Allowed

M/s Lamd Mark Developers v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC26 Oct 2022WP/2224/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court allowed a Writ Petition challenging a Shortfall Intimation Letter denying building permission. Quoting established precedents, the Court held that the Commissioner need not insist on NOC and must assess prima facie title. The impugned order setting aside the application due to 'poramboke' status was quashed, directing fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Shortfall Intimation Letter dated 06.08.2021 set aside; respondents directed to reconsider building application ignoring poramboke recording; no order as to costs.

M/s Lamd Mark Developers Vs The Greater Hyderabad… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²³⁰ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST oo".,ii 8,IE,P5 ffi |l:!,fli^{Ar HYDERABAD}

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TI rwo ri o u stillr_B 1#.?^+I o F o c ro B E R

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WR|T^pETtTtON NO: 2224 OF 20?2

¶7

Between:

¶8

y1:H,J#11':,5{lg"?jrf ;9,$:{,$c,'f:l;$ffi h4rq,'?ffi {l;#

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad represented by its Commissroner

¶12

2 The DeputV Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Chandana!ar, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutron of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the impugned Shortfall lntimation Letter dated 6.8.2021 in Lr.No.00090B/GHMC/0521/S1P212021-BP issued by the Respondents^{as illegal,} arbitrary and without^jurisdiction and^{to consequentlydirect the Respondents to} forthwith reconsider the application^{of the petitionet daled 20.7.2021 uideFile No.} OOO908/GHMC lO521tSLP2t2O21-BP^{for grant of building permissionbasedon the} prima facie title documents produced by the petitioner herein. Award costs.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High courtmaybe pleased to issue} lnterim directions to the Respondents to^{forthwithreconsiderthe applicationof the}

¶17

-L

¶18

petitioner dated 20.i.2021 vide File No 000908/GHMC/0521/SLP2|2O21-BP for grant of building pel nission without reference to the impugneJ Shortfall lntimation Letter dated 6.8.2021 in Lr No. 00090BiGHMC10521lSLP2l20i21- BP issued by the Respondents, pendi rg disposal ofW P No. of 2022.

¶19

Counsel for the Pe itioner:SRl. N.SREEDHAR REDDY

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAIT REDDY(SC FOR GHMC)

¶21

The Court made tt o following: ORDER

{___/

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 2224 0F 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed soeking the follou,ing relief

¶29

to issuc a rvrit ol mandamus or ani' other appropriate writ or $,rits, order or dircction declaring thc impugned shortfall Intimation Letter datccl 06.O8.2O21 in Lr.No. 000908/ GHMC/ O52 1 I SLPz I 2O2 I -BP issued by the respondents as illegal, arbiuary and without jurisdiction and to consequently direct the respondents to forthlvith reconsidcr- the application of^the petitioner dated 2O.O-;.2-O21 vide Filc No. 000908/GIIMC/0521/SLt'2/2021-UP for^{grant ofl)uilding} permission based on the^{prima facic title documents prodrrcedbv} the petitioner herein^{and grant buildingpermission;award costs} and pass such oth":|^{or further ordcrs as are deemedftt and propcr} in the circumstances^{of the case "}

¶30

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner Sri N' Sreedhar} Reddy submits^{that petitioner is a re puted builder and it has} entered into^{a development agreerncnt with one Mohd' Yottnus} Khan, who^{is the orvnerirrrd posscssor o[ land admeasurlng} part of^{Sur-veY No- 41/5of} 1007.93^square Yards^forming Mandal,^{RangaReddY District} I(hanamet^{Vitlage, Seriiingampally} . lt is^{submitter.lthat the} rrirJe document^{datedO2'O5'2O22} petidoner^{has madean Application to thc respondentsunderTs-} l,earned^counselfor bPASS^{Act for grant of building pcrrnrssron} the^{petitionersubmits that thc rcspondentshave issuedthe} impugned^{short{311 intirnati'rn urde procccdingsdatcdO6'O8'2O2I}

