Telangana High Court
Bandi Muni Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 9 January, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.533 of 2024
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.340612/GHMC/19391/2023, dt.23.11.2023, on the ground that 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the Revenue Department was not obtained in respect of petitioner's Plot No.173/Part, admeasuring 97.98 sq. 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 permit the petitioner to proceed with the construction in terms of the permission dt.21.09.2023 obtained through TS-bPASS online process, without insisting for submission 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 2 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.
3. Petitioner contends that he had obtained building permission for construction of Stilt for parking + 2 upper floors in respect of Plot No.173/Part, admeasuring 97.98 sq. 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.23.11.2023 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 that the petitioner is required to produce NOC from the Revenue Department; and that insistence of obtaining NOC from revenue authorities for grant of building permission is contrary to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court. Hence, this Writ Petition.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 fairly submits that when a similar challenge was made, this Court, in W.P.No.31393 of 2023, vide order dt.14.11.2023, had held that the authorities are only required to examine prima facie title of the applicant and legal possession for grant of building permission; that mere grant of building 3 permission does not confer or confirm title of the applicant to property; 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 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 respective 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 Limited v/s. Collector, Hyderabad 1 and K.Pavan Raj v/s. The Municipal 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 1 MANU/AP/0361/2001=2001(3) ALD 600 2 2008(1) ALD 792 4 applicant and cannot insist the applicant to obtain NOC from the revenue authorities for grant of building permission.
8. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22147 of 2023, in respect of land situated in the very same survey number as in the present case, had held that the revocation of building permission and insisting for obtaining 'NOC' from the Revenue authorities, cannot be held to be valid.
9. Since, in the facts of the present case, the respondent authorities having granted building permission in favour of the petitioner, had revoked the said permission by the impugned proceeding, dt.23.11.2023, claiming that the petitioner has not uploaded NOC from the Mandal Revenue Officer, as the subject site is falling in Sy.No.66/2 of Raidurg Nav Khalsa, being notified by the Revenue Department under Section 22-A of the Act, this Court is of the view that revocation of the building permission granted, on the aforesaid ground, cannot be held to be valid.
10. Accordingly, the impugned revocation order dt.23.11.2023 is set aside. However, respondent-authorities are at liberty to point out any other shortfall or omission by the petitioner/applicant, while obtaining building permission and call upon the petitioner to clear the said shortfall before invoking the powers conferred on 5 them under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955.
11. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 09th January, 2024.
gra