Dismissed

N.Anadalamma v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC7 Jun 2021WP/2769/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Building permission was challenged amid a pending occupancy-rights dispute. The court dismissed the petitions, leaving title for the civil court. Development remained subject to the pending proceeding, and any purchasers had to be informed of it through disclosure and a sale-deed clause.

What did the court decide?

Development made subject to the pending occupancy-rights proceeding; any sale must disclose its pendency to purchasers and include a corresponding sale-deed clause.

N.Anadalamma Vs The State of Telangana and 5… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

H'GH COURT FOR IHE S] r"o ; ",it61.5, ;tj l5,l3ji"",flTi A r H^yD ERA BA D

¶2

\x)s+lJ,i..^i:,^.#Ii?,tHiIllr.

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY WRI TPE TITION NOS: 2769 AND 16823 0 F 2020 AND WP .NO. 1 032 oF 2021 WP No. 2769 of 2020

¶5

Between:

¶6

H;3.T1,i11i,%1',#liio,[,H,.'EBi..xR,ts,i:,J:,,ry?ff;;,.S:.i#"#.r"y;s

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary - MA and UD, Secreta riat, Hyderaibad

¶10

2 Greater Hyderabad lVunicipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle No.12, Khairathabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

Praduman Krishna Kumar Shah, S/o. Krishna Kumar V Shah. Aoed 46 vears. Occ- Business, R/o. H.No.4-3-162, Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad--g3, Tel'angana.

¶13

Krishna Kumar V. Shah, Sio. Vallabhadas Bhagavan Das, Aged 70 years, OccBusiness, R/o. H.No.4-3-'l 62, Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad-93, Telangana.

¶14

It4/s Empire LPG lndia P\it. Ltd., Rep. byauthorized signatory, Registered OffH. No.8-2-67418 12114, Flal No.202, Lushes, Banjara, Road No.^'13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} clrcumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue a Writ of lvlandamus, or^{any other appropriatewrit, order or direction,} declaring the action of the^{2nd and 3rd respondentsin allowingthe 4th respondent} in proceeding with the demolition^{and erecting temporary structuresin. premises} bearing No.1i-6-182,^{183, 187 and188, Publicgarden road, Nampally,Hyderabad} as illefal and arbitrary^{and further direct the respondentsnot to allow the 4thand} Sth respondents to^{makeany constructionin the said site'}

¶17

IA NO : 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court maybe pleased to grant} lnterim direction^{directing ihe respondents2 & 3 to immediatelystop demolition /} lonsirrction being^{made-bytfre +ih respondentin relationto premisesbearing No.} 11-A_rc2, 1S3, iB7^{a ta6, puOtic gaiden road, Nampally, Hyderabad,pending} disposal of^{the abovewrit petition.}

yvJxg$94-9E-292q

.'.

Between:

N.Anadalamina,^W/o' H No.11-6- 192l3/A,^Pu i # 3,;l!3i^{ff;d t?"f ,lf,',:il'd',oo:";!:':i;:X: : ""}

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

AND I The State of Telangana,^{Rep' by its Principal Secretary- tt/lA and UD'} Secretariat,^HYderabad

¶25

Greater^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Rep' by its Commissioner' GHMC'} Hyderabad.

¶26

3.TheDeputyCommissioner,GHMC,CircleNol2'Khairathabad'Hyderabad' 4. Praduman Krishna^{Kumar Shah' S/o Krishna(umarV Shah'{g-e^d!6.years'} - d. A;;i;;;;: Fv;. H.r.ro.a*-ioz, Hanuman Tekdi, Hvderabad-93' Telangana'

¶27

Krishna Kumar^{V. Shah' S/o. Vallabhadas BhagavanDas,Aged70 years, occ.} - fiuiinei., R/o. H.No,4-3-162' Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad-93, Telangana'

¶28

M/s Empire LPG^{lndia Pvt. Ltd, Rep.by authorized signatory, Registered Off} - n.flo.a-Z-OZ4lBl2t14, Flat No.202, Lushes, Banjara, Road No. 13' Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶29

..,RESPONDENTS

¶30

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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings No.1 05309/2311 1 120161H01687, dated 21 122.09.2020 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner in relation to the building permission application No. 11c1210919212020 sought by the respondents 4 to 6 in relation to premises bearing No.11-6-182, 183, 187 and 188, Public garden road, Nampally, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the proceedings Lr.No.1/c12to1s6gl2o2o, dated 18.02.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent himself rejecting the permission and consequenily set aside the same and further direct the 2nd respondent not to grant any permission to the respondents 4 to 6 till the disposal of the op No.179/20i6 on tne iite of il Addt. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶31

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶32

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the [r ig-h court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further _proceedings pursuant to the pro."""Jinj, ruo. 105309123t11120161HOt687, dated 21122.OS.ZOZO, pending disposat or the a60ve wrtt petition.

