Telangana High Court
P. Subba Rao vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan ... on 15 July, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITIONS No. 15777 AND 18966 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No. 15777 OF 2022:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings vide Lr.No. 201986/LO/SKP/PLG/H/2015 dated 28.08.2021 issued by the 1st respondent intimating payment of development charges and other charges issued in favour of the 9th respondent for sanctioning permission for multi-storied residential building in the land in an extent of Acs.9.32.5 guntas, Acs.5.32.7 guntas in Survey Nos. 441, 442 and 447 Part of Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and further processing the Application of the 9th respondent for according permission without considering the objections raised by the petitioners, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
WRIT PETITION No. 18966 OF 2022 This Writ Petition is filed to declare the building permission vide No. MC/MNK/TP/24/2021-22 dated 30.11.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent in furtherance of the technical approval vide No. 201986/LO/SKP/PLG/H/2015 2 dated 22.10.2021 issue by the 1st respondent for construction of multi-storied residential building in the land to an extent of Acs.9.32.5 guntas, Acs.5.32.7 guntas in Survey No. 441, 442 and 447 Part of Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District without considering the objections raised by the petitioners as arbitrary and illegal.
2. Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.V.L. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 15777 of 2022 is that the 1st respondent has issued the proceedings dated 28.08.2021 intimating payment of development charges and other charges issued in favour of the 9th respondent for sanction of permission for multi-storied residential building in the subject land. He submits that the father of the 1st petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale dated 02.06.1996 for purchase of an extent of Acs.6.36 guntas in Survey No. 447 situated at Puppalaguda Village, Rajendernagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with one Sri Kasturi Krishna, Smt. Savitramma, Smt. Neelavati, Smt. Bhagyamma and Smt. Renuka at Rs.95,000/- per acre which comes to a total sum of Rs.6,55,000/-. He submits that an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid as advance and they have 3 also executed receipts for the same. It is stated that further payments were also made, totalling to an amount of Rs.2,05,000/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that after receiving the amount, when they have not shown interest for executing the sale deed, the father of the 1st petitioner has filed O.S.No. 723 of 2003 before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 02.06.1996. It is stated that during the pendency of the said suit, the vendor of Respondents 8 and 9 one Sri L. Purushotham Naidu had filed implead petition ie. I.A.No. 409 of 2009 stating that the owners Sri G. Narayana and Sri G. Srinivas had sold the land in his favour along with his associates Sri G. Anand Reddy, Sri J.C. Pavan Reddy through agreement of sale dated 27.08.1993 at Rs.1,17,000/- per acre with a total sale consideration amount of Rs.7,89,750/-. It is stated that the said I.A. filed by Sri Purushotham Naidu was dismissed on 12.09.2017 and it has attained finality. It is also stated that during pendency of the implead petition, the said Purushotham Naidu along with his associates had entered into registered document with Respondents 8 and 9 and several others in 2013 which fact was never brought to the notice of the civil Court. Learned 4 Senior Counsel submits that a judgment and decree was passed on 21.06.2018 in favour of the 1st petitioner's father and they have deposited the balance consideration amount and also filed E.P.No. 610 of 2019 for execution of the said decree. He submits that Respondents 8 and 9 along with others have filed A.S (SR) 8095 of 2020 before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2018 in O.S.No. 723 of 2003 and the learned Judge by order dated 28.11.2020 granted stay of all further proceedings including implementation and execution of the decree dated 21.06.2018 till disposal of the leave petition. He submits that there is a delay of nearly two years and when an Appeal is filed without delay condonation petition, still, the Appellate Court has entertained and granted interim order.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the 1st respondent through letter dated 17.05.2018 granted technical approval and informed the same to the Executive Authority, Puppalaguda Gram Panchayat, Gandipet Mandal. He submits that Respondents 8 and 9 are not the owners of the property situated in Survey No. 447 to an extent of Acs.6.36 guntas and there is a decree in favour of the petitioners which was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent and still the 1st respondent 5 without considering any of the same, has granted technical approval. It is stated that the unofficial respondents are inducing the innocent purchasers to purchase the undivided land and also taking advances on the false pretext of ownership. He submits that the unofficial respondents along with others have filed O.S.No. 301 of 2021 before the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar against the legal heirs of late Sri P. Vengal Rao and also against the legal heirs of Sri K. Shankaraiah seeking several relief of declaration and injunction. He submits that though Respondent No.1 accorded provisional permission, under the guise of that, the unofficial respondents are trying to make construction and inducing the innocent purchasers. It is submitted that the when a representation is given and also it is brought to the notice of the official respondents that the unofficial respondents without any manner of right and title have made an Application and creating litigation, the official respondents ought not to have granted permission. Further, these factors were not taken into consideration and the technical approvals were granted which made the petitioners to approach this Court.