ORDER : W.P. No.10050 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners-lessees of the subject property to declare The action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.2 in passing final order dated 15.04.2021, wherein respondent No.2 directed to demolish the petitioners structures as illegal and to set aside the same. 2. W.P. No.10053 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner, owners of the subject property with similar relief. 3. W.P. No.10543 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner, owners of the subject property, to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.2 in informing the rejection of building permission application dated 21.02.2021 without following due process of law as illegal and to set aside the same. 4. Since the parties and the lis involved in these writ petitions are one and the same, all these writ petitions are disposed of by way of a common order. 5. Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for MA & UD appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Mr.N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 in all the writ petitions and Mr. T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for unofficial respondents in W.P. No.10050 of 2021. 6. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 10053 and 10543 of 2021 will be hereinafter referred to as ‘owners’ while the petitioners in W.P. No.10050 of 2021 as ‘lessees’. 7. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS : i) The owners claim that originally the property bearing H.No.1-27/1, situated at Manchirevula Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is ancestral property o petitioner No.1 i.e., Mr. J.Satyanarayana. After 2016, petitioner No.1 (owner No.1) became absolute owner of 475 square yards. In the year 2016, he had divided the said property among his two sons, viz., Mr. J. Mahender and Mr. J.Venkatesh and the sons of his late brother viz., Mr. J. Suresh, Mr. J.Sahadev, Mr. J.Srisailam, Mr. J.Sairam and Mr. J.Ashok under registered Gift Deeds. ii) Mr. J. Satnarayana had obtained building permission in the year 1996 in respect of the premises No.1-27/1, situated at Manchirevula Village for construction of two rooms. Pursuant to the same, a room and a shed were raised over the said land H.No.1-27/1. J. Suresh, Mr. J.Sahadev, Mr. J.Srisailam, Mr. J.Sairam and Mr. J.Ashok under registered Gift Deeds. ii) Mr. J. Satnarayana had obtained building permission in the year 1996 in respect of the premises No.1-27/1, situated at Manchirevula Village for construction of two rooms. Pursuant to the same, a room and a shed were raised over the said land H.No.1-27/1. Ever since from the division of the property, petitioner No.1 and his family have got mutated their names and also got the sub-division of the house numbers from 1-27/1 to 1-27/1 to 6, situated at Manchirevula Village, which is hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’. iii) Mr. J. Satyanarayana had obtained permission on 13.01.2016 for construction of room, compound wall around the entire property owned by his family members, but he could not further expand the structure. At the instance of rival parties, HMDA had issued a notice in the year 2017 stating that the owners made unauthorized construction. The owners had submitted explanation on 01.08.2017. The HMDA had satisfied with the said explanation and therefore, they had not taken any further action. iv) After three years, respondent No.2-Narsingi Municipality had issued a show-cause notice dated 09.02.2021 under Section – 178(2) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short ‘Act, 2019’) to the ‘lessees’ with a direction to remove the stock within one (01) month. The sand notices were challenged vide W.P. No.3254 of 2021. Respondent No.2 had issued show-cause notice dated 12.03.2021. Respondent No.2 had issued show-cause notice dated 12.03.2021 under Section – 178(2) of the Act, 2019 to the owners at the instance of unofficial respondents alleging the unauthorized construction being made by them. They have submitted a detailed explanation dated 17.03.2021. Respondent No.2 had issued a notice dated 23.03.2021 fixing the date of hearing on 25.03.2021. Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners and without considering the applications dated 21.02.2021 submitted by the petitioners seeking building permission, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 directing the petitioners to demolish the said illegal and unauthorized shed within three (03) days from the date of receipt of the said order by removing the liquor stock stored in the said shed, failing which further action would be taken as per Rules. (v) Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the owners filed W.P. Nos.10053 and 10543 of 2021 contending that respondent No.2 does not have power to decide the title dispute. He has not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioners dated 17-3-2021. The impugned order is a cryptic one and there are no reasons at all. Respondent No.2 failed to consider that there is a decree of perpetual injunction dated 13.02.2020 in O.S. No.161 of 2017 in their favour and against the unofficial respondents, Village Panchayath Secretary, Manchirevula Village and the HMDA. Temporary. Tin-shed is not a construction as per the provisions of the Act, 2019. Proper opportunity was not provided. 8. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE MUNICIPALITY; i) Respondent No.2-Narsingi Municipality had filed counter affidavit stating that the alleged permission dated 13.01.2016 said to have issued by the Gram Panchayat, Manchirevula signed by Sarpanch, who has no authority and it is non-est. Sarpanch does not have power to issue and permission on behalf of Gram Panchayat and it is the Panchayat Secretary, who has to sign the same pursuant to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. There is no file number on the said permission. The owners have obtained the said permission by managing the Sarpanch. Gram Panchayat has already issued notice dated 01.11.2016 to owner No.1 stating that it is unauthorized construction. A similar notice was issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District. HMDA has also issued notice dated 27.04.2017. ii) Vide letter dated 11.09.2017, Gram Panchayat, Manchirevula requested the Zonal Officer, Shankarpally Zone to render assistance by sending enforcement team for demolition of unauthorized construction. Owner No.1 and his son, Mr. J.Venkatesh, have submitted a letter/undertaking to the said Panchayat Secretary and HMDA stating that they would remove the structures. Even then, they have not removed the same. The Gram Panchayat, Manchirevula was merged into Narsingi Municipality on 13.04.2019. The subject property is more than 1000 square meters and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat does not have power to issue any building permit and it is the HMDA which has to issue permissions. Thus, the permission in 2016 said to have obtained by the owners is in violation of Section 13 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 read with Section 3(13) of the HMDA Act, 2008. Thus, the permission in 2016 said to have obtained by the owners is in violation of Section 13 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 read with Section 3(13) of the HMDA Act, 2008. iii) According to respondent No.2, the construction is unauthorized and, therefore, it had passed final order dated 15.04.2021 by following the due procedure laid down under law and also the orders dated 19.02.2021 in W.P.Nos3254 of 2021 and 3248 of 2021, and the order passed 25.03.2021 in W.P. No.7616 of 2021. The impugned order was passed by giving opportunity to the parties and it is a reasoned order. There is no error in it. The Online application filed by the owners under Development Permission Management System (DPMS) dated 21.02.2021 were forwarded to respondent No.2 on 23.03.2021. The same were examined and building permissions were rejected on the same day vide Intimation Letter dated 23.03.2021 on the ground that actually the land is falling in Survey No.478 of Machirvula Village, but in the builing application, it is mentioned as ‘Grama Kantam’. Proper link documents were not furnished to establish low o title to the applicant over the proposed site. There are contradictory statements made by the Petitioners. iv) In the replies dated 17.03.2021 and 18.03.2021, the petitioners stated that they would demolish the illegal shed as and when the permission was accorded by the Competent Authority, whereas in the legal notice dated 30.03.2021, the owners have mentioned that they have started building construction work as per proposed bui9lding plan under deemed permission. v) With the aforesaid submissions, respondent No.2 sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 9. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4 : i) A suit vide O.S. No.69 of 2015 was filed by petitioners and others against respondent No.4 and other for partition and separate possession in respect No.4 and others for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property therein viz, Acs.8.02 guntas in Survey No.478, situated at Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, The said suit is pending. Therefore, the subject property is part and parcel o the suit schedule property in the said suit. The said property is not partitioned and separate possession is not delivered and, therefore, the owners herein now cannot claim that they are the owners of the subject property as the same is undivided one. Therefore, the subject property is part and parcel o the suit schedule property in the said suit. The said property is not partitioned and separate possession is not delivered and, therefore, the owners herein now cannot claim that they are the owners of the subject property as the same is undivided one. The Gift Deeds executed by the owner No.1 and the subsequent lease deeds executed by the owners in favour of lessees are non-est. The owners have raised unauthorized