No.5. But, neither Mr. Ramchandram and his son Mr. Kandukuri Naveen Kumar, nor respondent No.5 lodged any complaint against Smt. Konda Saraswati. However, the trial Court will consider all the said aspects in the aforesaid suit.
xix) Mr. E. Venkat Siddharth, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner will take all the grounds and contentions which he has raised in the present writ petitions in O.S. No.453 of 2022, pending on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, and he will abide by the result of the said suit. He will not even claim equities. In the light of the said discussion and submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 24.05.2022 issued by respondent No.2 is illegal and contrary to the procedure laid down under TS-bPASs Act, 2020. The same is liable to be set aside and accordingly it same is set aside. 27
KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024 As far as intimation dated 04.04.2022 issued by respondent No.3 is concerned, the same was issued to respondent No.5 advising him to approach Civil Court to ventilate his grievances. There is no error in issuing said intimation dated 04.04.2022 by respondent No.3. Therefore, the same cannot be held to be declared as illegal.
8. CONCLUSION:
i) In view of the aforesaid discussion, W.P. No.24947 of 2022 is allowed in part setting aside the impugned order dated 24.05.2022 issued by respondent No.2,
ii) However, the intimation dated 04.04.2022 issued by respondent No.3 since held to be valid, W.P. No.31861 of 2024 is dismissed.
iii) However, the petitioner shall proceed with construction strictly in accordance with building permit order dated 28.11.2021 and letter of approval for commencement of work dated 21.12.2021, failing which, liberty is granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. At the same time, the petitioner shall not claim any equity.28
KL,J WP Nos.24947 of 2022 & 31861 of 2024
iv) This order is subject to result of suit in O.S. No.453 of 2022 pending on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
v) Liberty is also granted to both the petitioner and respondent No.5 to take all the pleas and grounds which they have taken herein in O.S. No.453 of 2022, and it is for the trial Court to decide the same basing on record available and merit without being influenced by any of the observations made herein.
vi) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the writ petitions shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 25th November, 2024 Mgr