Quashed

Rejinthala Saibabu v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC18 Oct 2021WP/14375/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the revocation of a building permit and the granting of approval to a rival claimant, the High Court held that the revocation violated natural justice due to lack of notice. It quashed both the revocation order and the subsequent permits, directing parties to decide ownership in a civil court.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned revocation order dated 01.06.2021 and the building permits issued to the petitioner and respondent No.3.

Rejinthala Saibabu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

,.r.r\l

¶3

[I|| (sp^lu TELA N ecial Orig^lp inat^or Jurisdiction)GANA AT HYDERABAD A/IONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBEp rwo rnoiSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶6

Between: IT ETI ONN o :14 75 oF2 1

¶7

[:,{ri:?i:'3,i':B?#:fJff,,il:Eii.r,ffi;):;,'juj;i?,"tp81f,,.,,."&jB,Bli, Business,

¶8

AND ..,PETITIONER

¶9

The State of Telanoana, [eO. bV its principal Secretary, l.Iunicipal Adminrstration ^^{and Urban Devetofimert, s.iCr"iui[i, eR(frB"h"u'run,} Hyderabad. 2. Kollapurt/unicipat'ity, nqp. Fv iti C"ii r"iJ.ion".jilrorrrpur, Nagarkurnoot Districr. 3. Su.nkari^purendar, Sl,o. SLnr6rixri.t niiJhl'ng"ij ss years, occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-5-88, Colrese Road, Ko,apur iil;; X;Lpii rfi;i,r:, N;;;ririii;i" District.

¶10

4' Sunkari Ramesh, s/o. SunkariKrishnaiah, Aged 2g years, occ. Business, Rio. Kollapur Town, Kollapur Maned, Nagarkurnoot oEtrict

¶11

;;;;;;=_r"

¶12

Petition under Article 226" of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more^particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus a) declaring the orders of^{RevocationvideLr. No.4310S/KOLL/} 009612021, dated: 0110612021^{as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of} natural^justice and^{in violationof sectionfiaff) ol Telanganalvlunicipa litiesAct'} 2019,b)todeclarethegrantingofApprovalofBuildingPermissionvideLetter No.42028/KOLLtOOg5t2O21,^{dated.30/05/2021 lo Respondent as illegal' arbitrary} andc)consequently.directthe2ndRespondenttoreconSidertheapplicationofthe petitioner for^grant of^{Building Permission'}

¶13

IA NO :1 OF²⁰²¹

¶14

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the^{order of revocationof Buildingpermission/lnstant Approval grantedto} thePetitionervideLetterno.43l05/KoLuoos6l2o21'dated:01/06/202,1directto reconsider^{the Petitioner application for grant of building permission'pending} disposal^{of the Writ Petition'}

¶15

¶16

ilzll

¶17

Ii 2⁰²¹ IA^No: 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} Petition^{under Section} of the^{petition' the High Court may be pleasedto} the^{affidavitfiled in support} sion/lnstant^{Approval grantedto 3rd Respondentvide} susPend^{the Building Permis} 2021,^{dated 30/05/2021'pendingdisposal of the Writ} Letter^{No.42028/KOLL/0095/}

¶18

Petition.

¶19

counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI B' ARJUN RAO FOR SMT' G' JHANSI}

¶20

c o u n^{s e I ro rothe R s} i"ti li"Jll^{fi l-r srR Arr o N A N D u R B AN D EV E L o P M E N r}

¶21

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'2:SRI N' PRAV.E.ENKUMAR'} SC FOR^{MUNICIPALITIES}

¶22

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'3 & 4: SRI M' DAMODAR REDDY}

¶23

The Court^{made the fr:llowing: ORDER}

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶25

WRIT PETITIONNo.t4375 0F 202t

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Mr. B. Arjun Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner, learned Govemment Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Mr. N. praveen Kumar, leamed Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶28

This writ petition is filed to declare the orders of revocation vide Lr.No.43 105/KOLL/0096/2091, dated 01.06.2021 and the grant of approval of Building Permission vide Letter No.42028lKOLLIOOg5l2l, dated 30.05.2021 in favour of respondent No.3 as illegal, and for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the application of petitioner for grant of building permission.

