Telangana High Court
A.Mallesh A.Mallesh Yadav vs The State Of Telangana on 12 August, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.22003 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government
Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing
for respondent No.1, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel,
appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Sai Sanjay Suraneni,
learned counsel on caveat appearing for respondent No.4 and with the
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition
is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 2nd respondent
authority, without considering the pendency of civil proceedings, vide
O.S.No.367 of 2019 on the file of XV Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District at Kukatpally, in respect of the land forming part of
Sy.Nos.165/P, 166/P, 167/P and 169/P situated at Kondapur Village,
Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, had granted building
permission in favour of the 4th respondent, without issuing any notice to
the petitioners, which action it contended is contrary to the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.563 of 2022, dt.18.10.2022.
3. Petitioners further contend that there are civil disputes concerning
the land in the aforesaid survey numbers and the respondents-authorities,
without taking into consideration the pending civil litigation, have granted
the aforesaid permission in favour of the unofficial respondent for
construction of building consisting of two cellars + one ground and 13
upper floors, vide proceedings dt.18.06.2024, which action it is contended
is highly illegal and arbitrary, apart from making the civil proceedings
initiated by the petitioners otiose and redundant.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 and 3, by drawing the attention of this Court to the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.563 of 2022,
dt.18.10.2022, wherein the petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent
No.4, would contend that this Court by referring to the order passed in
M ir Asad Sayeed K han Asad K han v/ s. The State of Telangana 1 ,
had held that the authorities, in order to grant building permission, are
only required to consider prima facie title and legal possession; and that
the application for building permission are rejected merely on the ground
of third parties raising disputes of title, that may result in serious hardship
to the owners of the properties where frivolous, speculative and vexatious
claims may be made by third parties by setting up title, had allowed the
Writ Appeal setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent therein
vide proceedings 13.03.2021, rejecting the application made for grant of
building permission and further directed the authorities to consider the
MANU/TL/0208/2021
application of the appellant therein i.e. the 4th respondent herein for grant
of building permission afresh within a period of four weeks.
5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that pursuant to the
direction of this Court setting aside the order dt.13.03.2021, the
authorities have considered the application made by the unofficial
respondent and taking note of prima facie title and legal possession have
accorded permission, vide building permit order dt.18.06.2020.
6. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
7. Having regard to the submissions made as above and also taking
note of the decision of this Court in K .P avan R aj v/ s. The M unicipal
Corporation of Hyderabad 2 , which principle has been reiterated by a
Division Bench of this Court in M ir Asad Sayeed K han Asad K han
(1 supra) and also referred by the Division Bench of this Court in its
judgment in W.A.No.563 of 2022, this Court is of the view that mere
pendency of a civil suit is not a bar for the authorities to consider the
building permission application made by an applicant, as long as the
applicant is able to show his prima facie title and legal possession to the
land for which application for grant of building permission is made.
2008(1) ALD 792
8. Since, the petitioners in the present Writ Petition though had filed a
suit and initially obtained an order of status quo, the said order of status
quo having been vacated, this Court is of the view that the action of the
respondents-authorities in considering the building permission application
made by the unofficial respondent cannot be held to be illegal or invalid
action for it to be interdicted. However, it is made clear that since the
petitioners have already approached the Court of Civil jurisdiction by
initiating civil proceedings, the permission obtained by the unofficial
respondent would have to abide by the result of the aforesaid suit.
9. Subject to above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
order as to costs.
10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall
stand closed.
__________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:12.08.2024
GJ
