M.B. Balakrishna vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 3034 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                  WRIT PETITION No.15931 OF 2021
ORDER:

Heard Mr. A. Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing

Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban

Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Mr. N. Praveen

Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing on behalf

of respondent No.2 and Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel for respondent

No.3.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the building permit

No.3068/NA/2021/1038, dated 17.05.2021 issued by respondent No.2 in

favour of respondent No.3 and also the endorsement No.G1/1337/BDPL/

2021, dated 08.06.2021 as illegal and consequently to set aside the same.

3. CASE OF THE PETITIONER:

i) The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner

and possessor of plot Nos.1 to 4 C1, admeasuring 800 square yards in

Survey No.67, situated at Badepally under the Jadcherla Municipality,

Mahaboobnagar District, which is hereinafter referred to as 'the subject

property'.

ii) The petitioner claims that originally his father, late K. Sayanna,

had purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed bearing

document No.54 of 1972, dated 11.01.1972, from Gandhinagar Trust,

Jadcherla represented by its Secretary, Mr.G. Yuganand. Thereafter, a

KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021

rectification deed bearing document No.1068 of 1972 dated 03.08.1972

was also executed correcting the wrong boundaries. From the date of

purchase, the father of the petitioner was in possession of the subject

property. He had made an application for grant of building permission

and the same was granted on 22.03.1972 by the then Gram Panchayath.

The said permission was renewed vide proceedings dated 23.05.1973 for

a further period from 22.03.1973 to 21.03.1974 and, thereafter, further

extension was granted on 09.01.1979. The father of the petitioner died in

the year 1979.

iii) Respondent No.3 herein had purchased an extent of 400 square

yards under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4337 of 2008

and appears to have submitted an application with respondent No.2 for

grant of building permission. Respondent No.3 had also purchased 400

square yards of land from the Gandhinagar Trust which forms part of the

subject property, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.14902

of 2020, and on the strength of the said document, respondent No.3

approached respondent No.2 with a request to grant building permission.

iv) On coming to know about the same, the petitioner herein had

given a complaint dated 20.04.2021, and respondent No.2 vide its notice

dated 05.06.2021 requested respondent No.3 to submit her explanation

along with documents. Respondent No.3 had submitted reply on

17.05.2021. Vide proceedings dated 21.05.2021, respondent No.2

informed the petitioner and respondent No.3 that on verification of

documents by both parties, it is found that the said plots seem to be in

KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021

dispute with regard to the ownership of the plots, and that both the parties

are claiming the same plots which belong to them and, therefore, the

matter comes in civil dispute, they were advised to approach the

appropriate civil Court.

v) Thereafter, vide show-cause notice dated 03.06.2021,

respondent No.2 had informed respondent No.3 to approach Civil Court

for redressal of the title dispute with a direction not to commence the

construction work until title dispute is resolved in appropriate forum. A

similar notice dated 04.06.2021 was also issued to both the petitioner and

respondent No.3 directing them to submit certain documents including

ownership, link documents etc. Thereafter, vide endorsement dated

08.06.2021, respondent No.2 had informed the petitioner that on

verification of all the documents including the proceedings dated

09.07.2012 issued by the Director of Town and Country Planning,

Hyderabad pertaining to Badepally Gram Panchayat, and as per the said

record, there is no approved layout pertaining to Gandhi Trust and there

are no records available in the Municipal Office and, as such, treating as

the plot belonging to respondent No.3 falls in an unapproved layout, it

had collected necessary layout regularization charges as per

G.O.Ms.Nos.131 and 135 while granting building permission. There is

dispute of ownership over the site and the petitioner is claiming

ownership without having any details of survey number and

inappropriate schedule of boundaries, which is purely a private dispute

KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021

and, accordingly, informed the petitioner that it cannot interfere into

private legal dispute.

vi) Mr. A. Giridhar Rao, learned senior counsel representing Mr.

Palle Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit

that respondent No.3 had obtained building permit dated 17.05.2021 by

making false statement and by misrepresentation and suppression of facts

and, therefore, respondent No.2 is having power to revoke the said

building permit issued in favour of respondent No.3 under Section - 176

(9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

vii) The learned senior counsel would further submit that vide

proceedings dated 03.06.2021, respondent No.2 had directed respondent

No.3 not to commence the construction work (if commenced, the same

has to be stopped). Despite the same, respondent No.2 vide proceedings

dated 08.06.2021, directed the petitioner herein to approach the Civil

Court since the dispute between them is a title dispute and, therefore, it

cannot interfere into a private legal dispute, which is illegal.

viii) With the aforesaid submissions, the learned senior counsel

sought to set aside the building permit dated 17.05.2021 and also the

endorsement dated 08.06.2021 issued by respondent No.2.

4. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.2:

i) Respondent No.2 has filed counter contending that respondent

No.3 has submitted an application dated 02.02.2021 seeking permission

KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021

to construct a building. In view of the dispute between the petitioner and

respondent No.3, it had not issued building permission immediately.

