Aneem Ratnakalyan vs State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2527 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                 WRIT PETITION No.11782 OF 2021
                  ALONG WITH I.A. No.2 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:

      Heard Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to

11, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban

Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned

Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent

No.2, Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, learned Government

Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. However, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos.12, 13 and

14 as the notices sent to their addresses returned un-served on the ground

of 'addressee was out of station' and 'addressee left' respectively.

Despite service of notice on respondent No.15, none appears on his

behalf. According to Section - 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the

service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying

and posting by registered post, a letter containing the notices sent to the

addresses. Therefore, the aforesaid respondents shall be deemed to have

been served.

3. This writ petition is filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 4 through their

GPA Holder, Mr. S. Madhava Reddy, to declare that the action of

respondent No.3 in processing the application for grant of building

permission submitted by respondent Nos.7 to 11 and further sanctioning

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

the same vide permit No.1/C3/05541/2021, dated 15.04.2021 in file

No.1/C3/01220/2020 in violation of the orders, dated 07.12.2004 passed

by this Court in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004, as

illegal. Whereas, I.A. No.2 of 2021 is filed by respondent Nos.5 to 11

seeking to vacate the interim order dated 29.04.2021 passed by this Court

in the writ petition.

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

i) The father of petitioners, Annem Markandeya, had purchased

plot Nos.10 and 11, admeasuring in an area of 500 square yards each,

making a total extent of 1000 square yards, in Survey No.66/14, situated

at Mansoorabad Village, Hyderabad East Taluk of Hyderabad District

under registered documents bearing sale deed Nos.1590 of 1968 and

1589 of 1968, both dated 05.04.1968.

ii) Upon the death of the father of the petitioners, the said plots

devolved upon his legal heirs, the petitioners herein.

iii) Whereas, vide G.O.Ms.No.426 of Revenue (Assignment-V)

Department, dated 23.06.2001, Government had allotted land to an extent

of 500 square yards in Survey No.66/15, situated at Mansoorabad

Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to respondent No.5

on account of death of her husband, A. Rambhupal Reddy, Security

Officer in the Naxal Landmine Blast on 07.03.2000.

iv) Similarly, vide letter No.E4/2844/2001, dated 24.05.2001,

issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, the Deputy

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar vide proceedings

No.C/3138/2002, dated 30.07.2002, have allotted land to an extent of 500

square yards in Survey No.66/15, situated at Mansoorabad Village of

Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondent No.6

on account of death of her husband, Mr. C. Niranjan, P.C. 309 in the very

same incident.

v) Ring Road was laid in the year 1984 affecting the entire

southern portion of Survey No.66/15, and also Plot No.9 in Survey

No.66/14, and thereby the western boundary of the petitioners' plot

Nos.10 and 11 abutted the ring road.

vi) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 started manipulating the official

respondents to create false record as if the land on the western side of

plot Nos.10 and 11 in Survey No.66/14 was allotted to them with a view

to grab the valuable property of the petitioners as it abutting the ring

road.

vii) Before allotment of the lands to respondent Nos.5 and 6, when

the Mandal Revenue Officer at the instance of some local leaders tried to

interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' plot

Nos.10 and 11, petitioner No.1 and his mother filed a suit in O.S. No.690

of 2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, East & North, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B. Nagar against i) Smt. Rawath Shanthamma, ii) Mr.

M.D. Mahaboob, iii) Mr. M. Mallaiah, and iv) The Mandal Revenue

Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, for perpetual injunction. In the said suit,

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

the Mandal Revenue Officer filed written statement contending that the

land covered by the petitioners' plots are located in Survey No.66/14 and

that it was declared as surplus land of original Vendor, Mr. P.T. Venkata

Chary and that he surrendered the same. Thus, it is clear that the

petitioners' plots are situated in Survey No.66/14.

viii) Thereafter, petitioner No.1 and his mother filed an appeal

before the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling (ULC), along with stay

petition. As the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, failed to take up the

said petition, they filed W.P. No.17599 of 2001 and the same was

disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.08.2001, directing the

respondents therein to maintain status quo in all respects including

possession obtaining as on that date until disposal of the appeal preferred

by the petitioners before the Commissioner, ULC.

ix) In the said writ petition, respondent No.5 herein has filed a

review petition vide Review WPMP No.30060 of 2001, and this Court

vide order dated 08.11.2001, disposed of the said review petition

maintaining the earlier order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition

dated 24.08.2001. However, in the said order it was observed that the

petitioners herein have no claim over the land in Survey No.66/15, while

respondent No.5 herein has no claim over the land in survey No.66/14,

and that if there was any dispute with regard to identification of the

property, the parties were directed to approach a competent Civil Court.

