Telangana High Court
Kodam Anjaneyulu, vs The State Of Telangana, on 10 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.21570 OF 2023
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are seeking a declaration that
the action of the 3rd respondent in according building permission to the
unofficial respondent for construction of building in the petitioners' land
in H.No.6-44/A admeasuring 308 square yards situated at Thangallapalli
Village and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District vide proceedings
No.304/BP/2023 dt.17.05.2023, is illegal and arbitrary and consequently
to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are
that the petitioners claim to be owners of the subject plot. It is stated that
the subject plot was purchased by the petitioners' father from one
Kodam Chennappagari Hanumanthu on 01.03.1980 and he was also
declared as its owner and possessor vide judgment and decree in
O.S.No.809 of 1992 on the file of the Court of District Munisiff,
Sircilla. It is stated that thereafter, the father of the petitioners applied
for permission for construction and permission was accorded on
07.11.1992 and he also made construction. Thereafter, the petitioners'
father died intestate on 02.04.1999 and the petitioners being one of the
legal heirs have inherited the property and all the legal heirs are in
possession of the property. It is submitted that while the matters stood
thus, the unofficial respondent has filed O.S.No.157 of 2020 on the file
of the Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla claiming to be owner of the property
and seeking injunction against the petitioners herein. It is stated that
thereafter, the unofficial respondent has applied for building permission
and the same was granted and therefore, the petitioners have sought
information under the Right to Information Act as to how building
permission was granted to the unofficial respondent and it was informed
that on the basis of the legal opinion obtained from Government
Pleaders, the building permission has been granted to the unofficial
respondent. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been
filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a
decree in favour of the petitioners' father holding him to be the owner
and possessor of the subject property and the said decree has not been
set aside and on the basis of some opinion given by Government
Pleaders, the respondent Gram Panchayat has granted permission which
is illegal and arbitrary.
4. At the time of admission on 10.08.2023, this Court had granted
interim direction to the 3rd respondent to forthwith stop construction
activity, if any, undertaken by the 4th respondent pursuant to the building
permission dt.17.05.2023.
5. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed their counter affidavits along with
stay vacate petition in I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed by the 4th respondent.
6. According to the counter of the 3rd respondent, they have obtained
legal opinion of Government Pleaders and on the basis of the legal
opinion, the permission has been granted to the 4th respondent.
7. The 4th respondent has filed the counter affidavit claiming himself
to be the owner of the subject property.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the official respondents are required to look into the
documents of the applicant before taking a decision on the said
application. They cannot take the opinion of Government Pleaders to
come to the conclusion about the ownership or otherwise of the
applicant over the subject property. The petitioners claim to be owners
by virtue of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.809 of 1992 on the file
of the file of the District Munisiff, Sircilla and the respondents did not
show that the said judgment and decree has been set aside by any of the
higher forum. The other suit filed by the unofficial respondent, i.e.,
O.S.No.157 of 2020 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla is only
for injunction and not for declaration of title. Therefore, the respondent
authorities ought not to have relied upon the legal opinion of
Government Pleaders to grant permission in favour of the 4th
respondent.
9. Therefore, the permission granted to the 4th respondent is set aside
and the official respondents are directed to reconsider the application of
the 4th respondent independently in accordance with law and take a
decision thereon and communicate the same to the applicant/4th
respondent as well as the petitioners herein.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition
including I.A.No.1 of 2025 shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 10.04.2025
Svv