¶33

NO: 1032 202

¶34

Between:

¶35

N.Anadalamma, W/g.^ Nry?.rsinga Rao, Aged 72..years, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o. H. No..1 1 -6_1 92 t 3t A, pubtic c;;de; Ro"o, "riu rpirrvi irvi;r;;, reffi ana

¶36

AND

¶37

...PET|T|oNER

¶38

1 . The State of Telanoana, Rep. by its principal Secretary _ MA and UD, Secretariat, Hyderjbad.

¶39

' ff:3i:tl}terabad Municipal corporation, Rep. bv its commissioner, GHMC,

¶40

The Deputy Commissioner, cHlVC, Circle No..l2, Khairathabad, Hyderabad

¶41

Praduman Krishna Kumar Shah, S/o. Krishna Kumar V Shah, Aged 46 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H.No.4-3-162, Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad-93, Tel'angana

¶42

Krishna Kumar V. Shah, S/o. Vallabhadas Bhagavan Das, Aged 70 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.4-3-162, Hanuman Tekdi, Hyderabad-93, Telangana.

¶43

M/s Empire_LP_G,lndiaPvt. Ltd, Rep. by authorized signatory, Registered Off. H.No,8-2-67418l2l14,Flat No.202, Lushes, Banjara, Road No. 13-, Banjara Hitts, Hyderabad.

¶44

...RESPONDENTS

¶45

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 lo issue a Wrjt of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing permit No.1/C 1210021912021, dated 051112021, file No.1/C1 2 10519212020 in favour of respondents 4 to 6 in relation to premises bearing No.11-6-182, 183, 187 and 1BB, Public garden road, Nampally, Hyderabad though the writ petition No.16823 of 2020 filed by the petitioners challenging the rejection of their objections vide order dated 2112210912020 is pending without furnishing a copy to the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same.

¶46

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶47

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the respondents 4 to 6 not to make any constructions in premises bearing No.1'l-6-182, 183, 187 and 188, Public garden road, Nampally, Hyderabad the subject matter of the permit No.11C1210021912021, daled 051112021 , pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C RAGHU

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (in all Writ Petitions): GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (in all Writ Petitions):: SRl. N. ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 (in WPs 2769 and 16823 ol 2020 respondent No.4 in WP 1032 of 2020): SRl. A. VENKATESH

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent No. 6(in all Writ Petitions): NONE APPEARED

¶53

The Court made the following:

¶54

Tt{E HON',ULE Sl{t IUSTICE A.ARIIISHEK ttEDDY

¶55

V'.P. Nos. 2769 and 16823 of 2020 and \4'.1'.No.1032 of 2021

¶56

COMMON OI{DEI(:

¶57

Since the subjei:t matter ancl the partir:s in a.ll the writ petitions al'c orle and same, ttri,_1, ;,ru heard Loqctl-rer: arrcl clisposcd of bt, tiris conrmon order.

¶58

l{eard Sri C. Rag;hu, the learned coLrnscl for the petitioner', the Iearnt:ci Government Pleader lor Municipal Administration and Ulban Development for rt:spondent No.1, Sri N. Ashok Kumar, the lcirrned Standing^(lounsel for CIIMC for respondent Nos.2 and 3, an,,i Sri A. Venkatesh, Ieatnted counsel for responclent No.4.

¶59

,V.1).No.276!) ot 2.020 is fik:d challcng,ing the action o{ the rcsj)onderlt Nc;s.2 antj ) in allorving lhe lr,sponcient Nit.4 to pr-ocere_.d r.r,ith Lhe demolition ancl erect telnporary structures in the subject fr^{rc ln rses}

¶60

W.1'].No.16823 ol 2020 is filetl challenging the proceeclirLgs dated 21/22.09.2020 issued by the resporrdent No.2-the

¶61

(lornmissioner, GI INzIC, re-jectlng the objections raisecl by the petitioner in relation to the building perrrission application Nct.l/C12/09792/2020 liled by thc respondent Nos.4 to 6 ir-r respect oi tl're ple.mises bearing, No.11-6-182, 183, 187 & 188, Public^(lar-rt:n Roacl, Na rnpally, Ftyderabacl

