T. Narender Rao vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2225 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

                    Writ Petition No.25046 of 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to

entertain any applications that are being submitted by the third parties

seeking sanction of building plan in respect of petitioner's landed property,

being Plot No.55, admeasuring 300 square yards, and Plot Nos.57 and 66

admeasuring 600 square yards, in all, totalling to 900 square yards in

Sy.Nos.78 to 93, situated at Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Kondapur Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being contrary to the

provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, and the

TS-bPASS Rules, 2020.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader

for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1, and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

3. Petitioner claims to have purchased the landed property, admeasuring

900 square yards (300 + 600 sq. yds), under agreement of sale executed on

21.09.1992 and 05.10.1992 respectively and has been in possession and

enjoyment of the same. Petitioner contends that pursuant to the agreement

of sale entered into with their vendors and on payment of the agreed

consideration, the petitioner was put in possession of the landed property

and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof till one Chintala Siva

Lingam and their family members sought to dispossess the petitioner

claiming title to the said land being the legal heirs of Chintala Pochaiah.

4. Petitioner further contends that when the said persons sought to

dispossess/interfere with petitioner's possession, the petitioner had

approached the police authorities and made a complaint of the said illegal

acts resorted to by the legal heirs of Chintala Pochaiah, namely Chintala Siva

Lingam and others. It is also contended by the petitioner that one M/s. Fateh

Kishwari and others had filed a suit, being O.S.No.658 of 2010 on the file of

II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad,

against Sivalingam and others, for perpetual injunction; and that the

concerned civil Court having jurisdiction, by its judgment, dated 19.12.2011,

decreed the suit granting perpetual injunction in favour of Fateh Kishwari

and others.

5. It is also contended by the petitioner that in spite of the said persons

being injuncted by an order passed by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction,

the said persons without any valid claim are seeking to interfere with the

possession of the petitioner in the land admeasuring 900 square yards and

are approaching the respondents authorities by making an application for

sanction of building plan. Thus, prays for a direction to the respondents not

to grant/sanction any building plan.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2

and 3 submits that, the authorities while granting a building permission can

only examine prima facie title of the applicant and that the said authorities

cannot adjudicate title disputes.

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

8. The petitioner is claiming title to the property on the basis of an

agreement of sale dated 05.10.1992. The said agreement of sale relating to

an immovable property and is required to be registered in terms of the

provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Thus, the said

agreement of sale is an unauthorized document.

9. Further, as the petitioner is claiming title to the land on the basis of an

unregistered agreement of sale from Chintala Pochaiah against whom an

order of injunction dated 19.12.2011 has been passed by the competent

Court of civil jurisdiction in O.S.No.658 of 2010, and since the said order

attained finality; the claim of the petitioners that respondents authorities are

seeking to grant permission to 3rd petitioner prima facie does not appeal to

this Court for being interdicted.

10. Further, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the

respondents authorities, while sanctioning building permit can only examine

prima facie title of the applicant and cannot adjudicate the title dispute

between the parties. The said position of law was reiterated in various

decisions, including the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in

Shalivahana Reddy v/s. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation 1 and erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Hyderabad

Potteries Private Limited v/s. Collector, Hyderabad 2 as affirmed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that no case

is made out in the present writ petition for granting any relief to the

petitioner. However, it is open for the petitioner to avail remedy as available

to him in accordance with law.

12. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand

closed. No order as to costs.

___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:11.09.2023

GJ

W.P.Nos.14881 and 14885 of 2020 decided on 27.11.2020

2001 (3) ALD 600

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

Writ Petition No.25046 of 2023

11.09.2023

GJ