P. Subba Rao And Another vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3718 Tel

   THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

     WRIT PETITIONS No. 15777 AND 18966 OF 2022

COMMON ORDER:

W.P.No. 15777 OF 2022:

             This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings

vide Lr.No. 201986/LO/SKP/PLG/H/2015 dated 28.08.2021

issued by the 1st respondent intimating payment of development

charges and other charges issued in favour of the 9th

respondent for sanctioning permission for multi-storied

residential building in the land in an extent of Acs.9.32.5

guntas, Acs.5.32.7 guntas in Survey Nos. 441, 442 and 447

Part of Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District and further processing the Application of the 9th

respondent for according permission without considering the

objections raised by the petitioners, as arbitrary, illegal and

violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of

India.

WRIT PETITION No. 18966 OF 2022

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the building

permission vide No. MC/MNK/TP/24/2021-22 dated

30.11.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent in furtherance of the

technical approval vide No. 201986/LO/SKP/PLG/H/2015

dated 22.10.2021 issue by the 1st respondent for construction of

multi-storied residential building in the land to an extent of

Acs.9.32.5 guntas, Acs.5.32.7 guntas in Survey No. 441, 442

and 447 Part of Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District without considering the objections raised by the

petitioners as arbitrary and illegal.

2. Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of Sri P.V.L. Bhanu Prakash, learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance of the

petitioners in Writ Petition No. 15777 of 2022 is that the 1st

respondent has issued the proceedings dated 28.08.2021

intimating payment of development charges and other charges

issued in favour of the 9th respondent for sanction of permission

for multi-storied residential building in the subject land. He

submits that the father of the 1st petitioner had entered into an

agreement of sale dated 02.06.1996 for purchase of an extent of

Acs.6.36 guntas in Survey No. 447 situated at Puppalaguda

Village, Rajendernagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

with one Sri Kasturi Krishna, Smt. Savitramma, Smt. Neelavati,

Smt. Bhagyamma and Smt. Renuka at Rs.95,000/- per acre

which comes to a total sum of Rs.6,55,000/-. He submits that

an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid as advance and they have

also executed receipts for the same. It is stated that further

payments were also made, totalling to an amount of

Rs.2,05,000/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that after

receiving the amount, when they have not shown interest for

executing the sale deed, the father of the 1st petitioner has filed

O.S.No. 723 of 2003 before the III Additional Senior Civil

Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for specific

performance of agreement of sale dated 02.06.1996. It is stated

that during the pendency of the said suit, the vendor of

Respondents 8 and 9 one Sri L. Purushotham Naidu had filed

implead petition ie. I.A.No. 409 of 2009 stating that the owners

Sri G. Narayana and Sri G. Srinivas had sold the land in his

favour along with his associates Sri G. Anand Reddy, Sri J.C.

Pavan Reddy through agreement of sale dated 27.08.1993 at

Rs.1,17,000/- per acre with a total sale consideration amount of

Rs.7,89,750/-. It is stated that the said I.A. filed by Sri

Purushotham Naidu was dismissed on 12.09.2017 and it has

attained finality. It is also stated that during pendency of the

implead petition, the said Purushotham Naidu along with his

associates had entered into registered document with

Respondents 8 and 9 and several others in 2013 which fact

was never brought to the notice of the civil Court. Learned

Senior Counsel submits that a judgment and decree was passed

on 21.06.2018 in favour of the 1st petitioner's father and they

have deposited the balance consideration amount and also filed

E.P.No. 610 of 2019 for execution of the said decree. He submits

that Respondents 8 and 9 along with others have filed A.S (SR)

8095 of 2020 before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy

District against the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2018 in

O.S.No. 723 of 2003 and the learned Judge by order dated

28.11.2020 granted stay of all further proceedings including

implementation and execution of the decree dated 21.06.2018

till disposal of the leave petition. He submits that there is a

delay of nearly two years and when an Appeal is filed without

delay condonation petition, still, the Appellate Court has

entertained and granted interim order.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the 1st

respondent through letter dated 17.05.2018 granted technical

approval and informed the same to the Executive Authority,

Puppalaguda Gram Panchayat, Gandipet Mandal. He submits

that Respondents 8 and 9 are not the owners of the property

situated in Survey No. 447 to an extent of Acs.6.36 guntas and

there is a decree in favour of the petitioners which was brought

to the notice of the 1st respondent and still the 1st respondent

without considering any of the same, has granted technical

approval. It is stated that the unofficial respondents are

inducing the innocent purchasers to purchase the undivided

land and also taking advances on the false pretext of ownership.