¶29

The petitioner herein claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.20, adrneasuring 200 square yards tn Survey No.156, situated at Waridela Grama Revenue Shivaru, Kollapur Mandal and Municipality, Nagarkumool District, having purchased it under a registered sale deed bearing document No.3304 of 2018, dated 03.10.2018 from Mr. Zallula Rambabu and Mr. Sirasanagandla Niranjan Rao. The said Zallula Rambabu and Sirasanagandla Niranjan Rao had purchased the said propefty from Mr. T. Gopalakrishna Rao, Mr. T. Anand Krishna Rao and Mr. T.L. Krishna Prasad under a registered sale

¶30

KL,J W.P.,\o.11j75 of²⁰²¹

¶31

deed bearing^{document No.2119 of 2018, dated 20'07 '2018' Thesaid} Mr. T. Gopalakishna^{Rao and 2 others had acquiredthe saidland} through their^ancestors.

¶32

On the strength^{of the registered sale deed No'3304of 2018'} dated 03.10.2018,^{the petitionerhereinhad obtaineda buildingpermit} dated 21.05.2021^{for construction of a residential building.The said} permit was revoked^{by proceedings No'43105/KOLL009612021'dated} 01.06.2021 on^{the followingground:}

¶33

"The application was^{verifiedand lound that the respectedplot is} alrea<1y registered^{to Purenderand he has taken permissionalso'} there is legal dispute^{between Saibabu and Purender"'}

¶34

Challenging the^{above, the petitionerherein fited the present writ} petltlon.

¶35

On the other^{hand, respondent No.3 is claimingright over the} very same plot^{i.e., Plot No'20under a Gift Settlement Deedbearing} document No.3006 of^{2)2o,dated 15.07.2020. Thesaid Gift Settlernent} Deed is between^{respondentNo.3and 4. RespondentNo'4 is claiming} that he had^{purchasedthe subject plot under a registered saledeed} bearing docutnent^{No.1097of 2019,dated 19.03'2019from Smt'Zain} Bee Wo late Abdul^{Gafoor. According to Mrs.Zain Bee,her husband} had purchased^{the subject plot under an unregisteredsale deed dated} 2l.Og.l9g3 from Mr.^{T.V. Krishna Rao and, thereafter,he obtaineda} possession certificate, dated^{28.12.2005vide file No.5/2016/2005 from} the Mandal Revenue Officer,^{KollapurMandal.The said Abdul Gafoor}

¶36

¶37

KL,J W. P.No.14375 of202l

¶38

died on 21.08.2018 and, thereafter, she had executed the aforesaid^sale deed in favour of respondent No.4. On the strength of the^Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.3006 of^{2020, dated 15.07.2020,} respondent No.3 herein had obtained building^{permitdated 30.05.2021in} respect of the very same plot for construction of Ground^{+ 1} Upper^Floor. Thus, both the petitioner herein and respondent^{No.3are claiming right} over the very same plot. The^{petitioner herein had obtainedbuilding} permit on 21.05.2021 and the same was revoked by respondent^{No.2 vide} proceedings dated 01.06.2021 on the ground that the^petitioner and respondent No.3 are claiming right over the^very same^{plot and there is a} legal dispute between them.

