B.Seetaram vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 306 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

      WRIT PETITION Nos.18810 and 18814 of 2020

COMMON ORDER:

     Since the subject matter of the land in both the writ

petitions is pertaining to one survey number, both the writ

petitions are taken up together and being disposed of by this

common order.

     Both the writ petitions are filed challenging the short fall

letter dated 17.09.2020 bearing Lr.No.3/C5/06389/2020

refusing to grant construction permission in plot No.17 part in

survey Nos.37, 38 and 39 belonging to the writ petitioner in

W.P.No.18810 of 2020 and in plot No.18 in survey Nos.38 and

39 part belonging to the writ petitioner in W.P.No.18814 of

2020, situated at Kothapet Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.

     The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the

owners and possessors of the subject plots respectively having

purchased the same through registered sale deeds.            The

petitioners have submitted individual applications for grant of

building permission in the subject plots.         Vide impugned

shortfall letter dated 17.09.2020, the authorities have refused

to grant permission on the ground of pendency of O.S.No.413

of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge's Court,

Ranga Reddy. It is the specific case of the petitioners that vide

common judgment and decree dated 03.06.2006, passed in

O.S.No.195 of 2003, O.S.No.196 of 2003 and O.S.No.516 of
                                  2




2000, passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy, declaring the petitioners herein as the owners of plot

Nos.17 and 18 respectively.      Even the appeals filed by the

unofficial respondents against the common judgment and

decree, dated 03.06.2006, has been dismissed by the

I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar, vide

common judgment dated 19.01.2007 passed in A.S.No.s137

and 139 of 2006. Therefore, mere pendency of O.S.No.413 of

2007 cannot be the basis for the official respondents to refuse

grant of building permission. Hence, it is prayed to direct the

respondents herein to grant building permission duly

suspending the impugned short fall letter dated 17.09.2020.

Unofficial respondents have filed a counter affidavit,

referring to various civil suits adjudicated between the parties,

and stating that under the guise of having plots in survey

No.38, the writ petitioners are encroaching into the land in

survey No.39/A. Therefore, the unofficial respondents have

filed a comprehensive suit for declaration of title being O.S.

No.413 of 2007 on the file of XI Additional District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R. Nagar. Taking the same into

consideration and after obtaining necessary legal opinion, the

respondent authorities have refused to grant permission vide

impugned short fall notice. Therefore, there is no illegality or

irregularity in the impugned order and both the writ petitions

are liable to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban

Development for respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel

for GHMC for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Sri D.Jagan

Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.

Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has

stated that the unofficial respondents have no objection if the

respondent No.2-Commissioner comes to a conclusion that

the plot Nos.17 part and 18 claimed by the petitioners are

physically found to be in survey Nos.37 and 38 and gives

building permission. Learned counsel for the unofficial

respondents further states that insofar as survey No.39 is

concerned, the same is the subject matter of O.S.No.413 of

2007 and even the findings given by the Civil Courts in the

earlier round of litigation are also to the effect that the plots of

the petitioners are in survey Nos.37 and 38 only and not in

survey No.39. Further, there are no open plots in survey

Nos.37 and 38 and if any building permission is given, the

petitioners, taking advantage of the building permission, will

encroach into the land in survey No.39, which is the subject

matter of O.S.No.413 of 2007.

In view of the above submissions made by both the

counsel, the ends of justice would be met if the matter is

remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the

applications made by the petitioners, afresh, duly taking into

consideration the objections filed by the unofficial

respondents.

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of

setting aside the impugned short fall notices dated

17.09.2020, remanding the matter back to respondent No.2 to

reconsider the applications for building permission, dated

11.05.2020, afresh, duly taking into consideration the

objections filed by the unofficial respondents herein, and pass

necessary orders, strictly in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the

identity of the plots claimed by the petitioners is in dispute,

the Commissioner may take the help of the Assistant Director,

Survey & Land Records, to identify the plots with reference to

the survey numbers, layout, boundaries and based on the

report take a decision. It is needless to mention that before

passing any orders, both the parties shall be put on notice

and given an opportunity of hearing.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 05.02.2021 sur