¶62

W,P.No.1032 ol 2021 is filed cl.rallenging the building permit dated 05.01.2021 issued in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 in respect of tl.re subject premises despite the pendencv of W.P.No.16823 of 2020 filed by the petitiorrer

¶63

Accorc-ling to the petitioner, originally the erstwhile t.r*izarn Government had issued \4unthakab No.2624, clated 08.01.1300, in the name of three persons,",iz., Anthaiah, Chennaih and Yellaiah, irr respect of three villages v12. / Llngampally, Nampally and Thotaguda. The Revenue Divisional Officer' & Athiyat Deputl, Collcctor', Hyderabad, Ilar.rga Ileddy District, in Case No.ts/2059/71), had conducted a cletailed enquiry in relation to the lands located in Nan.rpally, wherein the subject property 1S located, undcr the provisior1s of the A.P. (1-r) Athiyat lrnquiry AcL, 1952 and the Rules macle thereunder. h-r tact, a detailed enquiry was conducted in relation to the succession of the oliginal Inamdars in relation to tl-re subjcct propertr'.^'l'hc Rcvenuc Divisional Officer has passecl orcler datecl 26,02.1986 holcling lirat the origir-ral grant of Inar-n n,as rnaclc in 1205 Hizri by Na,"r,ab Mir Nizam Ali I(han in favour of tl.re afore-stated three persons; that the Munthakab holdel Ycllaiah's lands were situatec'l in I-ingampall), Vi11agc., whereas A;rthaiah and Chemraial-r were the joint Munthakab holders in respect of the lands, to an extent of 10 Bighas 14 Bams, rn Survey Nos.102/1 and 1,02/2 ol Narnpally Village; that the succession of original grantee Chennaiah was granted in favour of his son Ilangaiah, r.r,ho had performed tl-re

¶64

¶65

service of Nalkari during his lifetime; t1-ra t thc saicl Rangaiah died on 17.72.-1967 leaving behind his wife, Smt,Yashodhamma, claughter-inlaw-Sn-rt. N. Lakshmamma, Anjaiah, Keshavulu and Ramulu and that late Venkataswarny. the husband of Smt. N. Lakshmamma had also performed the service of Nalkari during his lifetime.

¶66

It is stated that the petitioner is the daughter of Venkataswamy, who clied in 7962, and she bccame absolute owner of the subject property and is in continuous possession ancl enjoyment of the same. The other Munthakab holder Anthaiair also tlieel ancl Anjaiah ancl Rajaiah are his successors

¶67

It is further stated that one Vallabh Das, w,ho is claiming to be tht' Icase holcler', startcd claiminll rishts orr thc subject property, Re.spondent No.5 is Lhr. son of the saicl /allabh [Jas anci responclent No.4 is the son of respondent No.5

¶68

lA/hile so, OR(l was granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of 3202 square yards only and separate ORCs were issued in respect of other legal heirs in respect of the said part. But, the ORC procc,edings relating to ihe subject propertv cr-rlminatecl in the form of an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer rn Case No.I\ / 2577 -201 5, dated 23.'122015.

¶69

lVhen ihe rcsl'ronclc.nt No.2 ;tski:d tht pe.titioncr to sr-rbr.nit objections or-r the builcling permi;sion application submitted bv the respondent Nos.4 to 6 in respect of the subject premises, she has

¶70

¶71

subrnltted the objections arrd also written arguments. But, however, the respondent No.2, by the impugned proceedings dated 21 /22.09.2020. rejected the objections of the petitioner. Challenging tlre sanre, the petitioner Iilecl W.I'.No.16823 of 2020.

¶72

Insofar as \V.l'.\o.,..16823 of 2020 and 1032 of 2021 are concernecl, the responcle.rrt No.2 - tl-re Comrnissioner, GI lNlC, has filecl counter affidavits denying the petitiorr averments ancl specif ically stating that tl-re r espondent Corporation is not a forum to clecide the title dispuies beiween ihe parties and it carurot go cleep into the titlc for the purposc of issuance oi building perrnission, It is statecl that the respondent Corporation has issued the buildir-rg permission to the unofficial respondents based on the clocuments submitted by them, in accordance with law, and after disposing of the objections filed by the petitioner arde proceedinp,s riated 21/22.09.2020.

