Smt. V.Pushpalatha vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5272 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5272 Tel
Judgement Date : 26 October, 2022

Telangana High Court

Smt. V.Pushpalatha vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 26 October, 2022

Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                 WRIT PETITION No. 15292 OF 2021

O R D E R:

This 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 1 to 4 in issuing Ex.P1 shortfall letter dated 23.06.2021 in respect of building permission application bearing file No. 3/C21/04801/2021 dated 26.02.2021 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 a side the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to grant building permission to the petitioner in respect of Plot Nos. 7 and 8/A, admeasuring 150 square yards or equivalent to 125.40 square meters from out of total land admeasuring 450 square yards or equivalent to 376.20 square meters in Survey Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as prayed in application bearing File No. 3/C21/04801/2021, dated 26.02.2021 as directed in W.P.Nos. 14881 and 14885 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020 and pass such other order or orders ay as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S. Sridhar

submits that originally one Sri Zahed Ali was the absolute owner

and possessor of Plot Nos. 7 and 8/A admeasuring 450 square

yards in Survey Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 of Khanamet Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased

the same from Seri Paramagari Prabhakar Rao through registered

sale deed dated 24.05.1995. It is submitted that the said Zahed

Ali executed and registered sale deed dated 03.07.1995 conveying

the above said extent of land in favour of Sri Col. Narayana Rao

Potluri for a valid sale consideration and the said Narayana Rao in

turn executed a registered sale deed on 05.07.2019 in favour of

the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner applied

for building permission vide Application dated 26.02.2021 before

the respondents. He submits that the respondents vide shortfall

letter dated 23.06.2021 had refused to grant building permission

on the ground that the proposed site is covered under prohibited

list of Registration and Stamps Departments of Telangana.

Learned counsel submits that this action of the

respondents in issuing the shortfall letter dated 23.06.2021 is

contrary to law. It is submitted that whenever an Application for

building permission is filed, the respondents are bound to consider

the same if they are prima facie satisfied with the title and

possession of the applicant. Here, the respondents though having

satisfied with the prima facie title have gone into the other aspects

which are irrelevant and rejected the Application of the petitioner.

He submits that this order of the respondents is contrary to the

law laid down by this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private

Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District1. 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. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent

Corporation. Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel submits that the Corporation has issued the shortfall

letter dated 23.06.2021 basing on the report of the District

Collector that the lands in Survey Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 situated

at Khanamet Village are government lands. Further, the order in

Writ Petitions No. 14881 and 1885 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020 is

not applicable to the facts of the present case.

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

2001(3) ALD 600

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 petitioner that there are

several buildings constructed and the municipality has granted

permission. The counter 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 are government

land and they are not granting permission, it is not stated in the

counter on what basis they have granted permission to other