On the other hand, Sri L.Venkateshwara Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 – Municipal Corporation, on instructions, submits that the respondents have received certain objections stating that the sale deed in favour of the vendor of the petitioners is fabricated. He submits that sale deed in favour of one Smt. P.Naga Nandini, who is the vendor of the petitioners, executed in the year 1992, is forged and the said P.Naga Nandini, in turn, executed the sale deed in respect of subject property, in favour of the petitioners in the year 2018. As the title is alleged to be defective, the building permission applications of the petitioners could not be processed. Relying on a judgment of this court in GUNTUKA RAJA RAM s/o RAJALINGAM vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA3 , learned Standing Counsel submits that, no doubt, it is true that Commissioner is only required to examine the prima facie title of the applicant, but if any doubt / objection of serious nature is received, it may be desirable for him to obtain legal opinion to come to a conclusion as to whether the dispute in relation to title is of a serious nature and based on such legal opinion, he may take a decision either to grant or reject the permission for construction. He stated that in view of the above decision of this court, the 2nd respondent – Commissioner, will take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the applications of the petitioners.