¶73

The respondent No.4 has also fileci a counter affidavit in W.P.Nos.16823 bf 2020 ancl 1032 ol 2021 rnainly stating that his grandfather became the absolute owner of the subject propertv lr1, virtue of Section 9 ol the Andhra I'radesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inarn Act, 1955 (for short,'the Inam Abolition Act') and finally, the subject propcrt),'is nou, owned and possessed by him bv viltue of tire judgrr-rernt ancl tlccree in a partiiion suit rrlde O.S.No.239 of 1998 dated 27 .07.1.998. It is stated that the petitior-rer is in the habit of filing frivolous cases to harass hlm and that despite losir-rg the

¶74

*"3. *

¶75

cases, the petitioner yet continues to file frivolous cases against l-rim inclucling the present h,rit petitions by supplessing the true facts. It is further stated that mere pendency of either r,vrit petition 01'O.P. is not a ground to refuse building permission to hlm and that through the entire pleaciings in the affidavits filcd in support of the r.vrit petitior-rs, the petitioner failed to establish hel right, tit1e, possession or interest over the subject premises, ancl therefore, prayed Lo disn-riss the writ petitions.

¶76

Insofar as W.P.No.2769 of 2020 is concerned, the respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner, GILMC, Circle No.l2, I.ras filed a coLrlltcr denying the petition averments and stating that the responc'lent Corporation has exarnined the representation of the pc.titioner dated 13.01.2020 and has taken appropriate decision by issuing a notice and also stopping the constructiorr activity being undertaken by the respondent Nos.4 anrl 5

¶77

I{espondent Nos.4 and 5 iiled a counter affidavit 111 W.P,No.2769 of 2020 c-lenying the petition av(,l.mc'nts and statir-rg that their ancestor was granted the subject land on perpetual/ permanent/ eternal lease ancl that apart bv operation of law also they became the absolute owners of the subject land. It is also stated that tl-re present enjoycr column in^-l'SLII reflects the narne of

¶78

[]l-ragwanclas, the [athcr ol rr'sponclent No.5. lt is statecl that tl-re claim of the petitioner has been rL.jr.cted bv various Courts in various proceedings ancl since the same lraving becorne final, the petitioner

¶79

¶80

canrlot plead any intcrost ovar the sub,ect property. It is {urthel stated that they are not undertaking anv construction activity witlrout permission and that the petitioner has no loats to challenge/ question anv activity that is being undertaken by them in the subject property, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition

¶81

Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner has filed an O.P. for grant of ORC uncler Scction 9 of Inam Abolition Act, which ts numbered as O.P.No.179 of 2016 pending on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Juclge, City Civil Court, I{yderabad. Unless and until the O.P. is clcr:iciecl in favour of lhe petitioner and^()RC granted in her favour, the petitioner at this juncture, car-urot claitn anv title over the subjcct propertj, and therefore, necessarilv she has to an,ait the outconrc oI thc O.[']. filed bv her'. fiven though the learned counsel has arguecl about the lack of any title in respcct oI the subject property and contended that there is no C)RC granteci by any competent authorily in favour of the unofficial respondents and in the absence of any OI{C in favour of the unofficial respondent, the Mr-rnicipality ought r-rot to have 5given anv building pcrmission, but the fact remains that the unofficial respondcnts arc in posscssiotr of the subject propertv.^():rcc the petitioner has already approac lrecl tlre competent Civil Court for grant of OIIC-, unless anci ur-rtil ther petitioner succeeds in tl-rc said O.P., the Llraver sought for in tht: presellt u,rit petitior-rs c annot be gr:anted. Learned counsel Iol ttre petitioner has vehemently argued that the official respondents har.,e

¶82

¶83

once reiected the application of the unofficial respondents on the ground of pendency of O.P.No.179 of 2076 on the file of the XXIV Additional Chief ludge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and also the order, dated 78.02.2020, passed by this Court in W.P.No.2769 of 2020, they ought not to have given the building permission at a later datc, A perusal of the said order shows that it is only a shortfall notice and the same cannot be construed as an order per se, If the applicant of the building, permission complies with the objections raisecl bv the authorities in the shortfall notice, the authorities are well within their right to consider the clarification issuecl by the applicant and pass necessary orders for grant of building permission if they are prinn facie satisfred with the title of the applicant.

¶84

This Court as well as the Hon'bte Supreme Court in a catena of cases have held that the municipal authorities do not have any power to go into the disputed questions of title and they caru1ot c'lecide the title of the rival parties and only have to see whethe,r the person applying for building permission has prima ficie title or not. Moreover, as decided in number of cases, mere grant of builcling permission will r-rot iake away/accrue any right, title or interest upon the parties.