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

x) Pursuant to the said observations, petitioner No.1 and his

mother filed a civil suit in O.S. No.1166 of 2001 on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar,

Hyderabad, against respondent No.5 and the Government, seeking for

declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of property

bearing Plot Nos.10 and 11, admeasuring 1000 square yards in Survey

No.66/14 of Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. In the said suit, the Government has contended that petitioner

No.1 and his mother land is in Survey No.66/14 and that they are trying

to encroach into the land in Survey No.66/15. Thus, the respondents

never interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment. However,

the said suit was decreed in part by the trial Court to the extent of

granting the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the said

plots, but rejected the relief of perpetual injunction, vide judgment and

decree dated 13.02.2004.

xi) Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, dated

13.02.2004 to the extent of rejecting the relief of perpetual injunction,

petitioner No.1 and his mother preferred appeal vide A.S. No.2322 of

2004 before this Court, along with petition in C.M.P.No.10240 of 2004,

for interim injunction. This Court after hearing both parties vide order

dated 07.12.2004, directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that

day in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004.

xii) The appeal filed by the petitioners was allowed on 22.01.2005

by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administrative, Hyderabad, and all

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

the plots covered by the sale deeds executed and registered in the years

1966 and 1967 including the petitioners were excluded from the holding

of Mr. P.T. Venkatachari, and the matter was remitted back to the Special

Officer & Competent Authority (SO & CA), ULC, Hyderabad for

disposal. Finally, the SO & CA, by order dated 18.07.2005 declared Mr.

P.T. Venkatachari as Non-surplus holder and, thus, the proceedings under

the Urban Land Ceiling Act were concluded in favour of the petitioners

and other plot owners, and the said orders became final. Therefore, the

very basis of respondents' case in the said suit is flawed.

xiii) Despite the status quo order dated 07.12.2004 in C.M.P.

No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004, respondent No.5 and others

tried to encroach on the said property, petitioner No.1 and his mother

filed a Contempt Petition and the same is pending.

xiv) On the application filed by the petitioners, this Court vide

order dated 07.03.2007 in A.S.M.P. No.10240 of 2013 in A.S. No.2322

of 2004 directed the District Collector to submit the entire allotment

record.

xv) While the matter stood thus, as part of their illegal attempts to

encroach upon the petitioners' property and in violation of status quo

orders granted by this Court, respondent No.5 has executed a registered

gift deed bearing document No.3928 of 2019, dated 24.07.2019 gifting

the said 500 square yards of land in Survey No.66/15 in favour of her

sons, respondent Nos.7 and 8. Like-wise, respondent No.6 has also gifted

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

the said extent of 500 square yards in favour of her sons and daughter,

respondent Nos.9 to 11 under Gift Deed bearing document No.3861 of

2019, dated 17.07.2019. By virtue of the said two gift deeds, respondent

Nos.7 to 11 have entered into a registered Development Agreement -

cum - General Power of Attorney with Builders, respondent Nos.12 to 15

vide document No.776 of 2020, dated 31.08.2019. Thereafter,

respondent Nos.7 to 11 have also executed simple mortgage deed in

favour of GHMC under a registered document No.1768 of 2021, dated

05.03.2021.

xvi) The aforesaid documents were executed in violation of status

quo order dated 07.12.2004 passed by this Court in C.M.P. No.10240 of

2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004.

xvii) Pursuant to the said gift deeds and development agreement,

the unofficial respondents approached respondent No.3 for grant of

approval / construction permission in respect of the petitioners' property

i.e., plot Nos.10 and 11, admeasuring 500 square yards each, showing the

said plots within Sy.No.66/15 of Mansoorabad Village. Then, the

petitioners herein have filed W.P. No.2464 of 2021, and this Court has

passed an interim order on 22.02.2021, directing the official respondents

to consider the objections / representations made by the petitioners before

granting building permission to respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the

subject property.

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

xviii) On coming to know about the mortgage deed, the petitioners

herein have submitted a representation dated 16.03.2021 to respondent

No.3 informing all the aforesaid facts and requested not to grant building

permission for construction of a Commercial Complex in favour of the

unofficial respondents. Respondent No.3 - GHMC vide its letter dated

15.04.2021, requested the petitioners herein to settle the matter with

regard to the title dispute in the appropriate department and forum.

