Disposed

Abdul Rasheed Jabri, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Mar 2024WP/5941/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a GHMC order revoking a building sanction. The court held that since the petitioner is challenging the land availability issue in a separate writ, they must await that outcome before claiming rights over the partitioned land.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Petitioner directed to await the result of the pending writ petition concerning the extent of land.

Abdul Rasheed Jabri, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

wRlT PETITION NO: 5941 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Abdul Rasheed Jabri, S/o. Mohammed Hassan Jabri, aged about 58^years, Occ. Private Service, R/o. H.No.104 -11lBlA, Humayun Nagar,^{Near MasjidE} Hassan, Masab Tank, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal .Corporation, C.C. Complex, Tank^Bund Road, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad- 500 029, Rep. by its Commissioner.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Serlingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

The Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle20, Serlingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

.;.RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in^issuing revocation letter^, revoking building sanction^{permission vide} 1r.No.360803/GHMC1034612024, daled. 04.02.2024 in respect of the^petitioner's plot i.e., proposed construction of residential building on plot No.Eastern^part of open land in Sy.No.82-Part situated Raydurgam Panmaktha, Raydurg^Village, Sherlingampally Mandal, GHMC, Sherlingampally, Circle No.20, Sherlingampally Zone, Ranga Reddy District admeasuring 57.59 Sq. Meters equivalent to 69 Sq. yards as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and also against the provisions of HMC^Act

¶17

1955andGHMCTS-b-PASSACT,2020andalsoArticles14'16'19'21and300A of Constitution^{of lndia}

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petitionundersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto} suspend the^{revocationletter issuedby the 3rd respondent revokingbuilding} sanctionpermissionvideLr.No.360B03/GHMC/034612024,dated-04.02.2024in respectofthepetitionersploti.e',proposedconstructionofresidentialbuilding on plot No.Eastern^{part of open land in Sy No 82-Part situatedRaydurgam} Panmaktha,^{RaydurgVillage, SherlingampallyMandal' GHMC'Sherlingarnpally'} Circle No.20,^{Sherlingampally Zone' Ranga Reddy Districtpendrng disposalof} the above writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRIG'KARUNAKARREDDY} Counsel for the^{Respondent No.1: GP FORMCPL ADMNURBANDEV}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI M'A'K'MUKHEED'SC FORGHMC} The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶22

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICET. VINODKUMAR} rit iti No.59 1 24

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition^{is flled for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to} declare the^{actionof the 3'd respondentin issuing revocation letter' by} which, the building^{sanction permission,vide letter No'360803/GHMC/} 034612024^{dt.04.02.2024,in respect of the petitioner's plot in Sy'No'82-} paft admeasuring^{69 squareyards situated at Raydurgam Panmaktha'} Raydurg^{Village,Serilingampally Mandal,GHMCCircle-20'RangaReddy} District,^{has been revoked,as being illegal, arbitrary' unjust and also} against the^{provisionsof the TS-bPASSAct, 2020 andGHMC Act' 1955'} besides being^{violation of Articles 14, L6, Lg' 2land 300-4of the} Constitution^{of India.}

¶25

T.Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitioner,learnedGovernment Pleader for^{MunicipalAdministration and Urban Development appearing} for respondent^{No.1 and Sri M'A'K'Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel'} appearing^{for respondentNos.2 to 4 and perusedthe record'}

¶26

It is the case of^{the petitionerthat originally one Mohammed Sami-} UI-Haq Siddiqui^{was the owner of 1210 squareyards of land in Sy'No'82/3} ot Raidurg^{PanmakthaVillageand out of the said extent of land' the} Government^{had acquired land to an extent of 902'93squareyards'} thereby^{leaving balanceof landto an extentof 307'07 square yards'}

¶27

¶28

It is the further case of the petitioner that the aforesaid extent of 307.07 square yards was sold by the said Siddiqui in favour of the petitioner arong with three others under a registered sale deed dt.18.03.2020; and that there has been a partition among the joint owners vide partition deed dated 23.12.2023, whereby the petitioner was allotted the schedule B property mentioned therein admeasuring 69 square yards from out of 307.07 square yards.

¶29

Petitioner further contends that upon the petitioner being possessed of the land to an extent of 69 square yards, had approached the 2'd respondent authority and applied for grant of building permission on 06.01.2024.

