Telangana High Court
Abdul Rasheed Jabri, vs The State Of Telangana, on 13 March, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.5941 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing revocation letter, by which, the building sanction permission, vide letter No.360803/GHMC/ 0346/2024 dt.04.02.2024, in respect of the petitioner's plot in Sy.No.82- part admeasuring 69 square yards situated at Raydurgam Panmaktha, Raydurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, GHMC Circle-20, Ranga Reddy District, has been revoked, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and also against the provisions of the TS-bPASS Act, 2020 and GHMC Act, 1955, besides being violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that originally one Mohammed Sami- UI-Haq Siddiqui was the owner of 1210 square yards of land in Sy.No.82/3 of Raidurg Panmaktha Village and out of the said extent of land, the Government had acquired land to an extent of 902.93 square yards, thereby leaving balance of land to an extent of 307.07 square yards. 2
4. 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 along 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.
5. Petitioner further contends that upon the petitioner being possessed of the land to an extent of 69 square yards, had approached the 2nd respondent authority and applied for grant of building permission on 06.01.2024.
6. Petitioner further contends that the 2nd respondent authority upon the petitioner obtaining a certificate of registration for building construction under TS-bPASS Act, the 3rd respondent authority has issued a show cause notice dt.18.01.2024 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 earlier point of time, vide application dt.31.01.2022 had obtained building 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 178.07 square yards, having granted permission for the same, there is no remaining land of 69 3 square yards of land as being claimed by the petitioner, for which building permission can be granted.
7. Petitioner further contends that on receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the same and in spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the authorities have issued the impugned revocation letter dt.04.02.2024, rejecting the building permission sought for by the petitioner for construction of residential building consisting of stilt + 2 upper floors.
8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the petitioner having obtained building permission in respect of land to an extent of 307.07 square yards initially and thereafter, the authorities on noticing the land available to be 178.07 square yards had agreed for grant of building permission only to that extent of land available on ground and inasmuch as there is no additional land available for the petitioner to claim, the authorities have firstly issued a show cause notice and thereafter, passed a revocation order rejecting the building permission obtained by the petitioner through TS-bPASS online process.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner having applied for grant of building permission in respect of the total extent of land admeasuring 307.07 square yards have got a partition deed executed 4 on 22.12.2023 showing that the petitioner has been allotted 69 square yards therein, while initially in the year 2022, the entire extent of land has been claimed as a joint property.
10. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that since the authorities while granting the building permission in respect of 178.07 square yards land had noted that on the ground that there does not exist 307.07 square yards and only the land to an extent of 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.
11. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the respondents of the availability of the land to an extent of 178.07 square yards is subject matter of consideration before this Court in W.P.No.8779 of 2022 and thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has accepted the claim of the respondents.
12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
13. 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-authorities is a matter of challenge before this 5 Court in W.P.No.8779 of 2022, cannot now on the basis of the partition deed stated to have been executed on 23.12.2023, approach the respondents-authorities and seek for grant of building permission in respect of the land admeasuring 69 square yards which forms part of the entire extent of 307.07 square yards.
14. Though reliance is placed by the petitioner on the proceedings issued by the Special Deputy Collector (FAC), LA, GHMC, Hyderabad, dt.09.03.2023, indicating that the remaining extent of land to be 307.07 square yards, since, the said issue is the subject matter of W.P.No.8779 of 2022, this Court is of the view that the action of the respondents- authorities in issuing the revocation proceeding cannot be found fault with.
15. Since, the petitioner had already challenged the 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 await the result of the aforesaid writ petition, in order to claim by virtue of the partition deed dt.23.12.2022, he has a right over the property to an extent of 69 square yards which form part of the original extent of 307.07 square yards.
16. Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
6
17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:13.03.2024 GJ