Vegi Jagadish Kumar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4533 AP

                                      1



             THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH


                     WRIT PETITION No.19418 of 2021
ORDER:-


      Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned          counsel for the petitioners,

Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, standing counsel for the 2nd respondent

and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, senior counsel for M/s.Pillix Law Firm

appearing for the respondents 5 to 11.

2. The petitioners filed the present writ petition, questioning the

action of the respondents 2 to 4 in according building Permit Order vide

bearing Permit No.1086/3302/B/Z3/KTA/2021 dated 07.08.2021 in

favour of respondents 5 to 11 over the land admeasuring 14520 square

yards in T.S.No.71 and 75 situated at Block No.8 and 9, Waltair Ward,

Visakhapatnam.

3. The convention of Baptist Churches of the Northern Circars (for

short CBCNC) vide bearing registration No.16/48-49 has executed a

registered lease deed over the land vide document bearing

No.4547/2004 and 4548/2004 on the file of the District Registrar's

Office, Visakhapatnam in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the

petitioners were also granted passbooks over the land and also issued

Tax books bearing Nos.10861779930 and 1086149517 and they were

inducted peaceful possession of the property; accordingly they are

maintaining the same by paying land revenue taxes, water charges and

electricity bills unequivocally over the said land.

4. That being so, on the application dated 15.07.2021 submitted by

the respondents 5 to 11, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned

orders under section 388, 428, 433 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Act, 1955 and Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban

Development Authorities Act, 2016 and the Andhra Pradesh Buildings

Act, 2017 granting building permission in favour of the respondents 5 to

11. Assailing the said permission, present writ petition.

5. Contention of the petitioners is that the permission granted by the

2nd respondent in favour of the respondents 5 to 11 is capricious,

arbitrary exercise of power, opposed to the very spirit and nature of

fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the

Constitution of India. Without considering and without verifying the

records properly, the 2nd respondent has granted permission in favour of

the respondents 5 to 11. When it came to the notice of the said

permission, immediately the petitioners made a representation on

21.08.2021 requesting to recall the permission granted in favour of the

respondents 5 to 11.

6. Further it is submitted that in view of the permission granted by

the respondents 2 to 4, the respondents 5 to 11 are trespassing into the

subject land and demolishing the existing structures, without any

authority of law under the grab of the impugned orders. The unofficial

respondents have demolished the existing structures of the subject

land, including the constructions, of 600Sq. feet bearing D.No.10-1-6 &

7 which was being utilized as student hostels. Despite bringing the

same to the notice of the authorities, questioning about the illegal action

of the respondents 5 to 11, the respondents 2 to 4 have not initiated any

action and not recalled the permission granted in favour of the

respondents 5 to 11. Hence, left with no option, the present writ

petition is filed.

7. After receipt of notice, the respondents 5 to 11 filed their counter

through Sri J.Malani Thyagaraj, GPA Holder denying the allegations

made in the affidavit in support of the writ petition.

8. In their counter it is stated that in the year 1993, 18 companies

registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 had purchased the

property covered by TS. No.75 of Waltair Ward Visakhapatnam from

CBCNC and the Trust Association, CBCNC for a valuable consideration

and the companies were duly put in possession of the property. Said

transaction is backed by proper resolutions and verification of the

authenticity of the Body of Office Bearers of CBCNC and its Trust

Association.

9. Questioning the said transactions, a suit was filed by one

Sri Dasari Samuel, representing the Trust Association of CBCNC for

declaration of its rights and cancellation of sale deeds in favour of 18

companies and for other reliefs. Said suit was dismissed after full

dressed trial, with exemplary costs and the copy of the said judgment is

annexed to the counter. Subsequently, the very same person also

challenged the regularization granted in favour of the 18 companies in

W.P.No.10955/2007, 10979/2007 and 10989/2007 respectively, before

this Court and the said writ petitions were dismissed by common order,

dated 05.02.2020.

10. In the year 1998, the Urban Land Ceiling [for short referred as ULC]

authorities have intervened and call upon the CBCNC to file a

declaration and to determine the CBCNC as a surplus landholder to an

extent of Hc.1.6590 Sq. meters and the Special Officer, ULC went

further ahead to declare the sale deeds of 18 companies as null and

void. Pending the same, the ULC issued notification under section

10 (1) of the ULC Act, on 11.06.1998. Said proceedings were assailed by

the 18 companies by filing two writ petitions in the year 1999 and 2001

and the writ petitions were allowed by this court, setting aside the order

of the Special Officer, ULC in declaring the sale deeds as null and void

and allowed liberty to the companies to challenge the order of the ULC

in appeal under section 33 of the ULC Act.