Respondent No.3 accordingly granted building permit in favour of

unofficial respondents. Therefore, the petitioners herein have filed the

present writ petition to cancel the said building permit dated 15.04.2021

issued in favour of unofficial respondents on the ground that they have

obtained the same by misrepresentation and suppression of facts

including the status quo order dated 07.12.2004 granted by this Court in

C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004.

xix) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioners sought to set aside the impugned building permit dated

15.04.2021 issued in favour of unofficial respondents.

5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.5 to 11:

i) Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.5 to 11, would submit that the present writ petition is not

maintainable since the grievance of the petitioners herein is in violation

of orders passed by this Court in CMP No.10240 of 2004 in A.S.

No.2322 of 2004, and they have already filed a contempt petition.

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

Therefore, the present writ petition has to be dismissed on the said

ground alone.

ii) He would further submit that the petitioners have alternative

remedy, and without availing the same, they have filed the present writ

petition. The Court below has passed a reasoned judgment in O.S.

No.1166 of 2021 wherein it was specifically observed that the petitioners

herein are not having any right or title or possession over the subject

property.

iii) Referring to the findings of the Court below in the judgment

dated 13.02.2004 in O.S. No.1166 of 2001, learned counsel would submit

that, the said findings are reasoned and are based on both oral and

documentary evidence. Therefore, the Court below has dismissed the

suit with regard to the relief of perpetual injunction. Therefore,

respondent Nos.5 and 6 have executed respective gift deeds in favour of

respondent Nos.7 to 11 respectively, who in turn executed a development

agreement-cum-GPA in favour of respondent Nos.12 to 15. Thus, there is

no illegality or irregularity in it.

iv) With the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel sought to

dismiss the present writ petition.

6. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF GHMC:

i) Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, would submit that, respondent

No.3 does not have any power to go into the title of the parties. It only

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

examines prima facie title and possession of the person seeking building

permission. If at all, the parties have a dispute involving title, they have

to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication. Therefore,

respondent No.3, vide its letter dated 15.04.2021, requested the

petitioners to settle the dispute before the appropriate department or

forum. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity in the said letter as well

as the building permit granted in favour of the unofficial respondents.

ii) With the above said submissions, learned standing counsel

sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

7. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) The above said facts as well as submissions made by the

respective counsel would reveal that the petitioners herein are claiming

that they are the owners of Plot Nos.10 and 11, admeasuring 500 square

yards each, making a total extent of 1000 square yards in Survey

No.66/14, situated at Mansoorabad Village, Hyderabad East Taluk of

Hyderabad District, under registered documents bearing Sale Deed

Nos.1590 of 1968 and 1589 of 1968, both dated 05.04.1968. Whereas,

respondent Nos.5 and 6 are claiming that they are owners of land,

admeasuring 500 square yards each, in Sy.No.66/15 of the very same

village by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.426 of Revenue (Assignment-V)

Department, dated 23.06.2001 and letter No.E4/2844/2001, dated

24.05.2001 of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the

proceedings No.C/3138/2002, dated 30.07.2002, of the Deputy Collector

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

and Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar, respectively, as the said lands

were allotted to them on account of death of their husbands, A.

Rambhupal Reddy and Mr. C. Niranjan, Security Officer and P.C. 309 in

the Naxal Landmine Blast on 07.03.2000. Petitioner No.1 and his mother

had filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No.1166 of 2001 on the file of the Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar, Hyderabad,

against respondent Nos.2 and 5 and also the Government, seeking for

declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of said Plot

Nos.10 and 11. The said suit was decreed in part by the trial Court to the

extent of granting the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the

said plots, but rejected the relief of perpetual injunction, vide judgment

and decree dated 13.02.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners herein preferred first appeal vide A.S. No.2322 of 2004, and

this Court vide order dated 07.12.2004 in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in

A.S. No.2322 of 2004 directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on that

day. Further, this Court vide order dated 07.03.2017 directed the

Registry to summon the entire record pertaining to the allotment of land

in Sy.No.66/15 of Mansoorabad village along with File No.LC2/7803/98

from respondent No.2 - District Collector.

ii) Thus, the above said facts would reveal that, there is a dispute

with regard to the identification of property, as the petitioners herein are

claiming that they are the owners of plot Nos.10 and 11 in Sy.No.66/14,

whereas, unofficial respondents are claiming that they are the owners of

land in Sy.No.66/15. Thus, there is a cloud over the title of both the

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

parties. A suit vide O.S. No.1166 of 20021 was filed for declaration and

perpetual injunction and the same was decreed in part. An appeal vide

A.S. No.2322 of 2004 is filed and it is pending. There is an order dated

07.12.2004 to maintain status quo, which was passed after hearing both

parties. The said order is subsisting.

iii) It is relevant to note that the appeal filed by petitioner No.1

and his mother was allowed on 22.01.2005 by the Chief Commissioner of

Land Administrative, Hyderabad, and all the plots covered by the sale

deeds executed and registered in the years 1966 and 1967 including the

petitioners were excluded from the holding of Mr. P.T. Venkatachari and

the matter was remitted back to the Special Officer & Competent

Authority (SO & CA), ULC, Hyderabad for disposal afresh. Pursuant to

the same, the SO & CA, by order dated 18.07.2005 declared Mr. P.T.

