Telangana High Court
Punjab National Bank vs State Of Telangana, on 30 June, 2025
Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy
Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.4453, 4501 and 4685 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since the petitioner and the respondents in these writ
petitions are one and the same and since the cause of action for
filing the writ petitions is same, the writ petitions are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in WPNo.4453 of 2024
are set out hereunder:
(a) The petitioner - Punjab National Bank (for short 'the
bank') filed this writ petition aggrieved by the inaction of the
respondents No.2 and 3 in taking action against the unauthorized
construction being carried out by the respondents No.5 to 8 in
House bearing No.1-5-464/14 on Plot No.14 and House bearing
No.1-5-464/15 on Plot No.15, each admeasuring 305.55 sq. yards,
Sy.No.41, Venkateshwara Nagar Colony, Old Alwal, Alwal Village,
Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, in spite of its
representation dated 31.08.2023.
(b) The case of the petitioner - bank is that one Abhinaya
Dairy Farm had approached the Bank for credit facilities and to
secure the loan. The respondent No.4 created equitable mortgage
over the immovable property by deposit of title deeds on
31.12.2011 in favour of erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce
(amalgamated with the petitioner - bank). That, Abhinaya Dairy
Farm committed default in repayment of loan. Subsequently,
the erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce filed OA.No.366 of 2017
before the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Hyderabad for
recovery of its dues against the Borrower Firm as well as the
Guarantors. The said OA was decreed on 10.10.2017 and recovery
proceedings were initiated for recovery of dues in R.C.No.600 of
2019. The said property was also attached by the Recovery Officer
and the Recovery Officer also issued Form- 16 & 17 under II
Schedule of Income Tax Rules and attached the property on
12.05.2022.
(c) It is submitted that the subject property had been put up
for sale by the petitioner-bank under both the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 as well as under the Recovery of Debts and
Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and no party has so far challenged the
auction conducted by the Bank.
(d) It is further submitted that recently, when the Bank
Officials visited the site they found the respondents No.5 to 8, with
the connivance of the respondents No.2 and 3, started making
unauthorized construction on the schedule property, which is
mortgaged to the petitioner - bank. The same was also brought to
the notice of the Recovery Officer, DRT to intervene in the matter
by appointing Court Commissioner to take physical possession of
the property. However, the Recovery Officer has not passed any
order yet. Thereafter, the petitioner - bank addressed a letter to the
GHMC dated 31.08.2023 requesting them to take immediate action
against the unauthorized construction that is going on in the
schedule property. The petitioner - bank also requested them to
cancel the building permission granted to the respondents No.5 to
8.
(e) The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the
representation dated 31.08.2023 and several reminders, the GHMC
authorities turned a deaf ear to the request of the petitioner-bank.
Hectic efforts are made by the respondents No.5 to 8 to make
construction with a view to defraud the petitioner - bank as well as
the general public. The petitioner-bank also lodged a complaint with
the concerned police station. However, as no action was initiated by
the respondents No.2 and 3 to stop the construction activities made
by the respondents No.5 to 8, the instant writ petition is filed.
3. The respondents No.5 to 8 filed counter affidavit contending
that the writ petition is not maintainable. The respondents No.5 to
8 are not aware of the land, allegedly, mortgaged by M/s. Abhinaya
Dairy Farm represented by its proprietor. They are not concerned
with such allegations. The respondents No.5 to 8 are making
construction in the subject property having taken permission from
the GHMC and thus, it is not an unauthorized construction.
The respondents No.5 to 7 jointly entered into a registered
development agreement cum general power of attorney dated
28.06.2023 with the respondent No.8 in respect of 600 sq. yards of
land in open plots bearing No.384 part, 385, 396 part and 397 in
Sy.No.42 situated at Old Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal-
Malkajgiri District.