11. Accordingly the companies have filed an application for

regularization under prevailing GO.Ms.No.455 and the Government

taking into consideration of the sale deeds of the companies allowed the

regularization on payment of prescribed fee. Accordingly, the

government has issued two G.Os., i.e. G.O.Ms.No.2004 in the year 2005

and G.O.Ms.No.1400 in the year 2006. Accordingly Government issued

notification under section 10(3) of ULC Act, whereby and where under

the land of Hc.1.6590 Sq. meters vested in the government free from all

encumbrances. Subsequently mutations were also carried out interims

of the G.Os by the Tahsildar (Urban) Visakhapatnam vide proceedings in

Rc.No.1993/2012/A, dated 24.04.2013.

12. Further it is submitted in the counter, in view of the above said

proceedings, the rights and title over the property has been declared in

favour of the 18 companies, thus they have filed an application for

building permission, the respondents 2 to 4, on due diligence and taking

entire material into consideration and fulfilling prima facie title over the

property, issued the building permission in favour of the respondents 5

to 11.

13. Further the respondents have specifically denied the right of the

executants of the lease deed. The lease deed claimed by the petitioners

were executed by a person, who was permanently injuncted from

dealing with the affairs of CBCNC as well as the properties of CBCNC

vide a decree and judgment of the Court of the subordinate Judge,

Vijayawada in O.S.No.57 of 1985 and the said decree and judgment

attained finality. In view of the same, no valid interest that is entitled to

be protected under law had passed on to the petitioners by virtue of the

said lease deeds. It is further submitted that in fact the CBCNC has

sold the said land to the 18 companies in the year 1993 itself. Hence,

for the property which was sold to the 18 companies, cannot be

executed a lease deed for 99 years in favour of third parties. Even

according to the averments made in the writ petition, one TDS Kumar

has executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioners only in the year

2004. Further, it is contended that the petitioners have not filed any

piece of evidence in support of their possession over the property.

14. Apart from all these things, the petitioners have not mentioned

about the filing of the civil suit i.e. O.S.No.965 of 2021 on the file of V

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for the relief of

permanent injunction. They have also moved an application for an

interim injunction pending disposal of the suit against the GPA holder

and having failed to obtain exparte injunction, without disclosing the

same present writ petition is filed.

15. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the

petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have got the subject

property by way of a registered lease deed in the year 2004 and the

petitioners were put in possession over subject land and tax books were

also issued in their favour and they have paying regularly the revenue

tax, water tax etc..

16. To support said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners

has relied on the lease deeds executed in favour of the petitioners on

18th day of October 2004, which are filed along with the writ petition

and also tax pass books issued in favour of the petitioners by the 2nd

respondent. Learned counsel contended that there is an existing

building and in the said building the petitioners are running hostel and

now by virtue of the permission granted by the respondents 2 to 4 in

favour of the respondents 5 to 11, the respondents are interfering with

the possession of the petitioners. Thus, in view of the said

circumstances, the petitioners have made a detailed representation on

21.08.2021 to the respondents 2 to 4 and requested the respondents 2

to 4 to consider the representation and also tax receipts, issued in

favour of the petitioners, thereby requested to recall the permission

granted in favour of the respondents 5 to 11.

17. Learned senior counsel, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas appearing on

behalf of the respondents 5 to 11 submitted that the petitioners have no

right or title over the property. Respondents 5 to 11 have purchased the

said property in the year 1993 itself, subsequently when ULC

proceedings were initiated, government notified the said properties

under section 10 (3) of ULC Act, 1976. Said notification was annexed to

the counter. The schedule of the notification clearly discloses that land

in TS.No.75 Wlatair Ward, Visakhapatnam in an extent of Hc.1.6590 sq.

meters was notified. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners have

filed the writ petition No.8068 of 1999 and it is disposed of with the

following order:

" The writ petition is partly allowed with the following directions and observations:-

(a) The order dated 28-2-1998 in so far as it declares the 22 documents referred to therein as null and void, is set aside and that the said order can be treated as nothing more than information as to the illegality of the sale deeds to the concerned registering authority

(b) It shall be open to the petitioners to avail the remedy appeal against the order dated 26-2-1998 passed by the 2nd respondent under section 8(4) of the Act.

(c) If the appeal is preferred with 4 weeks from today, the same shall be entertained as having been presented within the period of limitation;

(d) The appellate authority shall adjudicate upon the mallet duly issuing notice to the affected parties, as expeditiously as possible."

18. Following the liberty granted by the High Court, the petitioners

have submitted their applications for the regularization and considering

the same, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.2004 dated

23.11.2005 directing to redeliver the possession to the petitioners,

directing the names of the allottees shall be incorporated in the revenue

registers and the survey records.

