Telangana High Court

Panyala Srinath Reddy vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 26 October, 2022

Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                   WRIT PETITION No. 17025 OF 2022

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 3 in issuing Ex.P1 shortfall letter dated 24.12.2021 in respect of building permission application bearing file No. 005440/GHMC/2939/SLP2/2021-BP dated 20.12.2021 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 contrary to the 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 1 to 3 herein to grant building permission as prayed for in application bearing file No. 005440/GHMC/2939/SLP2/2021-BP dated 20.12.2021 as directed in W.P.Nos. 14881 and 14885 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020 and pass such other order or orders 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 the 2nd petitioner is the absolute owner and

possessor of house bearing No. 2-31/8/A/8/1 admeasuring 140

square yards in Survey Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 situated at

Izzatnagar, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District, having purchased the same by way of a

registered sale deed dated 21.05.2020. It is submitted that the

1st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot Nos.

14, 15 and 16, admeasuring 533 square yards in Survey Nos.

41/12 and 41/13 situated at Izzatnagar, Khanamet Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having

purchased the same by way of a registered sale deed dated

04.06.2020. It is also submitted that when the vendors of the

1st petitioner presented the sale deed for registration, it was

refused on the ground that the property is a government land,

then the vendors filed Writ Petition NO. 9315 of 2019 which was

allowed directing the registering authorities to receive the

document and process the same without reference to

notification issued by the 4th respondent. Learned counsel

submit that the petitioners have submitted an Application dated

20.12.2021 before the respondents for construction of

residential complex in the above property consisting of 1 stilt +

5 upper floors. He submits that Respondents 1 to 3 have issued

the impugned shortfall intimaoin letter dated 24.122021 stating

that the subject lands are government assigned lands and are

attracted by the provisons of Telangana Assigned Lands

(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

Learned counsel submits that this action of the

respondents in issuing the shortfall letter dated 24.12.2021 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

2001(3) ALD 600

notice dated 24.12.2021 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 the

petitioners have purchased the property by way of registered

sale deeds. Further, it is the specific case of the petitioners 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