Bhattiprolu Ram Lal And 2 Others vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6494 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                  WRIT PETITION No.40792 of 2022

O R D E R:

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"... to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Ex.P-1 rejection letter dated 27.03.2022 in respect of building permission bearing application No.002486/GHMC/1254/SLP1/2022-BP dated 03.03.2022 and refusing to consider the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of GHMC Act and the common order passed in W.P.Nos.14881 and 14885 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant building permission to the petitioners in respect of plot nos.27, 28, 29 and 30 admeasuring to an extent of 855 Sq.yards in Sy.Nos.41/12 and 41/13 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as prayed in building permission bearing application No. 002486/GHMC/ 1254/SLP1/2022-BP dated 03.03.2022 as directed in (i) W.P.No.10352 of 2021 dated 26.10.2022 and (ii) W.P.Nos.14881 and 14885 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020 and ....".

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S. Sridhar submits that

petitioners are owners of their respective plots in the subject properties

having purchased the same under different registered sale deeds and they

have made an application on 03.03.2022 to the respondents for

construction of a residential building duly submitting all relevant

documents showing title and possession. It is submitted that the

petitioners Application was rejected vide letter dated 27.03.2022 on the

ground that the site under reference in Sy.Nos.41/12 and 41/13 of

Khanamet Village is recorded as Poramboke and as per Prohibited list of

Registration and Stamps Departments of Telangana, Sy.Nos.41/12 and

41/13 of Khanamet Village is recorded as Government land. He submits

that in the very same locality where the respondents are claiming that this

is an assigned land, several constructions have come up and bank loans

were also granted and constructions have been in existence from several

years. He submits that in view of the law laid down in Hyderabad

Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District1, they cannot

insist on production of "NOC'. It is submitted that when plot Nos.140, 141,

154, 155, 172 and 173 of Survey No.78 of Hafeezpet Village were rejected

on the ground that the said lands are government lands, the owners of

plots filed Writ Petitions No.14881 and 14885 of 2020 challenging the

rejection orders. The Division Bench of this Court has set aside the said

orders and directed the respondents to grant building permission to the

applicants. It is submitted that in spite of the repeated orders passed by

this court, the respondents on extraneous reasons rejected the building

permission.

3. Mr. M.A.K.Mukheed, learned standing counsel submits that as per

the records available, the land situated in Survey No. 41/12 and 41/13 is

recorded as government assigned land. It is submitted that the respondent

Corporation having verified the records has rejected the building

permission as they have taken into consideration the letter addressed by

the District Collector and the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition

and the property is placed under the prohibitory list. Further, it is

2001(3) ALD 600

submitted that the said site is getting affected in the master plan road.

According to the learned standing counsel, as the land is Government land,

the Corporation has rightly refused to grant permission.

4. In Hyderabad Potteries case (cited supra), it is observed that:

" Of course, the Commissioner has to consider the objections, if any, raised for grant of permission. But, an objection raised by a member of the Committee itself would not be enough to reject the application for grant of permission. The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants. The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objector (s), whether the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. All that the Commissioner required to do is to find out pram facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purpose of granting permission and nothing more."

In the light of the law laid down by this Court in the above judgment, while

granting permission to the applicant, they can only look at the prima facie

title and lawful possession, apart from that they cannot insist for NOC from

the Revenue or any other department. It is the specific case of the

petitioners that they are owners of their respective subject plots having

purchased the same under different sale deeds. Further, it is the specific

case of the petitioners that there are several buildings constructed and the

municipality has granted permission. The submissions of learned standing

counsel is very much silent on this aspect, then it has to be presumed that

they are admitting the fact that they have granted permission in the very

same locality. When it is the case of the respondents that Survey No.

41/12 and 41/13 is a Government land and they are not granting

permission, it is not stated by them on what basis they have granted

permission to other applicants. Further, the ground that petitioners case

cannot be considered as it is going to be affected as per the master plan has

also no legs to stand as they have already granted permission for other

persons.

5. In the light of the law laid down in Hyderabad Potteries Case

(supra) and also in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of

this Court in Writ Appeal No.403 of 2022, dated 05.07.2022, the

respondents shall process the building Application of the petitioners in

accordance with law without taking into consideration the report of the

District Collector.

6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as

to costs.

7. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

_______________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

6th December, 2022 gvl