(

stating^that the landⁱⁿ Sv. No 4 1 / 5 of^{Khatrantet Villagets} recorded^as poramboke and prohibited under StamPs^and Registration Department of Telangana and therefore,^the Application of^{the petitionerhas been} returned^unaPProved. Learnedco-tnselsubmitsthatthelandinSurvr:1'No41/5isa private pro >erty and at^{no pointof time, the samt: rvas recordedas} poramboke nor prohibited under the^{Registrationact.}

¶35

Learned counsel submits that in vit:w of^{the lau' laid} down in Hgderabad Potterles Priuate Limited u. Collector, Hgderabc d. Districtl, they cannot insist on prc,duction of 'NOC' . He submi s that this Court in Writ Petition No. 16868 of 2022 has pzrssed a r order to process the building a cplication without insisting on production of NOC, the GHMC Jras preferred Writ Appeal N r. 4O3 of 2022 and the said Writ Appeal u,as allowed by the Divis ion Bench. It is submitted that the l)ivision Bench has observed that they have dismissed the Appeal holding that they do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single J rdge and on the admitted facts as culled out no case for interfere nce is made out. Learned counsel sul)mits that in view ol the ordr rs passed in the writ Appeal, the writ petition has to be allowed ry setting aside the order impugned.

2001Q) At r) 600

Heard Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

¶41

In Hgderabad. Potterles case (cited supra), it is

¶42

observed that:

¶43

' Of course, the Commissioner has to consider the objections, if any, raised for grant of permission. But, an objection raised by a member of the Committee itself would not be enough to reject the application for grant of permission. The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title ald larvful possession of the applicants. The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objector (s), whether the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarty, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. A11 that the Commissioner required to do is to lind out pram facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purpose of granting permission and nothing more."

¶44

In the light of the Iaw laid down by this Court, while granting permission to the applicant, they can only look at the pima facie titie and lawful possession, apart from that they cannot insist for NOC from the Revenue or any other department. It is the specific case of the petitioner that it is a reputed buiider and it has entered into a development agreement with one Mohd. Younus Khan, who

¶45

¶46

is the owne' and possessor of lald admeasuring 1007.93 square yards formr ng part of Survey No. 41/5 of Kharramet Village, Serilingamp rlly Mandal, Ranga Reddy District uide document dated 02 .O5 .2022. Further, it is the case of tht: petitioner that there are se;eral buildings constructed and the rnr.rnicipality has granted pen^-rission. The respondent Cbrporation has not filed the counter-affic avit denying the same and it has to br: presumed that they are adr-ritting the fact that they have granted permission in the very sarr t: locality. When it is the case of the r,:spondents that Survey No. 41/5 is poramboke and as per the records of Registration rnd Stamps Department, the said lan,1 is recorded as government and and they are not granting permission, it is not stated on wltat basis they have granted permissirn in favour of other person ;.

¶47

I r the light of the law laid down in Hgderabad Potteries Case (supra) and also in the light of the order passed by tlre Division lench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 403 of 2022, dated O5.O7.2022, the order impugned is s,:t aside. The respondents shall consider the building Application of the petitioner in accordance with law notwithstandinll the fact that Survey No. 4J /5 of Khanamet Village is recorded as Poramboke. 6. T-re Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order a: to costs.

¶48

¶49

7 The misce.llaneous Applications, if any shall stand

¶50

closed

¶51

/ sD/-L.SrVA DARVATHI ASSTSTATtSEGlSTRAR //TRUE coPY/'

¶52

I ,ecttr& oFFrcER

¶53

To,

¶54

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

¶55

Chandanagar, Hyderabad

¶56

9 Qne^{CC to SRl. N.SREEDHARREDDY} Advocate tOpUCI 4 9!e cc to sRt. SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY('SC FOfuGHMC)Advocate IoPUCI

¶57