Telangana High Court
Smt. Tera Lidia Prameela vs The Government Of Telangana on 2 July, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.16941 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing
for respondent No.1 and Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel,
appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 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 petitioner, in brief, is that she is the absolute owner
and possessor, along with three others, of the property bearing House
No.27-41 on Plot No.359 admeasuring 266.66 square yards situated in
Sy.Nos.68/1, 70/1 and 71/1 of Neredmet, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, having
got the same under registered document dt.25.07.2014; and that in order
to construct a building therein, she had approached the respondents-
authorities and obtained building permission dt.04.03.2021 for
construction of stilt + three upper floors.
3. Petitioner further contends that the respondents-authorities, on a
purported a representation/complaint dt.06.05.2024 made by one
Mohd.Ayub, who has no semblance of title to the subject property, have
issued a notice dt.16.05.2024 under Section 461 of the Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'), calling upon the
petitioner to produce copies of the ownership and link documents along
with sanction plan within three days; and that the petitioner on receiving
the aforesaid notice, had submitted explanation on 29.05.2024 enclosing
therewith various documents as detailed therein.
4. Petitioner further contends that the respondents-authorities,
without considering the explanation and the documents enclosed
therewith, are interfering with the construction work that is being carried
on as per the building permit order dt.04.03.2021, which it is contended is
highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 to 4, on instructions, submits that one Mohd.Ayub had
approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a
representation/complaint dt.06.05.2024, whereby it has been claimed that
the said Mohd.Ayub was successful in civil proceedings initiated in respect
of the subject property, and thus, he had sought for initiation of action
against the building permission obtained by the petitioner.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that upon receiving the
representation/complaint from Mohd.Ayub enclosing therewith copy of the
judgment and decree passed in his favour by the competent Court of Civil
jurisdiction, the authorities have issued notice dt.16.05.2024 to the
petitioner, calling upon her to produce the documents as detailed therein
to enable the authorities to verify as to whether the petitioner has a prima
facie title to the subject property for obtaining building permission from
the respondents-authorities.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the petitioner
has submitted documents on 29.05.2024, the authorities would examine
the same and take further action in the matter by following due process of
law.
8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
9. It is trite law that the respondents-authorities while according
building permission are required only to verify prima facie title and
possession and cannot adjudicate title dispute. Since, the respondents-
authorities claim that one Mohd.Ayub had approached the respondents-
authorities and submitted representation/complaint dt.06.05.2024, along
with a copy of the judgment and decree passed by the competent Court of
civil jurisdiction with respect to his title to the subject property, and thus,
the respondents-authorities having issued notice dt.16.05.2024 to the
petitioner under Section 461 of the Act, calling upon her to produce the
documents and the petitioner also having submitted her reply along with
relevant documents on 29.05.2024, this Court is of the view that the
respondents-authorities should be directed to consider the explanation
and the documents as submitted by the petitioner and take further action
in the matter by following due process of law.
10. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall
stand closed.
__________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date:02.07.2024
Note:
Furnish CC by today.
(B/o) GJ