Venkatachari as Non-surplus holder. Thus, the proceedings under the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were concluded in

favour of the petitioners and other plot owners, and the said orders

became final. Therefore, the very basis of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the

said suit is lost.

iv) During subsistence of status quo orders dated 07.12.2004

passed by this Court in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of

2004, respondent Nos.5 and 6 had executed Gift Deeds bearing document

Nos.3928 of 2019 and 3861 of 2019, dated 24.07.2019 and 17.07.2019

gifting the said 500 square yards of land each in Survey No.66/15 in

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

favour of their children, respondent Nos.7 to 11 respectively.

Respondent Nos.7 to 11, in turn, entered into a registered Development

Agreement - cum - General Power of Attorney with respondent Nos.12 to

15 vide document No.776 of 2020, dated 31.08.2019 in respect of the

said land for development of the said property into a commercial

complex. Respondent Nos.7 to 11 have also executed simple mortgage

deed in favour of GHMC under a registered document No.1768 of 2021,

dated 05.03.2021. Pursuant to the said development agreement, the

unofficial respondents have submitted an application with respondent

No.3 on 21.01.2020 for building permission showing the subject property

in an area of 836.12 square meters as vacant plot in Sy.No.66/15 situated

at Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, for the purpose of

development of the said land into Commercial Complex consisting of

One Cellar, Ground + 4 Upper Floors. On coming to know about the

attempts made by respondent Nos.7 to 15 to obtain building permit, the

petitioners herein have filed W.P. No.2464 of 2021, seeking a direction

against respondent No.3, not to grant any construction permission to

respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of the petitioners' property i.e., Plot

Nos.10 and 11, admeasuring 500 square yards each in Sy.No.66/14 of

Mansoorabad Village, and this Court vide order dated 22.02.2021, passed

the following:

The Court made the following ORDER: "Notice before admission.

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to take out personal notice to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and file proof of service into the Registry. Post on 30-03-2021.

The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, has stated that as on date there is no system of verifying as to whether any application for building permission is made by any person in respect of the subject property, and whether any objections are filed to the same, like that of a Caveat in the Courts. Moreover, as of now, the entire system has become online under the TS-bPASS. Therefore, it is only on the self- certification made by the applicants, the building permissions are granted. The learned Standing Counsel has further stated that in case a specific direction is issued by the Courts, the Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, will try to verify whether any applications or objections are pending, to the best extent possible.

In view of the above made submissions, the official respondents are directed to take into consideration the objections/representations made by the petitioners before granting building permission to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in respect of the subject proper."

Thus, this Court directed respondent No.3 to take into consideration of

the objections / representations made by the petitioners before granting

building permission in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein in respect

of the subject property. A similar order was passed in W.P. No.2353 of

2021 on 02.02.2021.

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

v) The petitioners submitted a representation dated 16.03.2021, to

respondent No.3, informing all the aforesaid facts and requested not to

grant building permission for construction of a Commercial Complex in

favour of the unofficial respondents. Respondent No.3 - GHMC vide its

letter dated 15.04.2021, requested the petitioners herein to settle the

matter with regard to the title dispute before the appropriate department

or forum. Respondent No.3, accordingly granted building permit in

favour of unofficial respondents. Therefore, the petitioners herein have

filed the present writ petition to cancel the said building permit dated

15.04.2021, issued in favour of unofficial respondents on the ground that

they have obtained the same by misrepresentation and suppression of

facts including the pendency of the appeal and status quo order dated

07.12.2004 granted by this Court in C.M.P. No.10240 of 2004 in A.S.

No.2322 of 2004.

vi) A perusal of the proceedings dated 15.04.2021, would reveal

that though respondent No.3 mentions that the objections submitted by

the petitioners herein are considered and examined in detail with regard

to the land in Sy.No.66/14, and directed the petitioners to settle the

matter with regard to the title disputes before the appropriate department

or forum, respondent No.3 has not considered the contentions /

objections raised by the petitioners herein including the fact of pendency

of A.S. No.2322 of 2004, which is pending before this Court, and also

the status quo orders passed therein on 07.12.2004 in C.M.P. No.10240

of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004, and also the contention that the

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

unofficial respondents have applied for building permission by

misrepresentation and suppression of facts.