4. It is submitted that pursuant to the said development
agreement, building permission was obtained vide permit
No.2644/GHMC/KPL/2023-BP dated 26.07.2023. The property said
to have mortgaged to the petitioner-bank is different from their
property. The petitioner-bank is unable to locate the property which
was mortgaged to it by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.5
is the absolute owner and possessor of the plots Nos.384 part and
385 western part in Sy.No.42 admeasuring 150 sq. yards,
the respondent No.6 is the absolute owner and possessor of the
plot bearing No.385 eastern part in Sy.No.42 admeasuring 150 sq.
yards and the respondent No.7 is the absolute owner and possessor
of the open plot No.397 and 396 part in Sy.No.42 admeasuring 300
sq. yards, having purchased the said plots from its previous owner
Smt. P. Radha under registered sale deeds vide document No.11 of
2021 dated 02.01.2021, document No.9 of 2021 dated 02.01.2021
and document No.10 of 2021 dated 02.01.2021.
5. It is submitted that when one Jajulla Mallaiah and others
claiming to be the owners of the land in Sy.No.41 tried to interfere
with the possession of the subject, the vendor of the respondents
No.5 to 7, Smt. P. Radha and two others instituted a suit for
perpetual injunction against them vide O.S No.1058 of 2008 on the
file of Additional Junior Civil Judge at Malkajgiri and after full
fledged trial, the suit was decreed. The said judgment and decree
remained unchallenged and became final. The respondent No.4
might be tracing the title from the defendants in the said suit.
As there was a dispute with regard to the identification of the lands
in Sy.Nos.41 and 42, the vendor of the respondents No.5 to 7 and
others had filed WP.No.28450 of 2007 wherein order dated
21.12.2009 was passed in WPMP.No.37165 of 2007 directing the
Assistant Director and Survey Land Records, Ranga Reddy District
to demarcate the boundaries of the Sy.No.42. As per the order of
this Court, the survey was conducted by the authorities, which
clearly reveals that the plots of the respondent No.5 to 7 are found
in Sy.No.42 and the same was informed to the petitioner-bank
through legal notice dated 12.04.2021, which has been suppressed
by the petitioner-bank.
6. Ms. Kalpana Ekbote, learned counsel for the petitioner-bank,
submitted that the petitioner-bank is seeking for an innocuous relief
to direct the respondent-GHMC to consider and dispose of the
representation dated 31.08.2023. The petitioner-bank has taken
custody of the subject property in the recovery proceedings,
as stated above. The unofficial respondents have intruded into the
subject land which is in the custody of the petitioner-bank and
made unauthorized construction. Thus, the GHMC authorities are
required to conduct enquiry and find out whether building
permission was obtained by the respondents No.5 to 7 by indulging
in fraud and misrepresentation.
7. On the other hand, Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for
the respondents No.5 to 8, submitted that the lis herein is a title
dispute. The petitioner-bank has stepped into the shoes of the
mortgagor. The petitioner-bank will not get a better title than the
mortgagor and guarantor. The remedy available to the petitioner-
bank is file appropriate proceedings before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal or civil Court and a title dispute cannot be decided by the
GHMC authorities.
8. Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned standing counsel for GHMC,
submitted that the dispute herein is regarding title, which cannot be
decided by GHMC. Having satisfied with the title of the respondents
No.5 to 7, building permission was granted.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the relief sought for
in these writ petitions cannot be granted, as building has already
been constructed by the respondents No.5 to 8 in the subject
property; the dispute herein is regarding title and possession and
the contention of the respondents No.5 to 8 that they were granted
building permission based on sale deeds and title documents is not
rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-bank. The GHMC,
being a sanctioning authority, is only concerned with the prima
facie title. After building construction is complete, any direction
issued by this Court to the GHMC to conduct enquiry on the
representation of the petitioner-bank will not serve any useful
purpose inasmuch as title dispute cannot be decided by GHMC.
Mere grant of building permission does not confer any title.
10. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, there is a title or
boundary dispute between the mortgagor of the property
mortgaged with the petitioner-bank and the respondents No.5 to 7
and it cannot be said that there is any misrepresentation or fraud
committed by the respondents No.5 to 7 in obtaining building
permission.
11. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of giving
liberty to the petitioner-bank to approach the Debts Recovery
Tribunal or a civil Court and raise all contentions.
The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
June 30, 2025
DSK