construction on the strength of the building permission said to have issued by the Sarpanch which is also non-est. Therefore, on the complaint lodged by unofficial respondent, respondent no.2 has issued notices and passed final order dated 15.04.2021 by following the procedure laid down under the Act. There is no irregularity in it. The owners have been filing one case after the other including the writ petitions and suit, and on the strength of the same, they are continuing the business. ii) According to the unofficial respondents, the owners have also submitted an undertaking dated 13.10.2017 to the Gram Panchayat, Manchirevula and HMDA stating that they would demolish the unauthorized construction, but contrary to the same, now they claim that they have made construction under deemed permission, which is illegal. The owners cannot file applications dated 21.02.2021 with a request to grant permission for construction with regard to the subject property which is an undivided property and also part of suit schedule property in O.S. No.69 of 2015. iii) With the said submissions the unofficial respondents sought to dismiss the writ petitions. 10. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT : i) There is no dispute that Mr. J.Satyanarayana and other owners have filed a suit vide O.S. No.69 of 2015 against respondent No.4 and 51 other seeking partition and separation possession in respect of the land admeauring Acs.8.02 guntas in survey No.478, situated at Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal. The Subject property is also part of the said suit. The said suit is pending. ii) Mr. J. Satyanarayana had executed a Gift Deed bearing document No.550 of 2016, dated 29.01.2016 in favour of this two sons, Mr. J. Venkatesh and Mr. J. Mahender in respect o portion of house bearing No.1-27/1, admeasuring 607 square yards out of total land admeasuring 3102.44 square yards with built-up area of 120 square feet, situated at Manchirevula Village. ii) Mr. J. Satyanarayana had executed a Gift Deed bearing document No.550 of 2016, dated 29.01.2016 in favour of this two sons, Mr. J. Venkatesh and Mr. J. Mahender in respect o portion of house bearing No.1-27/1, admeasuring 607 square yards out of total land admeasuring 3102.44 square yards with built-up area of 120 square feet, situated at Manchirevula Village. He had also executed Gift Deed bearing No.551 of 2016, dated 29.01.2016 in favour of his brother’s son, Mr.J.Suresh in respect of a portion of house property bearing No.1-27/1, admeasuring 300 square yards out of total land admeasuring 3102.44 square yards. He had executed another Gift Deed bearing document No.554 of 2016, dated 29.01.2016 in favour o his brother, Mr. J.Srisailam, in respect of a portion o the house property bearing No.1 27/1, admeasuring 430 square yards out of the said total extent of 3102.44 square yards. He executed a Gift Deed bearing document No.1807 of 2016, dated 21.03.2016 in favour of another brother, Mr.J.Ashok in respect of the aforesaid house to an extent of 430 square yards. He had further executed Gift Deed bearing document No.553 of 2016 dated 29.01.2016 in favour of his brother, Mr. J.Sahadev in respect of the aforesaid house to an extent of 430 square yards. iii) In all the aforesaid Gift Deeds, petitioner No.1 has mentioned that he is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the house property bearing No.1-27/1, admeasuring 3102.44 square yards, equivalent to 2593.63 square meters with a built-up area of 600 square feet (ACC), situated at Manchirevula Village and Gram Panchayat. On the strength of the said gift deeds, the petitioners have executed lease deeds, dated 28.10.2019 in favour of the lessees. The said lease is for a period of two(02) years from 28.10.2019 which wax expired by 27.10.2021. The owners have also filed a suit vide O.S. No.161 of 2017 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar against the unofficial respondents, Panchayath Secretary, Manchirevula Village and the HMDA, seeking for perpetual injunction, and the said suit was decreed exparte. The above said facts would reveal that Mr. J. Satyanarayana is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 3102.44 square yards and he had executed the above said gift deeds in favour of his sons and his brother and son of his another brother. The above said facts would reveal that Mr. J. Satyanarayana is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 3102.44 square yards and he had executed the above said gift deeds in favour of his sons and his brother and son of his another brother. On the strength of the said gift deeds, they have executed the above said two lease deeds. iv) The building permission dated 13.01.2016 filed by the owners was issued by the Sarpanch of Manchirevula Grama Panchayat. There is no file number on the same. There is no extent and plan attached to the same. It was issued to Mr. Jelli Satyanarayana. As rightly contended by Mr. N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. T.Surya Satish, learned