¶30

Petitioner further contends that the 2nd respondent authority upon the petitioner obtaining a certificate of registration for building construction under TS_bpASS Act, the 3d respondent authority has issued a show cause notice dt.lg.Ol.2)24 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the permission sought for construction of a building should not be rejected, since, the petitioner at an earrier point of time, vide apprication dt'31 01.2022 had obtained buirding permission for the entire extent of land of 307.07 square yards and the authorities on noticing the available land to be only to an extent of 17g.07 square yards, having granted permission for the same, there is no remaining rand of 69

¶31

l,.r{.n-;!

¶32

¶33

square^{yards of landas being claimed by the petitioner' for which building} permission can^{be granted'}

¶34

Petitioner^{further contendsthat on receiptof the aforesaid notice'} the^{petitioner had submitted his explanationto the same and in spite of} the explanation^{submittedby the petitioner'the authorities have issued} the impugned^{revocationletter dt'04'02'2024' reiecting the building} permission sought^{for by the petitioner for constructionof residential} bullding^{consisting of stilt + 2 upperfloors'}

¶35

B. Per contra,^{learned Standing Counselappearing on behalf of} respondent^{Nos.2to 4 submits that the petitioner having obtainedbuilding} permission in respect^{of land to an extent of 307 '07 square yards initially} and thereafter,^{the authoritieson noticingthe land available to be 178'07} square^{yards had agreedfor grantof building permission only to that} extent of^{land available on ground and inasmuch as there is no additional} land available^{for the petitionerto claim, the authorities have firstlyissued} a show^{causenotice and thereafter,passed a revocationorderrejecting} the building^{permissionobtained by the petitioner throughTS-bPASS} online^process.

¶36

Learned Standing^{Counsel furthersubmitsthat the petitionerhaving} applied^{for grant of buildingpermissionin respectof the total extent of} land admeasuring^{307.07squareyards have got a partition deed executed}

¶37

¶38

KY.4F

¶39

on 22.12.2023 showing that the petitioner has been allotted 69 square yards therein, whire initiaily in the year 2022, the entire extent of rand has been claimed as a joint property.

¶40

Learned standing counser fufther contends that since the authorities while granting the building permission in respect of l7B.O7 square yards rand had noted that on the ground that there does not exist 307.07 square yards and onry the rand to an extent or land 178.07 square yards is available and the petitioner having accepted for grant of building permission for the said extent cannot now claim that the rejection/revocation of the building permission obtained to be illegal.

¶41

11' In repry, rearned counser for the petitioner submits that the craim of the respondents oF the availability of the land to an enent of 178.07 square yards is subject matter oF consideration before this Court in W.P.No.B779 of 2022 and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has accepted the claim oF ihe respondents.

¶42

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶43

The petitioner who was originally the joint owner in respect of subject property admeasuring 307.07 square yards and the respondents_ authorities having granted building permission only to an extent of 178.07 square yards of land, though the petitioner claims that the subject decision of the respondents-authorties is a matter of charenge before this

¶44

¶45

, t

¶46

Court in^{W.P.No.B779 of 2022, cannot now on the basisof the partition} deed stated^{to have beenexecutedon 23'72'2023'approachthe} respondents-authorities^{and seek for grant of building permissionin} respect of^{the land admeasuring69 square yards which forms part of the} entire extent^{of 307.07 square yards'}

¶47

Though^{relianceis placedby the petitioner on theproceedings} issued by the^{Special Deputy Collector (FAC), l-A' GHMC' Hyderabad'} dt.09.03.2023,^{indicatingthat the remainingextent of land to be 307'07} square^{yards,since,the said issueis the subjectmatter of W'P'No'8779 of} 2022, lhis^{Court is of the view that the action of the respondents-} authorities in^{issuingthe revocation proceeding cannot be foundfault} with.

¶48

Since, the^{petltionerhad already challengedthe action of the} respondent^{in restricting the land available to an extent of 178'07 square} yards only as against^{307.07 square yards' the petitioner has to awaitthe} result of the^{aforesaid writ petition, in order to claim by virtueof the} partition deed dt.23.12.2^{022, he has a right over the propertyto an extent} of 69 square^{yards whichform paft of the original extentof 307'07square} yards.

¶49