Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 458 (AP)

Gorle Atchum Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-04-27

R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

body2022
ORDER : The petitioner claims ownership over Ac.242 square meters of land in Sy.No.326/1 of Sabbavaram Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner has also filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.34 of 2016 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapalli against third parties to injunct them from interfering with his possession over the said land. The said suit is pending. Subsequently, the petitioner again moved to Civil Court, by way of O.S.No.192 of 2021, on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for setting aside the deed of sale dated 21.05.2021, under which one Sri Gorle Naidu Babu is said to have executed a sale deed, in favour of the 5th respondent, and for a consequential direction for delivery of possession of the property. 2. The 5th respondent had applied for building permission for construction of a house in this property and the same was granted by the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat, by way of its resolution dated 25.10.2021. Aggrieved by the said resolution, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question belongs to him and a part of the land is Government property. The petitioner further contends that these facts were placed before the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner had opposed the grant of building permission to the 5th respondent on these grounds and also on the ground that civil suits are already pending between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. 4. Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, except recording his objection relating to his claim over the property, did not consider any of the objections raised by the petitioner and such, a resolution is clearly impermissible. He would further submit that once there is a serious dispute of title over the land in question, the Gram Panchayat ought not to have granted such building permission. 5. The 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit. Similarly, the 5th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that the 5th respondent had originally applied for building permission over Ac.0.06 cents of land. 5. The 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit. Similarly, the 5th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that the 5th respondent had originally applied for building permission over Ac.0.06 cents of land. The survey report dated 16.07.2021 issued by the Tahsildar showed that 1.5 cents out of this land was government property and subsequently, the 5th respondent had resubmitted the application for construction of a building in 4.5 cents only. On that basis, the application was placed before the Gram Panchayat and a resolution granting permission for construction was given. As far as the question of the pending dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent is concerned, it is the stand of the 2nd respondent that the documents produced by the petitioner do not tally with the boundaries of the land in which the construction is being undertaken and as such, the claim of the petitioner was not taken into account. 6. The 5th respondent submits that her purchase of the property is from the lawful owner of the land in question and that the petitioner who had already initiated civil litigation, has not been able to obtain any orders from the Court and the same would go to demonstrate that the case of the petitioner, is at best, tenuous. The 5th respondent also takes the plea that the property claimed by the petitioner is situated elsewhere and it is not the property which is in the possession of the 5th respondent. 7. It is settled law that any local body while granting building permission, has to look at prima facie title of the applicant to the property in question. However, this prima facie verification will not go to the extent of deciding the title to the property. Further, any decision taken by the local body for grant of building permission will also not confer any title to the application nor can such ground to be taken into account while determining the title to the property. In the said circumstances, the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat on a prima facie view of the documents of title produced by the 5th respondent cannot be treated to be an arbitrary exercise of power. 8. In the said circumstances, the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat on a prima facie view of the documents of title produced by the 5th respondent cannot be treated to be an arbitrary exercise of power. 8. In view of the pending litigation both in relation to the initial suit for permanent injunction and the subsequent suit for cancelation of the deed of sale of the 5th respondent and for recovery of possession, the interest of the petitioner are protected. 9. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.