counsel for unofficial respondents, Sarpanch does not have power to issue building permission, and it is the Panchayat Secretary, who has to issue a building permit pursuant to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. In the building permission dated 13.01.2016, there is no file number and there is no mention about the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for unofficial respondents that the total extent of land is 3102.44 square yards and, therefore, Gram Panchayat does not have power to issue building permission dated 13.01.2016 since the property is above 1000 square meters. As per the provisions of the HMDA and A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, if the property is more than 1000 square meters, it is the HMDA, which has to issue building permission, but not the Gram Panchayat. Viewed from any angle, the building permission dated 13.01.2016 is non-est. v) It is also relevant to note the Gram Panchayat has issued a notice dated 01.11.2016 to Mr. J.Satyanarayana stating that he made unauthorized construction and the same is supported by another notice dated 19.12.2016 issued by the District Panchayat Officer. HMDA had also issued notice dated 27.04.2017 to Mr. J.Satyanarayana with regard to the unauthorized construction. On 11.09.2017, the Gram Pancahyat, Manchirevula requested the Zonal Officer, Shankarpally Zone, to depute enforcement team for the purpose of demolition of the subject property. Mr. J.Satyanarayana has also submitted undertaking dated 13.10.2017. vi) A notice dated 09.02.2021 was issued to the lessees to vacate the subject property. The said notice was under challenge in W.P.3254 of 2021. On 11.09.2017, the Gram Pancahyat, Manchirevula requested the Zonal Officer, Shankarpally Zone, to depute enforcement team for the purpose of demolition of the subject property. Mr. J.Satyanarayana has also submitted undertaking dated 13.10.2017. vi) A notice dated 09.02.2021 was issued to the lessees to vacate the subject property. The said notice was under challenge in W.P.3254 of 2021. This Court disposed of the said writ petition along with W.P. No.3248 of 2021 directing respondent No.2 to pass orders afresh by calling explanation from the owners by giving them an opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.2 has issued a show cause notice dated 12.03.2021 to the owners under Section 178(2) of the Act, 2019. The owners have submitted their explanations and also participated in the hearing on 01.04.2021 through their counsel. Unofficial respondents have also participated in the said enquiry. vii) In the explanation dated 17.03.2021 and 18.03.2021, the owners have stated that they have applied for building permission since the structures are temporary tin sheds and as and when permission is accorded by the competent authority, they will demolish the same and make construction as per the sanction plan. The lessees have also submitted their explanations stating that they have spent huge amounts and established wine shop, and nearly 30 people are depending on the same. Owners have applied for building permission on 21.02.2021. It is also relevant to note that when hearing was fixed on 25.03.2021, the owners have filed a writ petition No.7616 of 2021 to set aside the said notice. This Court vide order dated 25.03.2021, disposed of the said writ petition with the following observation : “In view of the apprehension expressed by the petitioners and considering the fact that the writ petition is filed challenging only the hearing notice, without going into merits or demerits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to pass orders only on working days. In case any adverse orders are passed, the petitioners shall be communicated with a copy of the said order and shall be given three days’ time for taking necessary legal recourse against the said order.” viii) The owners have also issued a legal notice dated 30.03.2021 stating that respondent No.2 has not considered the building permission application 21.02.2021 and, therefore, it will be treated as deemed permission under Section 174(9) of the Act, 2019. They have started construction work as per proposed building plan and requested respondent No.2 not to take any further steps. In the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 and in the counter filed by respondent No.2, there is specific mention that the owners have applied Online application under DPMS dated 21.02.2021 and the same were forwarded to the Narsingi Municipality on 23.03.2021. On verification of the same, respondent No.2 had rejected the said application on the ground that the land is falling in Survey No.478 of Manchirvula Village, but in the building application, it is stated as Gramakantam and proper link documents were not filed to establish the flow of title over the proposed site. ix) The said rejection intimation letter dated 23.03.2021 is available online. Even then, the petitioners have not filed the same and they have not gone through the said rejection/intimation letter