Sri Ravuri Sreenivas Rao vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 4108 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

               WRIT PETITION No.31935 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of

respondent No.3 in revoking the building permission granted

through TS-bPASS, vide proceedings No.336514/

GHMC/18528/2023 dated 06.11.2023 by insisting the

petitioner to produce NOC from ULC Department for Plot No.B-

368/A, admeasuring 200 square yards in Sy. No.74 situated at

Kondapur village, Serelingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District, as being illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and contrary to law.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban

Development for respondent No.1, Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and

3 and learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of

respondent No.4 and with the consent of the learned Counsel

appearing for the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for

hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

3. Petitioner contends that in similar circumstances this

Court while disposing of a batch of Writ Petitions, vide W.P.

No.21580 of 2008 & batch dated 28.0.2017 had held that the

lands in Sy. Nos.5 to 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 60, 71 to 77 of

Kondapur village cannot be declared as surplus lands under the

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the

ULC Act') and having vested with the State, since the ULC

proceedings initiated have not come up to the stage of issuance

of notification under Section 10(6) of the State ULC Act before

the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 was

adopted by the State and thus, the proceedings against the

subject lands stood abated.

4. Petitioner further contends that the said order of this

Court dated 28.03.2017 had attained finality and, as such, the

respondent authority cannot insist upon obtaining NOC from

the revenue authorities on the ground the said lands are kept in

prohibitory list on account of Government lands, being

determined as ceiling surplus lands. Thus, the petitioner

contends that the ground on which the authorities have issued

the impugned proceedings dated 06.11.202 is invalid.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that

even the other objection that the proposed site falls under the

unapproved lay out and is not regularized under any G.O. is

also incorrect as the petitioner had obtained regularization of

the aforesaid plot under Lay-out Regularization (LRS) scheme,

vide G.O.Ms. No.151 M.A. dated 02.11.2015 vide proceedings

dated 31.01.2020. Thus, the petitioner contends that the

impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner,

without taking note of the fact that in so far as objection

regarding NOC from ULC authorities is concerned, the same

stands settled by the judgment of this Court, while in respect of

requirement of obtaining regularization of the plot being in an

unapproved lay out, the petitioner had submitted approval

obtained while seeking building permission itself.

6. Learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government

Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents do not dispute the

submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner with

regard to this Court holding the proceedings under ULC Act

getting abated would however, submit that against the order of

this Court in W.P. No.21580 of 2008 & batch, the respondent

authorities had preferred an Intra Court Appeal, vide W.A.

No.166 of 2018 and the said Writ Appeal is pending

consideration. However, the learned Government Pleader and

the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondents fairly submit that there is no stay/suspension of

the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge in the

above Writ Appeal.

7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

8. At the outset it is to be noted that mere obtaining granting

of building permission does not confer or confirm the title of the

applicant to the property. (See: Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd.

v. Collector, Hyderabad District 1. It is equally well settled

that while granting building permission, the authorities are only

required to see the prima facie title and possession.

9. Further, a Division bench of this Court in Writ Petition

No.9248 of 2021 decided on 28.08.2021 while taking into

consideration the law laid down in the case of Sub-Registrar,

Shameerpet v. K. Ramakrishna Raju 2, had held that it is only

the State Government which has the power to issue any

notification under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908

and the Inspector General of Stamps and Registration has no

authority to direct properties to be included in prohibitory list.

10. If the analogy of the aforesaid decision is applied to the

facts of this case, the impugned proceeding which refers to the

subject land being put in prohibitory list claiming that the same

to be a ceiling surplus land in absence of any G.O. being issued

1 2001(13) ALD 600

Order dated 21.07.2004 in W.A. No.707 of 2002

by the Government to the aforesaid fact cannot be held to be

valid. Further, it is also not shown to this Court that any G.O.

in respect of the aforesaid land being declared as ceiling surplus

land and being directed to be placed under prohibitory list is

issued in exercise of powers under Section 22-A of the

Registration Act, 1908.

11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the

impugned revocation letter issued by the respondent No.3

authority on the ground that the subject land has been entered

in the prohibitory watch list as ceiling surplus land cannot be

held to be valid ground for revocation/rejection of the building

permission sought for by the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order to that extent is set

aside.

13. However, with regard to the other ground of revocation of

the permission that the subject plot is situated in unapproved

lay out and the same is not regularized under any G.O, though

it was contended before this Court that the petitioner had

obtained regularization under G.O.Ms. No.151 MA dated

02.11.2015, vide proceedings dated 31.01.2020, this Court is of

the view that the petitioner is to be directed to submit the

aforesaid approval obtained from the authorities concerned to

the respondent authorities enabling the said authorities to

consider the same for grant of building permission. On

petitioner submitting the approval obtained regularizing the plot

under the LRS, the authorities are directed to consider the

application submitted by the petitioner for grant of building

permission by considering the same without reference to the

objection relating to the said land having been entered in

prohibitory watch register by showing the same as ceiling

surplus land and calling upon the petitioner to obtain NOC from

the competent authority under ULC Act.

14. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is

disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any

shall stand closed.

                                            ___________________
Date: 18.11.2023                           T. VINOD KUMAR, J
MRKR