¶85

The I'hree-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. I'atil Raghav Nathal, at para 14, has held as uncler:

¶86

. (r959) 2 SCC 187

¶87

¶88

"We are also o.f tfu opinton that tlu Cttttnrissioner slnttld nol Iut'e gone inlo the qucstion ol fitle. lt seems to 1.ts Lhnt tuhen tlrc title of an occupant is disputetl bt1 nny party bet'ore the Collector or tle Commissioner anrl tlx dispute is serious the appropriate course t'or tlrc Collector or the Contntissionr:r noukl be b refer the parttes to n competenl Court nntl rutt to decrde the qtLestron of tit\e himself against the occupant."

¶89

T. Rameshzoar u. Comntissioner, Municipal Corporction of

¶90

Hyderabad2, this Court has held under:

¶91

" Lltcrat'orc, tht lltL, tts tntarprctetl by tlus Corrt u:itlt relercnce to H iv4C Act nld tlte Att, tL,ltich raqutres the ComnttssiLtncr to consttler tlx: objccttorts, as and rrlttn litL',,1 nrc rnistd, t'or grnnt of ptrtnissron ott tlr grotLntl o.[ tttl.t itt a ])/rr,.,,/r/rlir tttitnner lrtking tlttt tottsiltrottott ottitl pri rrt ltir:i krcltrs I \ liiii' rioirrg srr, l/tr'^('trrt trr-,.tr, r,'t. attnfi^.l ttsst.ttttt' litt' rolt of rut iLljtLli.tlnt or ttl.tlnit'rl nnd LlccitL' tltt ltllc intcr sr: lrlftrtt'l tltt, t.tpyliLr'rttt .lor l,rtilrlnt:l ]tt'nnissiLlt nnd llu: obttclot o.f st.tclt bt.tiltlittg ItrnLissirlt.^{lJ tltt rtpylttntl ts trblt to sltrtr tirnt} Ttrintt .ft.tcit'^stttit nppltt'nttl ltls n ngltl lo it...,ttrtl tr ttlt tln const't utt'tLtn nrttir:illrctnnrhn N tlt 1tt,tultn,,,1 o,/ rrrl1 llr,gairol 1,..t tttr,,1 t.t.[ r] sr/rl lr rrflt'r' lrorllrliri,,l subiecl lo tltt' riitltiit,tul up1;ltling llu: tcrlnnt colt.liliotts. tlrt ConutLtsstLtnLt uay eit'ltt'r grtnt ytrnissiotL 01' poslllone tha grnnt af perntisstott."

¶92

In Gwiuka llaia l?am t. Slate of^'Ielangana3, this^(lourt heltl as

¶93

under:

¶94

" As tlu Comntissioner, beirg not 70ell l)elsed u)ith la70 and Legal intricacies, lns tnlen cnre of ohtnining legal opinion from tlu learned standing counsel, GIINIC and L)asing on tlrc snid legal opinion, tle commissioner hnd conLe to the corLclusion tlnt tlrre etists a serious dispuV tuith respect to tlrc title and enjoynunt of th.e petitioner ruitlt respect to tlu land, ooer ruhiclt the petitioner claims building permissron. In stLch circumstanccs. it cnnnot he said that tlrc Conmtissioner had erred in fulegntittg tlrc ptrLit's Lrt tltc Cit,iL Coltt, ns il is ttot possiblc for tlrc Conmrssioner to coma to a conclusion, tolto lns ttperior title, tlnt is, either the pctitioner or tle inplt:nd petitio er.

¶95

'^{2006(3)ALD 337} '20i7 i4l ALI) 4t5 \

¶96

¶97

ln T. Ranrcshtrtar o. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and others IIAANU/AP/A1.56/ 2006: 2006 (5) ALT 582, adt,erting to tlu cnsas in tphiclt tltre ctists ctril dtsltutes. tlus Court had qtLoterl its enlier decisiott dated 24.11.2.003 in W.t).No.3979 of 2003, In tlrc said jtLdgment, tltis Court lud opined thnt^"ultzn the dispute is sr.Lbjudice, it slmll be the dufy of tlu Corumissio er to postpone tle pernission, that tlle plLblic authority must respect the court rlecision and inplement it or aid in intplementing tlu sanrc. .

