Telangana High Court

Sri.S.P. Jaggu Lal vs The State Of Telangana on 3 March, 2021

Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                    W.P.No.18619 OF 2020
ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the

action of the respondents in passing order dated 21.09.2020

rejecting the building permission application of the petitioners

for construction of residential building consisting of two

cellars+ground+14 floors and commercial building comprising

of three cellars+ground+6 floors (mall and multiplex) in land

admeasuring 17317 sq. mtrs. in survey Nos.63 to 65 at

Jeedimetla Village, Qutbullapur Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri

District.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that

the petitioners submitted an application for building

permission along with necessary documents establishing

their title and possession over the subject land. The

unofficial respondents have raised certain objections to the

same and they also approached this Hon'ble Court by way of

filing a writ petition being W.P.No.13213 of 2020 wherein this

Hon'ble Court directed the official respondents to consider the

objections raised by the unofficial respondents herein and

then pass orders on the application of the petitioners for

building permission. But, without considering the order

passed by this Hon'ble Court in its true letter and spirit, the

authorities have directly rejected the application of the

petitioners, without assigning any reasons. Learned counsel

has further stated that mere pendency of civil litigations

cannot be the bar for the authorities to reject the permission.

Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed this Court to set

aside the impugned order.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the unofficial

respondents has vehemently argued that pursuant to the

orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.13213 of 2020,

the authorities have taken up the issue and after referring to

and taking into consideration the various civil litigations

pending between the parties, they have rejected the building

permission application made by the petitioners. That the

order does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble

Court.

Heard all the parties and perused the record.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 21/28.09.2020

passed by the respondent authorities makes it abundantly

clear though the said order runs into four pages, the

respondent No.2, except reproducing the facts of the case,

contentions of the parties, at length, has not given any cogent

reasons for rejecting the application. The only reason

assigned by the respondent No.2 is that 'the subject property

is covered by various court cases'. Further, the respondent

No.2 advised the petitioners to renew their request for

building permission after disposal of the pending cases.

Thus, it is evident that the impugned order is bereft of

reasons. Further, as admitted by both the parties, as of now,

there are no orders restraining the petitioners from making

construction in the subject property or changing the nature of

land. In the absence of the same, prima facie, this Court is of

the view that the official respondents cannot refuse grant of

permission in favour of the petitioners merely on the ground

of pendency of civil litigation between the parties over the

subject land.

This Court as well as the Apex Court, on number of

occasions, have held that any authority/court/quasi judicial

authority have to necessarily give reasoning in the order

passed by them. Unless reasoning is given in the order,

neither the party nor Courts before whom the order is

challenged will be in a position to appreciate as to what has

weighed with the said authority either for rejecting or

approving the application of the petitioners. Though the

quasi judicial or administrative authority are not obligated to

give a lengthy or elaborate reasoning as in the case of Judicial

order, yet they are expected to give a reasoned order which

should be precise, concisely setting out the reason for

rejecting or approving the application.

In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax

Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs.

Shukla and Brothers1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

as under:

".... while exercising the power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly the judgment

1 (2010) 4 SCC 785

of courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order ...

.... A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant."

This Court in K.Pavan Raj v. M.C.H. Rep. by its

Commissioner2 has held that mere pendency of civil dispute

is not a ground to reject the building permission. Relevant

observations of this Court, at paragraph 20 of the said

judgment, are as under:

A careful reading of the provisions of the Act and the Bye-laws does not indicate that the Commissioner is empowered to entertain a title dispute and adjudicate the same before disposing of the application for grant of building permission. Indeed, both the provisions of Sections 428 and 429 and clause (v) of Bye-law 4.2 envisage filing of copies of title deeds and there is no provision under which the Commissioner can reject grant of building permit on the ground of title dispute.

As held in Hyderabad Potteries (1 supra), if any objection regarding title is received, the Commissioner is required to be prima facie satisfied about the applicant's title to the property and his lawful possession of the same and he cannot decide title dispute because that is neither one of the duties assigned to him nor he is provided with such an adjudicatory mechanism. A person setting up a rival claim of title, is free to approach the court of competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate relief in that regard. If the applications for building permissions are rejected merely on the ground of third parties raising disputes of title, that may result in serious hardship to the owners

2 2008(1) A.P.L.J.2 (HC)

of the properties where frivolous, speculative and vexatious claims may be made by third parties by setting up title. Therefore, wherever the Commissioner is, prima facie, satisfied about the legal title of the applicant and his lawful possession, he is bound to consider the application for building permission on merits, leaving the objector free to approach an appropriate court of law."

For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the ratio laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shukla and

Brothers (1 supra), and this Court in K.Pavan Raj

(2 supra) without going into the merits or demerits of the

case, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned

rejection order dated 21/28.09.2020 and the matter is

remanded back to the respondent No.2 for passing orders,

afresh, in the application dated 30.10.2018 made by the

petitioners for grant of building permission, strictly in

accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably,

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. It is needless to observe that before