Therefore, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 07.05.2021 intimated

respondent No.2 that it had not considered the building permission

application submitted by her within the stipulated period of 21 days, and

thereby respondent No.2 neither rejected, nor considered the said

application. As such, she informed respondent No.2 that she is

commencing the construction work on the ground of deemed permission

and requested respondent No.2 to drop further proceedings.

ii) According to respondent No.2, the building permission was

obtained in Survey No.67 by mentioning open plot, whereas, according

to the petitioner, he is the owner of plot Nos.1 to 4 C1, which is contrary

to the lay out plans submitted by him on various occasions. The land in

Sy.No.67 of Badepally village was subdivided into plots and sold to

various persons through registered sale deeds. The plot extent which the

father of petitioner had purchased is the piece of land in Sy.No.67 to an

extent of 800 square yards in the year 1972 vide document No.54 from

the authorized signatory of Gandhinagar Trust, whereas, the plans

submitted by the petitioner on various occasions are contradictory to each

other. The petitioner had not submitted the rectification deed correcting

the boundary and also encumbrance certificate. The Layout Plan was

approved by the Chief Town Planner with no schedule which is contrary.

Respondent No.3 has approached respondent No.2 seeking building

permission through OnLine dated 17.05.2021, and on the basis of merit

KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021

of the documents, it had accorded building permit to her. However,

respondent No.2 had issued a notice dated 06.05.2021 to submit the

relevant documents as she had commenced the building work as

permission was delayed beyond 21 days. Respondent No.2 had also

directed her not to proceed with construction.

iii) The building permission dated 17.05.2021 was accorded by

duly collecting layout fee as the layout was not in the same shape as

approved by the then Chief Town Planner in the year 1954. Respondent

No.2 had also intimated both the petitioner and respondent No.3 to

approach Civil Court vide proceedings dated 03.06.2021 and 08.06.2021.

Though the petitioner's father had purchased the subject property in the

year 1972, obtained Gram Panchayat permission in the year 1974 as

claimed by the petitioner, he is not in possession of the subject property.

Thus, the petitioner and respondent No.3 are making claim over the

subject property and respondent No.2 has already informed them to

approach Civil Court to finalize the land dispute and proceed further.

iv) With the aforesaid submissions, respondent No.2 sought to

dismiss the writ petition.

5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.3:

i) Respondent No.3 has filed counter contending that she had

purchased 400 square yards of land in Block No.1 of Survey No.67 of

Badepaly Village under a registered document No.14902 of 2020, dated

25.07.2020 from Gandhinagar Trust represented by its Convenor Mr.

Sitaram Jawahar. She is claiming that she had purchased very same

KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021

property from one Mr. Mohd. Habeeb, under a registered sale deed

bearing document No.4337 of 2008, dated 29.07.2008. Though

respondent No.3 has claimed that she has purchased 400 square yards of

land in Sy.No.67 of Badepally Village under the above said sale deeds,

boundaries are different.

ii) There is no explanation from her with regard to the purchase of

the very same property under two sale deeds. However, she claims that

she is owner of 400 square yards of land in Sy.No.67 of Badepally

village under a registered sale deed bearing document No.14902 of 2020,

dated 25.07.2020. She has approached respondent No.2 by way of

submitting an application seeking permission for construction of

residential house, but respondent No.2 neither rejected, nor considered

the same within the stipulated period of 21 days and, therefore, she has

commenced the construction work by duly intimating respondent No.2

by availing the deemed provision. Thereafter, respondent No.2 had

issued building permit order dated 17.05.2021 to respondent No.3.

Therefore, according to respondent No.3, the petitioner is claiming right

over the subject property without there being any basis and documents in

support of his claim. As such, there is no irregularity in issuing the

building permit dated 17.05.2021 by respondent No.2 and the

endorsement dated 18.06.2021 advising the petitioner to approach the

competent Civil Court for redressal.

iii) Referring to the legal notice dated 05.06.2013 got issued by

the petitioner, Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would

KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021

contend that through the said legal notice, the petitioner herein has

requested Gandhinagar Trust, Badepally, to register 11 plots admeasuring

200 square yards each in Sy.No.67 in the name of the petitioner. In the

recitals of the sale deed bearing document No.14902 of 2020, there is

mention about the order dated 12.03.2003 passed by this Court in C.R.P.

No.5491 of 2001.

iv) As per the said judgment, the said Trust is having power to sell

schedule 'A' property, and to develop Schedule 'B' property. Therefore,

according to respondent No.3, she had purchased the said land from the

said Trust. A copy of the order in CRP is also filed. But, there is no

explanation with regard to purchase of the very same property by her

under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4337 of 2008 from

Mr.Mohd. Habeeb, who had purchased the same from one Mr.

Ramakrishna Reddy under a registered sale deed bearing document

No.5912 of 2007, and the said Ramakrishna Reddy had purchased the

same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.490 of 1982.