¶98

In the oery nature of the potuer exercisr:r.l by tlu CottuttisstotLer and tlrc paramcters that are recluirerl to be consitlered in granting permission ruhile exercising arch potoer, tlu Contmissioner is only required to exnntine tlrc pinu facic title of tlrc ryplicant and if tlwre is nny donbt or nny objeclion of serious nnttn.c is receited, it ntay be desirnble for him b obtain legal opinion to co rc to a conclusion as to rulrcther tle dispute in relation tLt title is of a setiotts nature and based on suclr legal opinion, tlte Commissioner nty take n cbcision eitlrcr to grtrnt or reject the permissiott for construction. Hotoeper, it may he cnutioned tlnt tfu legal opinion uthiclt the Conurissioner uny seek is not for r:oming to a conclusion hchoeen the t10o cLabrulnts uln lns xLperior title but only for tlu purpose of ascertaining as to tulttlrcr tlrcre tuas n serious trinhle dispute hettL'ect the parties. ln ,llicll euent, tlu Comnissrotter is botLnd to relegate tlrc pfirties to nppranch the cioil cotrrts for tlrc pLrrposc oJ rcsolt,irtg tlu Litlt dispute. ln otlLer u,ords, tle ttrder of tla: CttnnnissiorLer citllcr grntlting or rci&:ting pentLissiuu is justtfrable onLy to a lintited e.xteflt on n narroll grrtmtl of tultetlrr tlrc decision runking process of the Connnissitnter rtitiateLl nnd. not tlr decisiot hy itsclf."

¶99

In I( Paaan Raj it. M.C.LL. Rtp. br1 its Commissior?ey', this C()Lrrt ,

¶100

ai para 20, l-ras held urrder:

¶101

"A careftl rendtng of Lhe prouisions ol tlrc Act and tla Bye-lmos {loes not indicate thnl tlLe Commissioncr i.s empotoaretl to entertain a title tlispute and adjudicate tlrc snnte bet'on: disposittg of the application for grnnt ofhuiLding pernrission. lndeed, botlt tle proulsions of Sections 428 antl 429 nnd clatjc (i') of Bye-Laru 1.2 anoisnge t'iling of copies of title deeds and tlure is no prouision wttL:r tolrich thc Comnrissioner can reject Brnnt^{of building perntit ort the g,round of titlcdisptLte.} As lrcldⁱⁿ lTyderabad Pot :rrcs (1 nLpra), i.f any objection regardiug title is

¶102

'2oos(r)A.Py'.J.2^(HC)

¶103

rtatt\t(i,^{llk) La/,/,lll!\i(rr/{r t5 t1'tltLttl:tl t()bL'It11ttn laclr'snllsfir'd rrhorri} tltt' rt1:ytlicrttrl's^{litltl.o !it,' pralttrl"lrutd lus ltitittllr0sscssroJ/al' lht's0ttk'} ntltl ltLt Ctllt)()t tkttrlt^{ltlir tltslrll/fh(lalli.lsa tlttttts ttt'tlltt.Ottt oI tlu:' rltrlies} rrssigJlrd trr lttttt^{rtor )tt: isyrolidcd tt'ithstrL'h atndltLdicntottl} tnr:clnnisttt. 1\ ltrstttt^{!r'//irrt /11 a riL'rclntrn t'f titlt' rs ft'ee lo apTtrottlt} liv cattrl ol^{(rutl)t'11')t!ttrIirrirtirrtltttrtlst'tk} 'q1y'toytrnt't^{rL:licfttt tlnl} rcgnrtl.l.{^{tlLt' tllpltnllotls} lil^{l'tttliliirg pr:rnLissrttttsttrt' reiectcd nrtcltl ott} llrc grotttrl^{o.f thittlptu'ttcsr.rtistrr3disprrir:s of titlc ' that ntny rtstrlLirt} scriot.rs harrlsltip^{t() tlu'oiLrnet'soi' the TtrttpcttresTd(refrlT)ololts'} speculntitt nttd^{.r'xtllintLsdnmsttmv he nLnLle hy tlird pnrtie s ht1se ttutg} tLyt tttle. IhereJare,^{itlri'tt'i't:ttlrcCttnnrtissiLtrtct'is' 1:trinn t'acie'snttsfutd} nltout tlr legal^{tttle ()[ t]leapllLimnt nnrl hts LniL:f'l possession'ILeis} hoLnul to^{considerthe tLy4tltcatiott} lot^{btliklingpenuissionofl ltlrlls'} lsating the^objectol ft'e(^{lo appronchan npproprintecoLn't of lta70"}