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the 2nd petitioner is son of late Sri P. Vengal Rao who is one of the 6 parties to the agreement of sale, since he died intestate, both the petitioners along with other legal heirs inherited the said property as such, petitioner No.2 has locus standi to file the Writ Petition. It is stated that the complaint was given by the 2nd petitioner to the 1st respondent with a request not to grant building permission on 06.08.2021 and submitted an Application under the Right to Information Act on 30.08.2021. It is stated that a reply was given by the 1st respondent on 28.10.2021, provisional permission was granted on 28.08.2021, show cause notice to Respondent No.9 was issued on 11.10.2021, reply to the show cause notice was submitted on 23.10.2021, technical approval was granted on 22.10.2021 and building permission was given to the 9th respondent on 30.11.2021. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the entire process, the 1st respondent authorities have failed to consider the objections raised by the petitioners in a proper perspective and in view of the litigation between the parties, at any rate, the respondents should not have granted permission and the permission dated 30.11.2021 is liable to be set aside.
4. Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents submits that when the petitioners came to know about the building 7 permission dated 30.11.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent Commissioner in furtherance of the technical approval dated 22.10.2021, they filed Writ Petition No. 18966 of 2022 before this Court. He submits that the petitioners cannot maintain the Writ Petition as there are several disputed questions of fact involved and apart from this, when an Application is made seeking building permission, the respondent authorities can only look into prima facie title and till today, there is no registered document in favour of the petitioners, whereas the unofficial respondents have got a registered sale deed and title to the property, basing on that the official respondents have accorded permission. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners are claiming right only in respect of Survey No. 447 situated at Puppalaguda Village, whereas in the Writ Petition, they sought relief in respect of the properties on which they admittedly never claimed any right, title or interest and even Survey Nos. 441 and 442 are not subject matter of the suit. Learned Senior counsel submits that it shows the conduct of the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners in a way are trying to convert municipal office into a civil court and settle all their claims before them. He submits that as the permission has already been granted in favour of the unofficial 8 respondents, Writ Petition No. 15777 of 2022 becomes infructuous. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in specific performance decree dated 21.06.2018, the unofficial respondents are not parties and the decree which is obtained fraudulently is not binding on them. He submits that during the pendency of O.S.No. 723 of 2003, Sri P. Vengala Rao died and the E.P. is also pending for consideration, further passing of final decree is also stayed by the District Court. He submits that the unofficial respondents along with others have applied for sanction and sanction has been accorded in the name of Respondent No.9 for construction vide permission dated 30.11.2021 and construction is in progress as per the sanctioned plan. It is stated that the 9th respondent has also mortgaged 10% of the built up area in favour of the 1st respondent and it cannot be said that the unofficial respondents are making illegal constructions. It is also stated that the petitioners without even obtaining minimum information have come up before this Court and are trying to stall the construction activity. It is further stated that the petitioners can only object for grant of permission and MDA also can deal with the same under Section 22 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Act (for short, 'the Act') only when permission is 9 obtained by suppression or misrepresentation of facts. In this case, basing on the prima facie title and several relevant documents, the respondent authorities have accorded permission and there is no illegality in the said order. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Writ Petition No. 18966 of 2022 is filed questioning the order dated 30.11.2021 and it is submitted that in the light of these facts, this Court may not interfere with the said permission as it was accorded as per the provisions of the HMDA Act.
