Telangana High Court
Smt. M. Manjula And 4 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 17 March, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.347 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. L.Rama, learned counsel for the
appellants; Ms. B.Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for
respondent No.1; Mr. Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned
Standing Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4; and Mr. Jalli
Narender, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order
dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge
dismissing W.P.No.44607 of 2022 filed by the appellants as
the writ petitioners.
3. Appellants had filed the related writ petition praying
for the following relief:
To issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus
to declare the action of respondents No.3 and 4 in
issuing the letter vide Lr.No.590/
TPS/CRZ/GHMC/2022 as illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional and also in violation of Articles 19, 21,
31 and 300A of Indian Constitution and in violation of
GHMC Act. Consequently to direct respondents No.3
and 4 to cancel the building construction permit order
vide No.1256/GHMC/CHR/2022-BP dt.04.05.2022
pending disposal of the O.S.No.178/2020 before the IX
Junior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad.
4. From a perusal of the materials on record including
the order dated 13.12.2022 we find that Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has issued
building permit order dated 04.05.2022 in favour of
respondent No.5 and others for construction of building in
respect of land to the extent of Acs.3.04 guntas in Survey
Nos.295 and 296 of Gaddinnaram Village.
5. According to learned counsel for the appellants, they
are the holders of occupancy rights certificate. However,
over a period of time their possession and other rights over
the said land came to be disturbed by various persons who
thereafter lodged claim over the said land by virtue of
forged and fabricated sale deeds. In this connection,
appellants have instituted O.S.No.178 of 2020 on the file of
learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned
Single Judge held as follows:
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing
counsel, the complaint is given by one Shaik Sultan
Ahmed in the year 2019 stating that he is GPA holder of
legal heirs of Late M. Venkatarama Rao. When it comes
to the present writ petition, the same is filed by four
persons represented by their GPA holder S. Sudhir and
the complainant himself in the said representation
admits that there are certain sale deeds in favour of the
applicant or the unofficial respondent who has obtained
permission. When a complaint is filed before the
respondents seeking building permission, they can only
look at the prima facie title to the property and legal
possession. It is an admitted fact that there are
documents of title and however, according to the
petitioners, they are fabricated documents. Hence, the
respondents have rightly come to the conclusion that
they cannot decide all these issues and also whatever
suits that are pending before the courts, there are no
restraint orders against the GHMC from granting any
permission to the unofficial respondent. In view of the
same, mere pendency of suits is not a ground for the
respondent municipality not to grant any permission.
8. In the considered opinion of this court, the
respondent municipality has rightly rejected the
complaint of the petitioners and if the petitioners want
any relief, the only remedy available to the petitioners is
to approach the competent civil court. Hence, this court
finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned
proceedings passed by the respondents.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
7. According to learned Single Judge, GHMC at the time
of granting building permission has only to examine prima
facie title and possession of the claimant over the subject
land. Insofar the civil suit is concerned, there is no
restraint order against the GHMC from granting building
permission.
8. We concur with the views expressed by the learned
Single Judge.
9. On a query by the Court as to whether GHMC is a
defendant in O.S.No.178 of 2020, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that GHMC is not a party to the said
suit.
10. That being the position, we find no good ground to
entertain the appeal. However, it is open to the appellants
to avail their remedy in the pending civil suit which, in
fact, was observed by the learned Single Judge.
11. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
17.03.2023
vs
