Telangana High Court

M/ S. Jvs Constructions vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 26 October, 2022

Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                    WRIT PETITION No. 18069 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 in issuing Ex.P1 shortfall intimation letter dated 23.07.2021 in respect of building permission application No. 000747/GHMC/0416/SLP2/2021-BP dated 14.07.2021 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 herein to grant building permission to the petitioner firm in respect of H.No. 2-50/8 on plot Nos. 65 and 66 in Sy.Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as prayed in building permission application No. 000747/GHMC/0416/SLP2/2021-BP dated 14.07.2021 and 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 one Sri Chilakapati Vardhacharyulu was the

absolute owner and possessor of H.No. 2-50/8 (old No. 1-164) on

plot Nos. 65 and 66 admeasuring 395 square yards in Survey Nos.

41/12 and 41/13 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from one Syed

Sabir by way of sale deed dated 08.04.1985. It is submitted that

the said Varadhacharyulu applied for regularisation of the subject

property before the 1st respondent Corporation under the A.P.

Regulation of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2007 and they

have regularised the subject property by proceedings dated

17.06.2013. Thereafter, the said Varadhacharyulu had executed

registered sale deeds date 28.07.2017 in favour of four persons to

an extent of 98.75 square yards each. It is submitted that out of

that, one Durga Prasad and M. Srinivas have executed registered

sale deeds conveying an extent of 197.5 square yards in favour of

the petitioner by way of registered document No. 9242 of 2021

before the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy and the other two

persons also entered into development agreement-cum-general

power of attorney with the petitioner herein for construction of a

residential complex in the subject property. Learned counsel

submits that on 14.072021, the petitioner has applied for building

permission, then the respondents have issued a shortfall

intimation letter dated 23.07.2021 on the ground that 'the site

under reference in Sy.No. 41/12 and 41/13 of Khanamet village is

recorded as poramboke and as per prohibited list of Registration

and Samps Departments of Telangana the Sy.No. 41/2 and 41/13

of Khanamet Village is recorded as government land. In view of

the above, the proposal submitted by the applicant is returned and

unapproved. Hence, suggested for shortfall."

Learned counsel submits that this action of the

respondents in issuing the shortfall letter dated 23.07.2021 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

2001(3) ALD 600

Counsel submits that the Corporation has issued the shortfall

notice dated 23.07.2021 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 fats 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 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 one

Chilakapati Varadhacharyulu has purchased the property by way

of a registered sale deed and executed a registered sale deed dated

28.07.2017 in favour of Sri N. Durga Prasad and Sri M. Srinivas,

who in turn, executed and registered a sale deed conveying an

extent of 197.5 square yards in favour of the petitioner. Further, it

is the specific case of the petitioner that there are several buildings

constructed and the municipality has granted permission. The