He submits that the unofficial respondents along with others

have filed O.S.No. 301 of 2021 before the II Additional District

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar against the legal

heirs of late Sri P. Vengal Rao and also against the legal heirs of

Sri K. Shankaraiah seeking several relief of declaration and

injunction. He submits that though Respondent No.1 accorded

provisional permission, under the guise of that, the unofficial

respondents are trying to make construction and inducing the

innocent purchasers. It is submitted that the when a

representation is given and also it is brought to the notice of the

official respondents that the unofficial respondents without any

manner of right and title have made an Application and creating

litigation, the official respondents ought not to have granted

permission. Further, these factors were not taken into

consideration and the technical approvals were granted which

made the petitioners to approach this Court.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the 2nd

petitioner is son of late Sri P. Vengal Rao who is one of the

parties to the agreement of sale, since he died intestate, both

the petitioners along with other legal heirs inherited the said

property as such, petitioner No.2 has locus standi to file the

Writ Petition. It is stated that the complaint was given by the

2nd petitioner to the 1st respondent with a request not to grant

building permission on 06.08.2021 and submitted an

Application under the Right to Information Act on 30.08.2021.

It is stated that a reply was given by the 1st respondent on

28.10.2021, provisional permission was granted on 28.08.2021,

show cause notice to Respondent No.9 was issued on

11.10.2021, reply to the show cause notice was submitted on

23.10.2021, technical approval was granted on 22.10.2021 and

building permission was given to the 9th respondent on

30.11.2021. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the entire

process, the 1st respondent authorities have failed to consider

the objections raised by the petitioners in a proper perspective

and in view of the litigation between the parties, at any rate, the

respondents should not have granted permission and the

permission dated 30.11.2021 is liable to be set aside.

4. Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents submits that

when the petitioners came to know about the building

permission dated 30.11.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent

Commissioner in furtherance of the technical approval dated

22.10.2021, they filed Writ Petition No. 18966 of 2022 before

this Court. He submits that the petitioners cannot maintain the

Writ Petition as there are several disputed questions of fact

involved and apart from this, when an Application is made

seeking building permission, the respondent authorities can

only look into prima facie title and till today, there is no

registered document in favour of the petitioners, whereas the

unofficial respondents have got a registered sale deed and title

to the property, basing on that the official respondents have

accorded permission. It is submitted by the learned Senior

Counsel that the petitioners are claiming right only in respect of

Survey No. 447 situated at Puppalaguda Village, whereas in the

Writ Petition, they sought relief in respect of the properties on

which they admittedly never claimed any right, title or interest

and even Survey Nos. 441 and 442 are not subject matter of the

suit. Learned Senior counsel submits that it shows the conduct

of the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners in a way are

trying to convert municipal office into a civil court and settle all

their claims before them. He submits that as the permission

has already been granted in favour of the unofficial

respondents, Writ Petition No. 15777 of 2022 becomes

infructuous. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in specific

performance decree dated 21.06.2018, the unofficial

respondents are not parties and the decree which is obtained

fraudulently is not binding on them. He submits that during

the pendency of O.S.No. 723 of 2003, Sri P. Vengala Rao died

and the E.P. is also pending for consideration, further passing

of final decree is also stayed by the District Court. He submits

that the unofficial respondents along with others have applied

for sanction and sanction has been accorded in the name of

Respondent No.9 for construction vide permission dated

30.11.2021 and construction is in progress as per the

sanctioned plan. It is stated that the 9th respondent has also

mortgaged 10% of the built up area in favour of the 1st

respondent and it cannot be said that the unofficial respondents

are making illegal constructions. It is also stated that the

petitioners without even obtaining minimum information have

come up before this Court and are trying to stall the

construction activity. It is further stated that the petitioners

can only object for grant of permission and MDA also can deal

with the same under Section 22 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan

Development Act (for short, 'the Act') only when permission is

obtained by suppression or misrepresentation of facts. In this

case, basing on the prima facie title and several relevant

documents, the respondent authorities have accorded

permission and there is no illegality in the said order. Learned

Senior Counsel submits that Writ Petition No. 18966 of 2022 is

filed questioning the order dated 30.11.2021 and it is submitted

that in the light of these facts, this Court may not interfere with

the said permission as it was accorded as per the provisions of

the HMDA Act.