19. Further Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.1400 dated

25.09.2006 under section 34 of ULC Act, 1976 directing the competent

authority ULC Visakhapatnam to deliver a copy of the order to

respective Allotee Companies together with sketch indicating the extent

allotted in the G.O. Ms.No.2004, dated 23.11.2005, after clearly

marking the road widening portion in the sketch to the existing road

network.

20. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in the year 2009,

lessor of the petitioners i.e. Sri TDS Kumar representing the CBCNC

filed a suit against several persons, for permanent injunction restraining

the defendants 1 to 13 interfering to the peaceful possession and

enjoyment plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs association. In the

said suit, the 1st defendant is Sri Dasari Samuel and 9th defendant is

J.Malini Thyagaraj, who is the G.P.F. holder in the present litigation.

21. After the said suit was dismissed by the I Additional District

Judge, Visakhapatnam on 23.01.2017 with costs, other I.As. were also

dismissed.

22. He further brought to the notice of the Court that the said

Samuel, filed O.S.No.214 of 2006 on the file of I Additional District

Judge, Visakhapatnam against the 18 companies to declare the sale

transactions in respect of registered sale deeds made in favour of the

said companies. After elaborate discussion, said suit was dismissed

with exemplary costs. Further learned senior counsel has also placed

reliance on the common order passed in W.P.No.10955, 10975, 10989 of

2007, filed by the said Dasari Samuel questioning the registration made

in favour of the respondents 5 to 11 and the writ petitions were also

dismissed, the same was placed along with the counter.

23. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the respondents

have purchased the subject properties through registered sale deeds in

the year 1993, from a local exiting body of CBCNC and said sale

transactions were upheld in various courts and the competent civil

court has declared that the transactions were valid and also this Court

dismissed the writ petitions challenging the registration made in respect

of the in favour of the respondents 5 to 11.

24. Apart from that the Government has also considered possession

and title over the property in various Urban Land Ceiling proceedings.

Accordingly Government has regularized the said properties in favour of

the respondents 5 to 11 through various government orders. Hence, the

petitioners have valid title over the property, therefore, they have made

an application for building permission and considering the same, the

respondents 2 to 4 have granted building permission as per the rules.

25. Learned senior counsel further contended that apart from all the

above, it is not out of place to mention that the competent Civil Court

i.e. II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in O.S.No.57 of 85 has

declared the rights and granted an injunction against the lessor of the

petitioner, vide order dated 14th day of November, 1995, i.e. 5th

defendant, one TDS Kumar, restraining the defendants and their agents

from interfering with the possession peaceful lively enjoyment of the

plaint schedule property of the Trust Association.

26. In view of the said injunction granted against the lessor of the

petitioners, the registered documents which are relied by the petitioners

are not legally valid documents. Further the petitioners have filed a civil

suit for injunction O.S.No.965 of 2021 V Additional Senior Judge,

Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction and also filed an application

for interim injunction against the GPA holder of the respondents 5 to 11

and after failed to get the injunction orders, present writ petition is filed

and subsequently the respondents 5 to11 are impleaded as parties to

the said suit and the same was not disclosed in the present writ

petition. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary

costs.

27. Sri S.Lakhmi narayana Reddy, standing counsel representing on

behalf of respondents 2 to 4 adopted the arguments of the senior

counsel and further submitted that the Government issued notification

under section 10 (3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and

subsequently considered the application and issued G.O.Ms. 1400 in

favour of the respondents 5 to 11 on 25.09.2006 in pursuant to the said

G.O., and names of the respondents 5 to 11 were mutated in the

revenue records.

28. After satisfying the prima facie title over the property in respect of

the respondents 5 to 11, the authorities have considered the application

made by them for grant of building permission, accordingly building

permission was granted on 15.07.2021, as per the provisions of the Act

and the rules made there under.

29. Considering the submissions made by all the counsel appearing

on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the record, it clearly

discloses that the respondents 5 to 11 are the bonafide purchasers and

they are subject to various litigations, subsequently Government has

considered the representation/appeal filed by the respondents, as per

the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and passed the

orders under G.O.Ms.No.2004 dated 23.11.2005 and consequential

orders through G.O.Ms.No.1400 dated 25.09.2006, which clearly

establishes the rights over the property of the respondents 5 to 11. It is

also noticed by the Court that the petitioners have approached the

competent civil court by filing a civil suit for injunction, but the

petitioners have not disclosed the same in the writ petition, even on

perusal of the record filed along with the writ petition, no documents are

filed to support the contention of the petitioners, except the lease deeds

executed by incompetent person.

30. In view of the above, I see no merits in the writ petition and the

same is liable to be dismissed.

31. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

dismissed. No order as to costs.

______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 08.11.2021 Pnr