Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 49 (TS)

P. Raghotham Reddy v. State of Telangana

2021-02-05

A.ABHISHEK REDDY

body2021
ORDER : 1. Since the subject matter of the land in both the writ petitions is pertaining to one survey number, both the writ petitions are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Both the writ petitions are filed challenging the short fall letter dated 17.09.2020 bearing Lr. No. 3/C5/06389/2020 refusing to grant construction permission in plot No. 17 part in survey Nos. 37, 38 and 39 belonging to the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 18810 of 2020 and in plot No. 18 in survey Nos. 38 and 39 part belonging to the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 18814 of 2020, situated at Kothapet Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the owners and possessors of the subject plots respectively having purchased the same through registered sale deeds. The petitioners have submitted individual applications for grant of building permission in the subject plots. Vide impugned shortfall letter dated 17.09.2020, the authorities have refused to grant permission on the ground of pendency of O.S. No. 413 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy. It is the specific case of the petitioners that vide common judgment and decree dated 03.06.2006, passed in O.S. No. 195 of 2003, O.S. No. 196 of 2003 and O.S. No. 516 of 2000, passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, declaring the petitioners herein as the owners of plot Nos. 17 and 18 respectively. Even the appeals filed by the unofficial respondents against the common judgment and decree, dated 03.06.2006, has been dismissed by the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, vide common judgment dated 19.01.2007 passed in A.S. No. of 137 and 139 of 2006. Therefore, mere pendency of O.S. No. 413 of 2007 cannot be the basis for the official respondents to refuse grant of building permission. Hence, it is prayed to direct the respondents herein to grant building permission duly suspending the impugned short fall letter dated 17.09.2020. 4. Therefore, mere pendency of O.S. No. 413 of 2007 cannot be the basis for the official respondents to refuse grant of building permission. Hence, it is prayed to direct the respondents herein to grant building permission duly suspending the impugned short fall letter dated 17.09.2020. 4. Unofficial respondents have filed a counter affidavit, referring to various civil suits adjudicated between the parties, and stating that under the guise of having plots in survey No. 38, the writ petitioners are encroaching into the land in survey No. 39/A. Therefore, the unofficial respondents have filed a comprehensive suit for declaration of title being O.S. No. 413 of 2007 on the file of XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R. Nagar. Taking the same into consideration and after obtaining necessary legal opinion, the respondent authorities have refused to grant permission vide impugned short fall notice. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri D. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has stated that the unofficial respondents have no objection if the respondent No. 2-Commissioner comes to a conclusion that the plot Nos. 17 part and 18 claimed by the petitioners are physically found to be in survey Nos. 37 and 38 and gives building permission. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents further states that insofar as survey No. 39 is concerned, the same is the subject matter of O.S. No. 413 of 2007 and even the findings given by the Civil Courts in the earlier round of litigation are also to the effect that the plots of the petitioners are in survey Nos. 37 and 38 only and not in survey No. 39. Further, there are no open plots in survey Nos. 37 and 38 and if any building permission is given, the petitioners, taking advantage of the building permission, will encroach into the land in survey No. 39, which is the subject matter of O.S. No. 413 of 2007. 7. 37 and 38 only and not in survey No. 39. Further, there are no open plots in survey Nos. 37 and 38 and if any building permission is given, the petitioners, taking advantage of the building permission, will encroach into the land in survey No. 39, which is the subject matter of O.S. No. 413 of 2007. 7. In view of the above submissions made by both the counsel, the ends of justice would be met if the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the applications made by the petitioners, afresh, duly taking into consideration the objections filed by the unofficial respondents. 8. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of setting aside the impugned short fall notices dated 17.09.2020, remanding the matter back to respondent No. 2 to reconsider the applications for building permission, dated 11.05.2020, afresh, duly taking into consideration the objections filed by the unofficial respondents herein, and pass necessary orders, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the identity of the plots claimed by the petitioners is in dispute, the Commissioner may take the help of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, to identify the plots with reference to the survey numbers, layout, boundaries and based on the report take a decision. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, both the parties shall be put on notice and given an opportunity of hearing. 9. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.