Telangana High Court
Puli Sri Harsha vs The State Of Telangana on 5 March, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.5831 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the high handed and illegal action of respondents, more particularly the 3rd respondent in passing revocation letter, vide Lr.No.372885/GHMC/2858/2023 dt.28.02.2024 in respect of all that the Part of plot No.43 (Northern Part), admeasuring 150 square yards (Out of 300 square yards) in Survey No.66/2, situated at Raidurg Nav Khalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and bounded by North: Plot No.24; South: Part of Plot No.43 (Southern Part); East: 30' Wide Road; West: Plot No.42, without issuing any prior notice or affording an opportunity of hearing that the petitioner's plot, is situated in Government land, as being illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, in violation of GHMC Act, besides being in violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban 2 Development appearing for respondent No.1; Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3, 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.43 (Northern part), in Survey No.66/2, situated at Raidurg New Khalsa Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through TS- bPASS online process; that the respondents- authorities have passed the impugned revocation order, dt.28.02.2024 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 insisting the petitioner to produce NOC from the Revenue Department is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court. Hence, this Writ Petition.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3 fairly submits that when a challenge is made to a similar proceeding, this Court, in W.P.No.31393 of 3 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 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 petitioners 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 petitioners.
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 Limited v/s. Collector, Hyderabad 1 and K.Pavan Raj v/s. The 1 MANU/AP/0361/2001=2001(3) ALD 600 4 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 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 same survey number as in the present case, had held 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 petitioners, and had revoked the said permission by the impugned proceeding, dt.28.02.2024, on the ground that the petitioners have not uploaded NOC from the Mandal Revenue Officer, since, the subject site is falling in Sy.No.66/2 of Raidurg Nav Khalsa Village, which is notified by the Revenue Department under Section 22-A of the Act, this Court is of 2 2008(1) ALD 792 5 the view that the revocation of the building permission granted by the respondent authorities, on the aforesaid ground, cannot be held to be valid.
10. Accordingly, the impugned revocation order dt.28.02.2024 is set aside. However, respondents-authorities are at liberty to raise any other shortfall, or omission by the petitioners/applicants, while obtaining building permission, to revoke such building permission obtained by the petitioners in exercise of powers conferred on 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 costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 05.03.2024 MRKR