8. CONCLUSION:

i) There is dispute with regard to the identification of property as

the petitioners are claiming that the subject plots are situated in

Sy.No.66/14, whereas, unofficial respondents are claiming that their

property is in Sy.No.66/15. The appeal filed by the petitioners is pending

for adjudication before this Court with regard to the relief of perpetual

injunction which was rejected by the trial Court, though a decree for

declaration was granted declaring the petitioners as owners of plot

Nos.10 and 11 in Sy.No.66/14. During pendency of the said appeal, this

Court vide order dated 07.12.2004, granted status quo in C.M.P.

No.10240 of 2004 in A.S. No.2322 of 2004, and the said orders are still

subsisting. Despite of the said status quo orders, respondent No.5 has

executed Gift Deed, bearing document No.3928 of 2019 dated

24.07.2019, gifting the said 500 square yards of land in Survey No.66/15

in favour of her children, respondent Nos.7 and 8. Respondent No.6 had

also executed gift deed No.3861 of 2019 dated 17.07.2019, gifting the

said land admeasuring 500 square yards in Sy.No.66/15 of Mansoorabad

Village in favour of her children, respondent Noso.9 to 11. Respondent

Nos.7 to 11 in turn entered into a registered Development Agreement -

cum - General Power of Attorney with Builders, respondent Nos.12 to 15

vide document No.776 of 2020, dated 31.08.2019 in respect of the said

land for development of the said property into commercial complex.

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

Respondent Nos.7 to 11 have also executed simple mortgage deed in

favour of GHMC under a registered document No.1768 of 2021, dated

05.03.2021. Basing on the said documents, the unofficial respondents

have obtained the building permission dated 15.04.2021 and there is no

mention about pendency of the said appeal and granting of status quo

orders etc. Thus, there is clear misrepresentation and suppression of facts

by the unofficial respondents while making the application dated

21.01.2020 to respondent No.3 for building permission. Even,

respondent No.3 without considering the said facts and also the

objections raised by the petitioners including the status quo orders

granted by this Court, granted building permission in favour of unofficial

respondents on 15.04.2021. On the other hand, respondent No.3 directed

the petitioners to settle the title dispute in the appropriate department and

forum. Thus, it is clear that respondent No.3 has not considered the

objections raised by the petitioners in proper perspective while according

building permission in favour of unofficial respondents. Viewed from

any angle, the action of respondent No.3 in granting building permit

dated 15.04.2021 in favour of unofficial respondents is illegal, arbitrary

and in violation of the procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and so also the proceedings dated

15.04.2021. Respondent No.3 failed to consider that there is dispute with

regard to the identification of property and if respondent Nos.7 to 15

proceed with construction, the interest and claim of the petitioners in

A.S. No.2322 of 2004 will be defeated.

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

ii) As observed above, the husbands of respondent Nos.5 and 6, A.

Rambhupal Reddy and Mr. C. Niranjan, Security Officer and Police

Constable - 309 respectively while on duty of late A. Madhava Reddy,

the then Minister for Panchayat Raj, died in the Naxal Landmine Blast on

07.03.2000. The Government have allotted the land to an extent of 500

square yards each in Sy.No.66/15 of Mansoorabad Vilage by virtue of

G.O.Ms.No.426 of Revenue (Assignment-V) Department, dated

23.06.2001 and letter No.E4/2844/2001, dated 24.05.2001 of the District

Collector, Ranga Reddy District and the proceedings No.C/3138/2002,

dated 30.07.2002, of the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer,

Saroornagar, respectively. But, though the land was allotted by the

Government, unfortunately, respondent No.5 is facing problem due to the

dispute with regard to the identification of property. In view of the same,

the purpose for which the land allotted to respondent No.5, as envisaged

in G.O.Ms.No.1409 of Revenue, dated 19.08.1978 and G.O.Ms.No.155

of G.A.(SC.C) Department, dated 14.04.1997 would be defeated.

Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to lok into the matter personally

and take necessary steps to resolve the issue as early as possible890,

preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

iii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, and the

building permit No.1/C3/05541/2021, dated 15.04.2021, accorded by

respondent No.3 in file No.1/C3/01220/2020 in favour of unofficial

respondents is hereby set aside.

KL,J W.P.No.11782 of 2021

iv) For the foregoing discussion, I.A. No.2 of 2021 is dismissed.

v) 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 3rd September, 2021 Mgr