Telangana High Court

Sri Manyam Krishna Kishore Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 16 February, 2021

Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                W.P.Nos.8100 and 7119 OF 2020

COMMON ORDER:

      As the subject matter of the both writ petitions is one

and same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this

common order.


      W.P.No.7119 of 2020 is filed seeking to declare the

building        permission    No.2/C21/07694/2019,             dated

16.05.2019, granted in favour of respondent No.3 in respect

of plot Nos.97 & 98 (P) to an extent of 1000 sq. yards situated

at Shilpa Hills Venture in survey Nos.60, 66, 67 (P) & 68(P) of

Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, as illegal and malafide.

W.P.No.8100 of 2020 is filed seeking to declare the

action of the respondent No.2 in issuing Notice

No.987/TPS/ZO/SLPZ/GHMC/2020, dated 29.05.2020

under Section 560 of the GHMC Act, 1955, directing the

petitioner to show cause as to why the building permission

No.2/C21/07694/2019, dated 20.05.2019 shall not be

cancelled, as illegal and arbitrary.

Heard Sri P.Sri Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner

in W.P.No.7119 of 2020, Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.Rajinikanth Reddy,

learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8100 of 2020,

learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration

and Urban Development, and Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy,

learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred as to they are arrayed in W.P.No.8100 of 2020.

Petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the

land to an extent of 1089 Sq. Yards in survey No.66 situated

at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, having purchased the same from one G.Venugopal

Rao and two others under registered sale deed dated

18.04.2019. Said Venugopal is stated to have acquired the

property by way of agreement of sale-cum-GPA executed by

one Syed Jagangir, who acquired the said land from his

forefather Syed Meer, the original owner of the subject land.

Petitioner also referred to the civil disputes adjudicated

between Syed Jahangir and the unofficial respondent herein.

Thereafter, petitioner got the subject land regularized vide

proceedings dated 19.10.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner

obtained building permission dated 23.02.2020 for

construction of one cellar+stilt+5 upper floors. However,

based on the representation made by the unofficial

respondent, the present show cause notice has been issued

stating as to why the building permission granted in his

favour shall not be cancelled, which is not only illegal,

arbitrary, bad and against the principles of natural justice

and equity.

It is the case of the unofficial respondent that he is the

owner and possessor of plot No.97 & 98 (P) to an extent of

1000 sq. yards situated at Shilpa Hills Venture in survey

Nos.60, 66, 67 (P) & 68 (P) of Khanamet Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having

purchased the same under registered sale deed No.3248 of

2013 from T.Narasimulu and T.Chandraiah. The unofficial

respondent claims to be developer of larger extent including

other properties and known as Shilpa Hills layout consisting

of land situated in survey Nos.60, 66, 67 (P) and 68 (P) of

Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. It is also stated that the vendors of the unofficial

respondent have purchased the larger extent of land from the

family members of Syed Meer and his sons Syed Yousuf

@ Syed Babu and Syed Yousuf along with Syed Fakeer, Syed

Shareef and others. In the year 1995, a draft layout was

made and the plots were sold to the purchasers, who

subsequently got regularized their plots and after obtaining

permission the purchasers have also constructed buildings.

However, the respondent No.4 kept the land vacant. Taking

advantage of the same, the petitioner with the help of some

fabricated documents, obtained building permission, without

having any title to the property. The building permission is

also defective in nature as there are no proceedings according

permission for conversion of the subject land from agriculture

to non-agriculture. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ

petition.

No interim orders are granted by this Court in both the

writ petitions.

Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, while

taking this Court through the litigations pending before the

revenue authorities as well as the civil Court, contends that

without verifying the title to the subject property, the

respondent authorities have granted building permission in

favour of the petitioner and the same is illegal and arbitrary.

Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

that after verifying the documents filed by the petitioner, the

building permission was granted. However, merely based on

the representation made by the unofficial respondent, the

authorities have issued in the impugned show cause notice

directing the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the

building permission granted earlier shall not be cancelled and

the same is illegal and arbitrary exercise of power vested with

the authorities. Hence, the impugned show cause notice is

liable to be set aside.

As can be seen from the record, earlier the unofficial

respondent has filed W.P.No.37123 of 2013 against the orders

passed by the revenue authorities granting succession in

favour of vendor's vendor of the petitioner viz., Syed Jahangir

in respect of land in survey No.66 admeasuring Ac.0-09

guntas and the same is pending before this Court and no

interim orders are passed therein. Further, in the civil suit

filed by the unofficial respondent seeking injunction also no

interim orders are passed by the civil Court and the suit is

pending adjudication before the I Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Kukatpally, being O.S.No.269 of 2020. Thus, as of

now, there is no order restraining the respondent authorities

from granting building permission in favour of the petitioner.

That apart, the pleadings of the parties raise several disputed

questions with regard to title, which can only be decided by

the competent Civil Court after appreciating the evidence let

in by the parties and this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India cannot go into those aspects. Further,

no useful purpose will be achieved even if the matter is

remanded back to the GHMC to decide the matter, afresh,

duly taking into consideration the objections raised by the

unofficial respondent, as the Commissioner under the GHMC

Act is not vested with the powers to go into the disputed

questions of title.

In Masnam Hussain v. State of Telangana1, this

Court held as under:

"..Unfortunately, the Municipal Authorities have not been entrusted with the functions and duties to determine whether a particular individuals occupation of land is legal or illegal.

1 2020 (5) ALD 539 (TS)

The limited functions that are entrusted to the Municipal authorities under the Act is with respect to regulated development of zones and wards, and to issue construction permissions in the respective areas by following due process prescribed under the Act.

So far as the encroachment into petitioner's land is concerned, if the allegation of the petitioner that the 4th respondent had encroached into and occupied the petitioner's land is taken to be true, even assuming for the sake of argument that the authorities are not taking action against the alleged illegal construction being made by the 4th respondent, the remedy of the petitioner with respect to illegal encroachment is to approach competent Civil Court seeking mandatory injunction and recovery of possession.

In T. Rameshwar v. Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation of Hyderabad2, this Court has held under:

"Therefore, the law as interpreted by this Court with reference to HMC Act and the Act, which requires the Commissioner to consider the objections, as and when they are raised, for grant of permission on the ground of title in a pragmatic manner taking into consideration only prima facie factors. While doing so, the Commissioner cannot assume the role of an adjudicator or arbitrator and decide the title inter se between the applicant for building permission and the objector of such building permission. If the applicant is able to show that prima facie such applicant has a right to proceed with the construction notwithstanding the pendency of any litigation by way of a suit or other proceeding subject to the applicant applying the certain conditions, the Commissioner may either grant permission or postpone the grant of permission."

Moreover, the parties are adequately protected by

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Irrespective of the

fact whether any observation is made by the Court that the

alienations made by the parties are subject to the final result

of the suit or not, the doctrine of lis pendens will apply.

2 2006 (3) ALD 337

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case

and considering the ratio laid down by this Court in the above

referred judgments, without going into the merits or demerits

of the case, Writ Petition No.8100 of 2020 is disposed of

setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated

29.05.2020. Consequently, W.P.No.7119 of 2020 is disposed