dated 23.03.2021. In the reply, the petitioners have stated that the said rejection orders were not serve on them or filed before the Court. It is specific contention of respondent No.2 that the entire process is Online and the owners have also applied through Online and the rejection intimation letter dated 23.03.2021 is available in the website. Even then, the owners have not made any effort to take copy of the same and file before this Court. There is no challenge to the said proceedings dated 23.03.2021. x) The above stated discussion would reveal that the owners have raised the construction including tin sheds. Referring to Section 2(5) of the Act, 2019, learned counsel for the owners would submit that the said tin sheds will not fall within the definition. But, the said definition under Section-2(5) includes ‘shed’. Therefore the owners cannot contend that it is not a ‘building’. The said contention of the owners is unsustainable. xi) As discussed above, the subject property is part of suit schedule property in O.S. No.69 of 2015 filed by the owners for partition and separate possession against respondent No.4 and others. The said suit is pending. During pendency of the said suit, Mr. J. Satyanarayana had executed the aforesaid Gift Deeds, and on the strength of the said gift deeds, the owners have executed the above said two lease deeds. The said suit is pending. During pendency of the said suit, Mr. J. Satyanarayana had executed the aforesaid Gift Deeds, and on the strength of the said gift deeds, the owners have executed the above said two lease deeds. It is relevant to note that the above said lease deeds are for a period of two (02) years and the said lease periods were expired by 31.10.2021 and 27.10.2021. The lessees have not filed any fresh lease deeds to show that they are the lessees of the subject property. Therefore, they cannot contend that he impugned final order dated 15.04.2021 is unsustainable. xii) As discussed above, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notice, called for the explanation from the owners and after hearing, respondent No.2 has passed the order which is a reasoned order In the impugned order, respondent No.2 has specifically mentioned that the versions of the petitioner are contradictory. At one stage they would contend that they have made constructions basing on the permit dated 13.01.2016 issued by the Gram Panchayat and on the other hand they would say that they have made online applications on 21.02.2021 seeking building permissions, and since the same were not considered within 21 days, they have treated the same as deemed permission and started construction. It is specifically mentioned that Section-178(2) of the Act, 2019 deals with construction or reconstruction of any building but not about temporary structures which will not come under the meaning of building. Respondent No.2 is not competent authority to decide the title of the applicants. The owners have not obtained any valid permission to the existing shed in house No.1-27/1, Manchirevula Village which is totally illegal and unauthorized. With the said reasons, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned final order dated 15.04.2021 directing the owners to demolish the said illegal and unauthorized shed within three (03) days from the date of receipt of the said order by removing the liquor stock stored in the said shed. xiii) It is relevant to note that Mr. J.Satyanarayana and another have field an undertaking dated 13.10.2017 with Panchayat Secretary, Manchirevula and HMDA stating that on 13.10.2017 they came to the subject property with staff for the purpose of demolition of the unauthorized shed, and the same was demolished partly. xiii) It is relevant to note that Mr. J.Satyanarayana and another have field an undertaking dated 13.10.2017 with Panchayat Secretary, Manchirevula and HMDA stating that on 13.10.2017 they came to the subject property with staff for the purpose of demolition of the unauthorized shed, and the same was demolished partly. The remaining portion, there were Cars and other material, and I the demolition will be made, the same would be damaged. Therefore, they have given an undertaking to demolish within fifteen (15) days. The petitioners failed to keep up their undertaking. On the other hand, they contend that they have constructed the tin shed pursuant to the building permit dated 13.01.2016. xiv) In view of the above said discussion and considering the fact that the lease obtained by the lessees was expired and that they are not entitled for any relief and, therefore, W.P. No.10050 of 2021 is liable to be dismissed. 11. CONCLUSION : i) As discussed above, the final impugned order dated 15.04.2021 is a reasoned order. Therefore, there is no error in it. Further, the owners failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order and, therefore, both the said writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed. ii) All the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petitions shall stand closed.