Telangana High Court

M/S. Zen Infra vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 26 October, 2022

Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                  WRIT PETITION No. 10352 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 Rejection Letter dated 10.12.2020 in respect of building permission application bearing File No. 2/C21/15507/2020 dated 16.11.2020 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 petitioner firm in respect of plot Nos. 35, 36, 37 and 38 admeasuring to an extent of 800 sq. yards in Sy.Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as prayed in Application bearing File No. 2/C21/15507/2020 dated 16.11.2020 as directed in W.P.Nos. 14881 and 14885 of 2020 dated 27.11.2020 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S. Sridhar

submits that one Alhaj Shaik Fareed executed a registered an

agreement of sale -cum- General Power of attorney dated

07.01.2013 in favour of the petitioner firm conveying rights and

possession in respect of plot bearing Nos. 35, 36 and 37 in

Survey Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 totally admeasuring 600 square

yards situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal. It

is submitted that Smt. Vasireddy Arundhathi executed and

registered a development agreement in respect of plot No. 38 in

Survey Nos. 41/12 and 41/13 admeasuring 200 square yards of

Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, the petitioner

has made an Application to the respondents for construction of

a residential building duly submitting all relevant documents

showing title and possession. It is submitted that the

petitioner's Application was rejected vide letter dated

10.12.2020 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,

2001(3) ALD 600

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. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the

respondent Corporation. Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, 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 further as the property is placed

under the prohibitory list. Further, it is submitted that the said

site is getting affected in the maser 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 petitioner that

there are documents to show that the Sri Alhaj Shaik Fareed

and Vasireddy Arundhathi are owners of the respective plots

and have executed the development agreement 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 counter is very much silent on

this aspect, then it has to be presumed that they are admitting