5. Learned counsel Sri Y. Rama Rao appearing on

behalf of the 1st respondent HMDA submits that the 1st

respondent received the Application of the unofficial

respondents on 26.03.2021 for approval of multi-storied

building with residential apartments for construction of nine

blocks. It is stated that earlier in the year 2017, the 1st

respondent received objection dated 31.08.2017 from the 2nd

petitioner against granting building permission in favour of the

9th respondent stating that there is dispute with regard to

Survey No. 447 to an extent of Acs.6.36 guntas and O.S.No. 273

of 2003 and O.S. No. 1720 of 2004 are pending. It is stated that

then they have issued a letter dated 17.10.2017 to the 9th

respondent to submit explanation on the objection petition. It is

stated that a reply was submitted stating that HMDA can only

look into prima facie title while granting permission and HMDA

cannot go into and decide the title. He submits that the 1st

respondent authorities have examined the Application in the

light of Section 53(4) of the HMDA Act and any development

permission given under the HMDA Act can only be construed as

from the planned developed point of view and in no way, it

confirms the ownership rights or affect the ownership under the

land revenue laws and the Authority shall stand absolved of any

ownership disputes or discrepancies. Hence, they have

overruled the objection and issued technical approval to the

proposed multi-storied buildings in the site on 17.05.2018.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that again the revised plans

were submitted on 26.03.2021 duly adding additional extent of

Acs.5.32.7 guntas for construction of multi-storied residential

buildings in the site under reference with seven blocks. It is

stated that again, the authorities have received the same

objection on 06.08.2021 from the 2nd petitioner, they have

asked the 2nd petitioner to submit relevant documents and also

called for an objection from the 9th respondent. It is stated that

they have not received any explanation or documents from the

petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents. It is also

stated that when the 1st respondent authorities examined the

objection filed by the 2nd petitioner, as per the material available

on record, they observed that the 2nd petitioner has not

submitted any title deeds, ownership documents in support of

his claim, whereas the unofficial respondents have submitted

pahanis, title deeds, joint development agreement, certificate of

registration, Encumbrance Certificate and these documents

were examined by the revenue officials and stated that the

unofficial respondents have prima facie title over the subject

land. He submits that there is no provision under the HMDA

Act which enables a person to file objection petition before the

HMDA opposing grant of development permission. He submits

that the said stand was upheld by the High Court in Writ

Petition No.29951 of 2014, dated 13.10.2014. He also submits

that one after the other with similar kind of complaints, the 2nd

petitioner is coming up before the authorities and they have

disposed of his objections on 22.10.2021 and issued technical

approval to the unofficial respondents. He submits that if at all

there are any disputes between the petitioners and the unofficial

respondents, they have to settle them before the competent

forum but not before this Court.

6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel on either

side, the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, perused the

entire material on record.

7. The petitioners made a representation to the HMDA

not to grant any permission in favour of the unofficial

respondents on the ground that they have a decree in their

favour and the Appeal against the said judgment and decree is

also pending. In view of the pending civil disputes, HMDA

should not grant permission in favour of the unofficial

respondents. When an Application is filed seeking building

permission before the HMDA or before the municipality, they

have no jurisdiction to go into any disputed questions of fact or

decide the title of the parties. They can only consider the

Application seeking building permission basing on the material

placed before them by looking at the prima facie title to the

property and either grant or refuse permission. In this case, the

petitioners have filed a suit for specific performance and

obtained a decree. So far the sale deed is not executed in favour

of the petitioner. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned

Standing Counsel for HMDA that the unofficial respondents

have pahanis, registration certificate, encumbrance certificate,

etcetera in their favour. HMDA taking all these documents into

consideration and having satisfied with the prima facie title

granted permission. In none of the suits, HMDA is a party and

no prohibitory orders are passed by the Courts restraining the

HMDA from granting permission. Earlier also, multiple

complaints were filed by the petitioners in the similar lines and

they were rejected. Now they have come up with another set of

complaints before the authorities. This has become a growing

trend in the city where the parties in the process of settling their

civil disputes are relying more on the local bodies and the

HMDA and further approaching this Court. The respondents

have no jurisdiction to entertain these kind of petitions.

Petitioner, who has no registered document evidencing title to

the property basing on the pending civil litigation, cannot stall

the construction activity of the unofficial respondents and the

respondents cannot be compelled to go beyond their jurisdiction

and interfere in the disputed questions of fact. Hence, this

Court finds no reason to entertain these Writ petitions.

8. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed

giving liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy, if

any before the competent Court. There shall be no order as to

costs.

8. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this

writ petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

15th July 2022.

Issue CC in four days ksld