¶39

The learned counsel for the^{petitionerwould submit that though} late Mr. Abdul Gafoor had^{purchasedthe subjectplot from Mr. T.V.} Krishna Rao under an unregistered^{sale deeddated 21.09.1993, he had} not perfected his title by^way of^{obtaining a registered sale deed or by} way of filing a suit for specific^{performance.Further,respondent Nos.3} and 4 in collusion with the^wife of^{late Abdul Gafoor created the said} unregistered sale deed,^{possession certificate said to haveissued by the} Tahsildar, Kollapur and the Gift^{Settlement Deed etc. With the said} documents, respondent No.3^{is claiming rightover the very same subject} plot. But, respondent No.2 without veriffing^{the said facts granted} permission for construction in favour of^{respondentNo.3on 30.05.2021} '

¶40

¶41

KL,J Ir. P.No.14375 of202l

¶42

The learned counsel for^{the petitionerwouldfurther submit that} the vendors of the^{petitionerhad purchased the subjectplot undera} registered sale deed bearing^{documentNo.2 1 i} 9 of^{20 I} 8^dated 20.07.2018 who in turn sold^{the same to the petitioner herein undera} registered document bearing'No.3304 of^{2018, dated03.10.2018.On} verification of the documents only, respondent No.2 had^accorded building permission in favour of^{the petitioneron 21.05.2021 andthe} salne was revokecl vide^{proceedings dated 01.06.2021without issuing} any notice ancl u,ithout giving an opportunity to the^petitioner and, therefore. the said action of respondent No.2 is illegal and arbitrary.

¶43

As discussed above, both the petitioner and respondent No.3 are claiming right over the very same plot i.e., plot No.20. More so, the said Abdul Gatbor did not initiate any proceedings to perfect his title. Thus, there are complicated questions of fact including the genuineness of the unregistered sale deed dated 21.09.1993 said to have executed by Mr. T V. Krishna Rao in favour of late Abdul Gafoor. Neither this Court under Anicle - 226 of the Constitution of India nor respondent No.2 have power to decide the title dispute. A perusal of the revocation proceedings dated 0l .06.2021 issued by respondent No.2 would reveal that there is no mention about either serving of any notice on the petitioner or affording an opportunity to the petitioner for submission of his explanation.^'l'hus, the impr-rgned revocation order dated 01.06.2021 is ir.r violation of principles of natural^justice.

¶44

KL,J llt.P.No.l1375 of202 )

¶45

¶46

The action of respondent No.2 in issuing revocation order is a punitive action' It is settred raw that before initiating any punitive action, the respondent authorities are bound to adhere to the principres of natural justice as held by this Court in Mirza Khusru Ali Baig v. The Greater Municipal Corporalionl . But, in the present case, respondent No.2 has not complied with the same and there is a violation of principles of natural justice' on the said ground, the impugned revocation order dated 01.06.2021 has to be set aside.

¶47

As discussed supra, respondent No.2 had granted building permission in favour of the petitioner on 2r.05.2021 and also issued building permission in favour of respondent No.3 on 30.05.2021 in respect of the very same plot. Therefore, there is dispute with regard to the title over the said plot between the petitioner and respondent No.3, which is a compricated question of fact. As stated above, neither this court under Articre - 226 of the constitution of India nor respondent No'2 has powdr to decide a titre dispute between the parties. Any titre dispute has to be decided by a competent Civil Court.

¶48

¶49

I11.^{In view} of the above discussion, the impugned revocation order dated 0l .06.202\ as well as the building permit No.43 105/KOLL/ 009612021, dated 21.05.2021 issued in favour of the petitioner and the building permission vide letter No.42028lKoLLroog5/2ozr, dated 30'05'2021 issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3 are hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner as well as I zot: 1z; alo zss

¶50

¶51

KL,J ll/.P.No.1437 5 of 2021

¶52

respondent No.3 to approach the competent Civil Court to decide the title dispute in respect ofthe subject plot No.20, and thereafter, they can seek building permission from respondent No.2.

¶53

With the above observations, the present Writ petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances of the case. there shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ

¶55

petition shall stand closed.

¶56

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// (r>

¶57

¶58

SECTION^OFFICER

¶59

;ilh^- 7. Two^{CD CoPie';} 8. One SPare One SPare SPare^CollY To,lffi66g

¶60