Telangana High Court
Mrs.Sree Ramya Murthy Makineedi vs The State Of Telangana on 4 December, 2023
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.32866 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 4th respondent in passing revocation order, vide Lr.No.331245/GHMC/17516/2023 dt.23.10.2023, on the ground that No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Revenue Department was not obtained in respect of petitioner's Plot No.132, admeasuring 300 square yards, in Survey No.66/2, situated at Raidurg Nav Khalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and directing the petitioner to submit NOC from the Revenue authorities, as being illegal, arbitrary and without sanction of law, and consequently, to direct the respondents to process the building permission application submitted by the petitioner without insisting on production of NOC from the Mandal Revenue Officer/Revenue Department.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1; learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.2; 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 stage of admission.
2
3. Petitioner contends that she had obtained building permission for construction of Stilt for parking + 3 upper floors in respect of Plot No.132, admeasuring 300 square yards, in Survey No.66/2, situated at Raidurg Nav Khalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through TS-bPASS online process; that the respondents-authorities have passed the impugned revocation order dt.23.10.2023 stating that the subject property has been included in the prohibitory list of properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the Act') and insisting the petitioner to produce NOC from the Revenue Department. Hence, this Writ Petition.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 fairly submits that when a challenge is made to a similar proceeding in W.P.No.31393 of 2023, this Court, vide order dt.14.11.2023, had held that the authorities are only required to examine prima facie title of the applicant and also mere grant of building permission do not confer title of the property on the applicant, and that the authorities cannot insist for obtaining NOC from the revenue authorities.
5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that though the authorities had rejected/revoked the building permission granted in favour of the petitioner by mentioning that such permission having been obtained in respect of a property which has been placed in the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Act, the matter may be remitted back to the 3 authorities to examine as to whether there are any other shortfalls in the application submitted by the petitioner.
6. I have taken note of the contentions urged.
7. This Court, in the order dt.14.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.31393 of 2023, by referring to the decisions of this Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Lim ited v/ s. Collector, Hyderabad 1 and K .Pavan Raj v/ s. The M unicipal Corporation of Hyderabad 2 had categorically held that the respondents-authorities in order to grant permission for construction are only required to examine prime facie title and possession of the applicant and cannot insist the applicant to obtain NOC from the revenue authorities for grant of building permission.
8. Since, in the facts of the present case, the respondent authorities having granted building permission in favour of the petitioner, and had revoked the said permission by the impugned proceeding, dt.23.10.2023, on the ground that the petitioner has not uploaded NOC from the Mandal Revenue Officer, since, the site U/r. is falling in Sy.No.66/2 of Raidurg Nowkhalsa, which is notified by the Revenue Department under Section 22-A of the Act, this Court is of the view that the said revocation of the 1 MANU/AP/0361/2001=2001(3) ALD 600 2 2008(1) ALD 792 4 building permission granted by the respondent authorities, on the aforesaid ground, cannot be held to be valid.
9. Accordingly, the impugned revocation order dt.23.10.2023 is set aside. However, respondents-authorities are at liberty to raise any other shortfall, or omission by the petitioner/applicant, while obtaining building permission, to revoke such building permission obtained by the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred on them under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955.
10. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:04.12.2023 GJ