5. Learned counsel Sri Y. Rama Rao appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent HMDA submits that the 1st respondent received the Application of the unofficial respondents on 26.03.2021 for approval of multi-storied building with residential apartments for construction of nine blocks. It is stated that earlier in the year 2017, the 1st respondent received objection dated 31.08.2017 from the 2nd petitioner against granting building permission in favour of the 9th respondent stating that there is dispute with regard to Survey No. 447 to an extent of Acs.6.36 guntas and O.S.No. 273 of 2003 and O.S. No. 1720 of 2004 are pending. It is stated that then they have issued a letter dated 17.10.2017 to the 9th respondent to submit explanation on the objection petition. It is 10 stated that a reply was submitted stating that HMDA can only look into prima facie title while granting permission and HMDA cannot go into and decide the title. He submits that the 1st respondent authorities have examined the Application in the light of Section 53(4) of the HMDA Act and any development permission given under the HMDA Act can only be construed as from the planned developed point of view and in no way, it confirms the ownership rights or affect the ownership under the land revenue laws and the Authority shall stand absolved of any ownership disputes or discrepancies. Hence, they have overruled the objection and issued technical approval to the proposed multi-storied buildings in the site on 17.05.2018. Learned Senior Counsel submits that again the revised plans were submitted on 26.03.2021 duly adding additional extent of Acs.5.32.7 guntas for construction of multi-storied residential buildings in the site under reference with seven blocks. It is stated that again, the authorities have received the same objection on 06.08.2021 from the 2nd petitioner, they have asked the 2nd petitioner to submit relevant documents and also called for an objection from the 9th respondent. It is stated that they have not received any explanation or documents from the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents. It is also 11 stated that when the 1st respondent authorities examined the objection filed by the 2nd petitioner, as per the material available on record, they observed that the 2nd petitioner has not submitted any title deeds, ownership documents in support of his claim, whereas the unofficial respondents have submitted pahanis, title deeds, joint development agreement, certificate of registration, Encumbrance Certificate and these documents were examined by the revenue officials and stated that the unofficial respondents have prima facie title over the subject land. He submits that there is no provision under the HMDA Act which enables a person to file objection petition before the HMDA opposing grant of development permission. He submits that the said stand was upheld by the High Court in Writ Petition No.29951 of 2014, dated 13.10.2014. He also submits that one after the other with similar kind of complaints, the 2nd petitioner is coming up before the authorities and they have disposed of his objections on 22.10.2021 and issued technical approval to the unofficial respondents. He submits that if at all there are any disputes between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents, they have to settle them before the competent forum but not before this Court.
12
6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel on either side, the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, perused the entire material on record.
7. The petitioners made a representation to the HMDA not to grant any permission in favour of the unofficial respondents on the ground that they have a decree in their favour and the Appeal against the said judgment and decree is also pending. In view of the pending civil disputes, HMDA should not grant permission in favour of the unofficial respondents. When an Application is filed seeking building permission before the HMDA or before the municipality, they have no jurisdiction to go into any disputed questions of fact or decide the title of the parties. They can only consider the Application seeking building permission basing on the material placed before them by looking at the prima facie title to the property and either grant or refuse permission. In this case, the petitioners have filed a suit for specific performance and obtained a decree. So far the sale deed is not executed in favour of the petitioner. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA that the unofficial respondents have pahanis, registration certificate, encumbrance certificate, etcetera in their favour. HMDA taking all these documents into 13 consideration and having satisfied with the prima facie title granted permission. In none of the suits, HMDA is a party and no prohibitory orders are passed by the Courts restraining the HMDA from granting permission. Earlier also, multiple complaints were filed by the petitioners in the similar lines and they were rejected. Now they have come up with another set of complaints before the authorities. This has become a growing trend in the city where the parties in the process of settling their civil disputes are relying more on the local bodies and the HMDA and further approaching this Court. The respondents have no jurisdiction to entertain these kind of petitions. Petitioner, who has no registered document evidencing title to the property basing on the pending civil litigation, cannot stall the construction activity of the unofficial respondents and the respondents cannot be compelled to go beyond their jurisdiction and interfere in the disputed questions of fact. Hence, this Court finds no reason to entertain these Writ petitions.
8. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy, if any before the competent Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
14
8. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 15th July 2022.
Issue CC in four days ksld