Dokku Haneesha vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5303 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5303 Tel
Judgement Date : 26 October, 2022

Telangana High Court

Dokku Haneesha vs The State Of Telangana on 26 October, 2022

Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti

       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                     WRIT PETITION No. 27339 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 4th respondent in rejecting the petitioner's representation / explanation dated 08.07.2021 to the shortfall notice vide proceedings Lr.No. 6657/TPS/Cir-21/SLZ/GHMC/2021, dated 03.08.2021 and not granting permission on the petitioner's application No. 2/C21/06657/2021 dated 14.04.2021 for construction of stilt + 4 building in the property bearing Plot No.42 in Sy.No. 41/11, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and set aside the proceedings dated 03.08.2021 and consequently direct the Respondents No. 2 to 4 to grant permission for construction pursuant to the application of the petitioner No. 2/C21/06657/2021 dated 14.04.2021 and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kona N.D.V.

Ramana Rao submits that petitioner is the owner and possessor of

Plot No. 42 in Survey No. 41/11 of Khanamet Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He submits that

petitioner submitted Application for construction of building vide

Application No. 2/C21/06657/2021 dated 14.04.2021 before

Respondents 2 and 3. Learned counsel submits that the

respondents refused to act on the said Application in view of the

letter dated 06.11.2018 issued by the 5th respondent to the 2nd

respondent requesting not to grant permission in respect of lands

situated in Sy.No. 41/1 to 41/13 stating that they are assigned

lands.

Learned counsel submits that this action of the

respondents in issuing the shortfall letter dated 03.08.2021 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

aggrieved by the order dated 14.04.2021, the petitioner filed Writ

Petition No. 12106 of 2021 and this Court by order dated

22.06.2021 directed to submit the representation / explanation to

the shortfall notice and the respondent Corporation shall consider

the same and pass necessary orders. It is further submitted that

she had submitted representation / explanation dated 08.07.2021

bringing all facts to the notice of the respondents. Learned counsel

2001(3) ALD 600

submits that when once GHMC had regularized the plot under

LRS scheme on thorough enquiry, now, it cannot be termed as a

government land. It is submitted that without taking into

consideration all these aspects, the 4th respondent had passed the

impugned order dated 03.08.2021 rejecting the explanation dated

08.07.2021.

3. Heard Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

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

several buildings constructed and the municipality has granted

permission. 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 on what basis they have granted

permission in favour of other persons.

5. In the light of the law laid down in Hyderabad

Potteries Case (supra) and also in the light of the order passed by