Telangana High Court
Anand P. Gupta vs The State Of Telangana on 31 January, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.15433 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for MA & UD appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 6, and Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the owners of land admeasuring 600 square yards bearing Plot Nos.23 and 24 in Sy.No.41/11 situated at Matha Bhuvaneshwari Colony, Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dt.16.08.2017; and that since, the aforesaid plots were forming part of unapproved layout, the petitioners obtained regularization under the Layout Regularization Scheme (LRS), vide proceedings dt.24.07.2009.
3. Petitioners further contend that intending to develop the aforesaid plots into residential house, they had approached the respondents- authorities and made an application through TS-bPASS Online Self- Certification Portal on 09.09.2023, and in spite of the petitioners 2 submitting the application with all the relevant information and documents, the authorities have issued impugned revocation letter dt.07.03.2024, claiming that the subject land is classified as Poramboke, and hence, proposal to grant building permission cannot be considered, which action it is contended is highly illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14, 25 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, apart from being violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 would submit that impugned proceeding is issued rejecting the application submitted by the petitioners for grant of building permission and is not a revocation letter.
5. Learned Standing Counsel would further contend that as per the procedure prescribed under the TS-bPASS Act, 2020, any application submitted for grant of building permission has to be forwarded to the revenue authorities to offer their remarks to clarify as to whether the subject property belongs to Government or private; that the building permission application submitted by the petitioners was accordingly forwarded to Additional Collector, Ranga Reddy District; and that the Additional Collector, Ranga Reddy District, by his remark has stated that the subject land in respect of which building permission has been sought for by the petitioners has been noted as "As per Wasool Baqui the old 3 Sy.No.55 corresponding to new Sly.No.41 extent Acs.252.24 guntas is classified as Poramboke and as per Sethwar is classified as Poramboke. Hence, proposed for rejection."
6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as the concerned revenue authority has claimed the subject land being classified as Poramboke/Government land, no permission can be granted, and thus, the authorities have rejected the building permission application submitted by the petitioners.
7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that this Court in similar circumstances, in respect of the land in the same survey number, in a Writ Petition, vide W.P.No.7211 of 2024, by order dt.27.03.2024, taking note of the fact that the TS-bPASS Act is a Special Enactment having overriding effect on other laws inconsistent with the provisions of the TS-bPASS Act, and also taking note of the fact that the said Act provides for review of the decisions taken by the authorities by conferring powers on the District Level Committee, relegated the petitioner therein to avail the remedy under Section 18 of the TS-bPASS Act, against the impugned proceeding, which is also of the same date as in the present case, viz., dt.07.03.2024.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 6 would submit that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.41 was kept in prohibitory list published in the District Gazette on 26.09.2013 and 4 thus, the petitioners could not have purchased the subject land under sale deed dt.16.08.2017.
9. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the Government at an earlier point of time had granted assignment pattas in Sy.No.41 to various landless poor and since the assignees had sold away the said land allotted to them in violation of assignment patta condition, the respondents-authorities have kept the land in Sy.No.41/11 in prohibitory list.
10. Learned Government Pleader would further contend that the land purchased by the petitioners predecessors-in-title being from assignment patta holder, having no right to sell the subject land assigned in his favour, the purchase of the same by the petitioners' predecessor would not confer any right neither on the petitioners predecessors-in-tile nor on the petitioners to claim title to the subject land while approaching the respondents-authorities for grant of building permission.
11. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
12. While it is settled position of law that the municipal authorities while considering the application made by the petitioners for grant of building permission are only required to consider prima facie title and legal possession, under the provisions of the TS-bPASS Act, the authorities are 5 empowered to seek additional information for consideration the said application.
13. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case the respondents- authorities did not seek for any additional information from the petitioners to consider the application submitted by them for grant of building permission. However, taking note of the fact that the building permission application has been made by the petitioners under TS-bPASS Act and the said Act being a Special Enactment having overriding effect on other laws inconsistent with the provisions of the TS-bPASS Act; and that the Act provides for review of the decision taken by the authorities by the District Level Committee, it cannot be said that the petitioners do not have any remedy against the action of the respondents-authorities in rejecting the application submitted by them for grant of building permission to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. Further, it is also to be noted that though the petitioners have contended that the impugned proceeding to be a revocation letter, a perusal thereof would clearly show that the same to be a rejection letter whereby the application submitted by the petitioners for grant of building permission on 09.09.2023 having been rejected, noting therein the ground of rejection.
6
15. Since the impugned proceeding is a rejection letter, it cannot be said that the petitioners cannot avail the remedy of review provided under the TS-bPASS Act.
16. Further, this Court, in similar circumstances in W.P.No.7211 of 2024 by order dt.27.03.2024, wherein the proceeding of the same date, viz., dt.07.03.2024, was challenged, having regard to the powers conferred under Section 3(2)(viii) & (x) of the Act had relegated the petitioner therein to avail the remedy of review provided under Section 18 of the TS- bPASS Act, and since, the petitioners in the present Writ Petition stand on the footing as that of the petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that a different view cannot be taken than the one already expressed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition.
17. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are to be relegated to avail the remedy of review of the decision of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the building permission application of the petitioners, vide proceedings dt.07.03.2024 and the Committee so constituted under the Act is directed to consider the review application filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible.
18. Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
7
19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
__________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 31.01.2025 GJ