¶104

In SSPDL Ltd.^{IlyderabaclMettopolitant)ez;elopmentAuthovittl:t il}

¶105

has been held^{as uncler:}

¶106

"Tlrcrefore , tht' lmL' as intetyretetlby^{this Cotn'l tt:ith rcfetenct: tr"'} I/.,VC.4cl^{nttLltltt:1,.t, tIlttc/t |c'7tt'"* l/r' Cr)r'l'rrr\/rr//t'r1p 11r11'1dct'iilt'} oh/r'c/iorrs,^{rrs rjr'r.1 iIiir'irlltt''l nrt: r,itst,d,{or i rtnl ol lrtnlsst0ttanL)11} grotLrtd^tt.[ ltt]t^{irt tt} i),r,'ll,lr?flL^{rttiLnnerttkittg ttitttt'tttt-qitlttnttonatlV} l)n^{ttt htia.ftlct()t's. I\1rifu'rirrirrgso, i/t: C0rtlrrtissirrtttr} 'a t1ot nssrtttl^tltt' rob ttf itn niltrtltctlitt^{LtrrLtLtilroh't.nutl t'ltcttlt tlrt lillt ittlcr sr hclzttr'rt} tha appltcrtttt ,fLtr^{hli rirlrrs} irrrr''rrisslt':t^{trttl lJerrl'it'r-lotoi saclt !tirltltrrf} Itcrinlssiott.^{lf lhtnyplrcnnlts nblt' to sltLtir lltttf Tnirnnfncttsttclt} npT icnnt hns n^{rigltl lc' yrrtt:et11t|tth tlte cottstntctto']rtottoitlLstatt din g} tlrc Ttandutctl^{o.1 fi11.''/ litt:ltllu)11bi1 rlny of Lt st'til ot otlrcrproceedittg} sLfulcct t0^{tlrLtLtyytlit:ttnt applyngLltt cerlnrn ctnttliliorLs' lltt} Contttissiorter^{tnatl ttllrcr grtLrtt} 1tL:rrttissiLtn^{or lastloltcthegrattL of} pen issiotl.

¶107

ln tltt: cortsttlr.tctl^{llt'a' ttl tltts Court, t LltsptLLc} 'l1lientiq or titlr aLtgltt n0t^{La ltolttlteerterrtcrlanteLiand decidedbt1 'L't res1tLttttlent. 1-his} Corn't ts Tters|La&:d^{tL; ,tpply tlt} ltrtrLctTtles^{of ltttt:t nunern[ed i// {ris'</sup> rcferrcrl tbat,e^{io lltr't asr'ott lntttl as l't tesltonLltnldisc/rrrrges nssigzed} fLLrtctiLttts^tnrL Ttttit't'rs^{tiilih'(tttt tlttretlittgol ''tl'Llrecidittg Ltllt or} i()(.t1flttl tsttotrtttt:o.f^lltc -ittttr'ilor,ts^{ot.portrcls ttl l" tt:spttndettl'Tltrcfoe'}}

¶108

'(2017(61 r\LD 570

¶109

¶110

tl're decision of 1't respolldrnt dated 29.08.2015 is i\legal and bcyond j tt ri sd ic tion and rn te nnble ".

¶111

In laytrntmn ?. State oJ l(arnotakab, rL lltr,:e-Jutlge lJench lrld Lrs

¶112

utLtler

¶113

"Oontnrtssiottt,r lns no ltLristltL:ttLtri Itt LlL,tiLlt tlt titlc iltsptttt l.ctt:aett Litt pnrliL,s it r(slL.t ol ruLiloiubLt yroytrltl/proytrtit,s It ts tlrc r'rrlLtslt,c lotnrttn 't lip rontpttl(t)l⁽ n,r1 (oriiI l,: alludtc,tte tltt IrsStrtte/ LLe in rcspett of the itnnLot,ttttfu proptrty/1trt;Sterti.cs ttntl r.LltinntcLy if lny decrce to lte pnssetl bV tlLe totnltaltttt Ctr:il^()tnrrl u:ill be hindtng on tlu parttcs tts toell as tht: rettrttLt: uutltorities in tlp Stnte".