Therefore, according to the learned counsel for respondent No.3, there is

no irregularity in respondent No.2 issuing a building permit dated

17.05.2021 and the endorsement dated 08.06.2021. There is no false

statement, suppression and misrepresentation of facts by respondent No.3

in obtaining the said building permit.

v) With the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel sought to

dismiss the writ petition.

KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021

6. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that the petitioner

and respondent No.3 herein are claiming right over the very same

property. No civil suits are pending between them. Respondent No.3 is

claiming that she is owner of the land to an extent of 400 square yards in

Sy.No.67 of Badepally Village under Jadcherla Municipality presently

under a registered sale deed bearing document No.14902 of 2020, dated

25.07.2020. On the strength of the said document, she had made an

application dated 02.02.2021 with respondent No.2 seeking building

permission and accordingly respondent No.2 had issued building

permission dated 17.05.2021 for construction of a Ground + 1 Upper

Floor. According to respondent No.3, she is making constructions

strictly in accordance with the said building permit order.

ii) The petitioner herein vide his representation dated 20.04.2021

requested respondent No.2 to stop the construction work on the ground

that respondent No.3 is making construction over his property on the

strength of fictitious and fake documents, and it is a double registration.

Thus, according to the petitioner, there is double registration of plots. On

receipt of the said representation, dated 20.04.2021, respondent No.2 had

requested the petitioner and respondent No.3 to submit their documents

in proof of their claims. Accordingly, they have submitted their

documents including building permission dated 24.09.2014 already

issued in favour of respondent No.3 by the then Badepally Grama

Panchayath. She has also submitted application for building permission

KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021

through OnLine. Thus, on verification of all the documents, as both the

petitioner and respondent No.3 are claiming title over the very same

property and it is a civil dispute, they were advised to approach the

appropriate Civil Court.

iii) Vide proceedings dated 03.06.2021, respondent No.2 directed

respondent No.3 to approach Civil Court for redressal of title dispute

with a further direction not to commence the construction work (if

commence, the same has to be stopped) until the title dispute is redressed

in appropriate Court. Vide notice dated 04.06.2021, respondent No.2 had

requested the petitioner to submit certain documents including linked

documents, E.C., copy of approved layout etc. Vide endorsement dated

08.06.2021, respondent No.2 had informed the petitioner herein that

respondent No.3 has submitted all the documents including copy of

Layout vide letter No.5855/2012/H, dated 09.07.2012 pertains to

Badepally Municipality. As per the said record, there is no approved

layout pertaining to Gandhi Trust and there are no records available in

the municipal office. As such, treating the plot belonging to respondent

No.3 falls in an approved Layout, it had collected necessary layout

regularization charges as per G.O.Ms.Nos.131 and 135 while granting

building permission. There is a dispute of ownership over the site and

the petitioner is claiming without having any details of survey number

and inappropriate schedule of boundaries which is purely a civil dispute.

Respondent No.2 further informed the petitioner that it cannot interfere

into private legal dispute.

KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021

iv) Thus, the above facts would reveal that there are disputes

between the petitioner and respondent No.3 with regard to the title over

the very same property. There is no explanation from the petitioner with

regard to his lapses in not proceeding with the construction and

approaching respondent No.2 complaining about the illegal construction.

There is also no explanation from respondent No.3 with regard to

obtaining two sale deeds. The boundaries mentioned in both the sale

deeds are different and, therefore, there is a dispute between them with

regard to the title which has to be resolved by a competent Civil Court,

but not either respondent No.2 or this Court under Article - 226 of the

Constitution of India.

v) Now, the petitioner is challenging the very building permit

dated 17.05.2021 on the ground that respondent No.3 had obtained the

same by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. As per

Section - 176 (9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, the

Commissioner is having power to revoke the building permission

whenever he finds that it was obtained by making false statement or

misrepresentation of any material facts or violation of law by duly

following the prescribed procedure. There is no suppression or

misrepresentation of facts by respondent No.3 and she has not made false

statement. She had submitted an application on 02.02.2021 seeking

building permission from respondent No.2 on the strength of above two

sale deeds. She had produced layout and also paid regularization fee. As

KL,J W.P.No.15931 of 2021

rightly informed by respondent No.2, the petitioner and respondent No.3

have to approach competent Civil Court for resolving their title dispute.

7. CONCLUSION:

i) Thus, this Court is of the considered view that there is no

suppression and misrepresentation of facts by respondent No.3 while

obtaining building permission dated 17.05.2021 and that she had not

made any false statement before respondent No.2 in obtaining building

permit as alleged by the petitioner. There are serious disputes and

complicated questions of facts involved in the matter including title

dispute over the subject property. As stated above, it appears that as on

today, neither the petitioner, nor respondent No.3 has approached the

competent Civil Court by filing appropriate suit. Further, there is no

irregularity or illegality in issuing building permit order dated 17.05.2021

by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3. Thus, the writ petition

fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

ii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However,

in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ

petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 27th October, 2021 Mgr