¶114

In an unreportecl Order, dated 18.12.2020, passed 1r1

¶115

W,I'].No.19040 of 2020, this Court has helci as under

¶116

"lt is weLl accepted prtnciple of lcnu that tuhere serr.ous disputed questions of tiLle or facls are inuoLuecl, it is onl! the cornpeLent Ciuil C.'cturl tuhich t:art giue a Jincltng regarcLing the lille, possesslo n etc., based ort the euidence on record. 'l'he authonties under the GHMC Act do not haue the poLuer to decide the title to the propertA LDhere tu)a riual clctimcLnts are seiouslA disputing the tttle ctf one anctther. N either tlrc Commissioner nor the Deputa Oommissioner oJ'the Municipat has the jurisdictbn to decide the title dispute between tluo or more iual parties in respect of the immouable properttes. It is onlg the Ciuil Courls that h.cue the excLusiue domain and jurisdiction to adjudicate the ri.gtlt/ title/ dispute between the iuctl pcLrties in resy;ect of tl-te imntouctble properties. lt is onlg the Ciutl Courl u.thich can record the euidence and taking into account the oral and documentary euidence adjudicate the rights of the parties. The role of the Municipal Cammtsstoner is onlu to see tf the partg apptAing for building permlssion is hauing pima facie title or not and uhether the building plctn submitted are in ctccordance Luith the Act, Rutes, By-lauts, and uaious G.Os., issued from time to time, tllttmatelg, if a decree is passed bg a Ciuil Court, the same is not only btnding on the parttes but also the Municipat and Reuenue authoities."

¶117

' 2020 SCC OnLtne Kar )1 I

¶118

¶119

In view of the above proposition of law, the rejection of the objections raised by the petitioner and the consequent granting of building permission cannot be faulted r,vith. Neithel the municipal authority under the GI IN,IC Acl :or this Court under Article 226 of tlre Constitution of I ncl ia can clecide the title, more so, r,r,hen there ate serious disputecl que'stions of facts involved. As helcl by the I lon'ble Supleme Court as well as this Flon'ble Court in a nurnbcr of cases, the proper remed), avatlable to the aggrieved partv is Lo approach the competent Civil Court for deciding the tiile. Admittedly, in this case, the petitror-rer iras aircacly filcd O.P.l''io.l79 of 201.6 before the XXIV Adclitional Chief Judge, City Civil^(lourt, Hvcierabad, for grar.rt oi OIIC, u,hich is penc'ling adjuclicalion. arrcl until ancl unlcss tho satrre is cler:icled, thc petitior-re:r' carinot, a:; a matter o[ rigl-r t, claim arry title or irrterest ovel thl'subject propertv

¶120

'fhis Court is r-rot going into the aspccts of the rival clairtrs of both thc parties, as thc Civil^(-ourt is scized of thc mattcr- in O.I'].No.179 of 2076, and any observations made by the Court r,r,ill prejudice the outcome ol O,I'j.No.i 79 of 2016. Nloreover, the learncd counsel for the uno{ficial responclerrts, on instrur:tions, has statecl that they are constructing only a pekol bunk and given an undertaking that in case the petitioner succeeds in the O.P. filed bv her, they will not claim anv equitics.

¶121

In view of the afolementioned facts and circumstances and the law laid down by thc I lon'ble Supreme^(lourt, this Court does not

¶122

¶123

fincl .any merit in the present writ petitions^{which warrantsany} interference of the ir-npugned older. I]orn'evtlr,^{it is tnade clear that} anv development made will bc^s rrbject to the^{final result of} O.P,No.179 of 2016 pending on the file of the XXIV^{AdditionalCl.rief} Judge,^{Clty Civil Coult, l{yderabad.In case, the unofficial} respondents want to alienate the property to any third parties, they shall intimate the purchasers about the pendencv of O.P.No.179 of 2016 pending on the file of the XXI\z Aclditional Chief Judge, City Civil Cour"t, i-Iyderabad, and also incolporate a clause in the sale dec:rl to the ef tect tha L the ventlt'e has bet:n appraised about lhe pendcrncy ol O.P. No.179 of 2006 cin the Iiie of XXIV Additional Chicf Jr-rc1ge, Citv Civil Court, I lvderabad.

¶124

cl l'e Subject to the above observations, the. writ pctitions clisrnissecl.

¶125

l'l iscellaneou s pr'titions pcncling, il anv, shall stancl closed 'I'l-rele shall be no olcir'r as to costs

¶126

¶127

sD/-K.sAtLESrii ASSISTANT REGISTR,AR ,TRUE COPY// \r-r^ SECTION OFFICER

¶128

To,

¶129

9n"^{CC to Sri. C Raghu,Advocate} IOPUCI 2. One CC to Sri. N. Ashok Kumar, Si for Otivc 1oeucl 3. One CC to Sri. A. Venkatesh, Advocate (OpUCi 4 Two ccs to Gp for lvlunicipar Administration & iJrban Deveropment, High court

¶130