Telangana High Court
Goturi Amarnath Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.7211 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned rejection letter dated 07.03.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent in Lr. No.011577/GHMC/5700/SLP2/2023-BP, as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction with a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to forthwith reconsider the building application made by the petitioner on 17.10.2023 under TS- bPASS Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act') for grant of building permission for construction of residential building consisting of 1 Stilt + 5 Upper floors in the land admeasuring 818 square yards forming part of Sy. No.41/5 of Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Smt. Shakeera Banu, learned Counsel representing Sri MAK. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the 2 parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
3. Petitioner contends that he is the owner and possessor of premises bearing 2-41/41/5/2, admeasuring 818 square yards in Sy. No.41/5 of Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 11.11.2022 from his vendor.
4. Petitioner further contends that intending to develop the aforesaid property, he had approached the respondent authority and submitted an application seeking for grant of building permission consisting of 1 Stilt + 5 upper floors on 17.10.2023 under the TS-bPASS Act, 2020 enclosing therewith all the relevant documents.
5. Petitioner further contends that though as per the provisions of the Act, the respondent authorities were required to consider the application within 21 days or raise short fall if any, under Section 7(8) and 7(9) of TS-bPASS Act, 2020, the authorities took their own time and by the impugned proceeding had rejected the application submitted by the petitioner by making a remark as under:
3
"As per the report of the Additional Collector, Ranga Reddy District, "As per Wasool Baqui the old Sy. No.55 corresponding to new Sy. No.41, extent of Ac.252.24 gts. is classified as poramboke and as per Sethwar is classified as Poramboke. Hence, proposed for rejection".
Hence the proposal may be rejected."
6. Petitioner further contends that in similar circumstances, this Court in W.P. No.31064 of 2023 while setting aside the order of the respondent authority in refusing to grant building permission, directed the respondent authorities to consider the application submitted, without insisting for production of NOC from revenue authorities.
7. Petitioner further contends that though in the facts of the present case, the respondent authorities did not ask for production of NOC from revenue authorities, however, have stated that the subject land was classified as poramboke and is resultantly being treated as government land; and that such claim of the respondent authority cannot form the basis for non- consideration of the building application submitted by the petitioner.
8. Per contra, Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is filed. By the counter-affidavit, it is stated that as per the procedure under the TS-bPASS Act, 2020, the building 4 applications have to be forwarded to the Revenue authorities to offer remarks to clarify whether the subject property belongs to government or private and accordingly, the building application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the Additional Collector, Ranga Reddy District through online wherein the Additional Collector on 19.02.2024 has informed the respondent authority stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendra Nagar Division has reported that, the applicant has applied building permission in Sy. No.41/5 situated at Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal; that as per the Wasool Baqui the old Sy. No.55 corresponding to New Sy. No.41, to an extent of Ac.252.24 gts. of Khanamet village is classified as Poramboke and as per Sethwar the same is classified as Poramboke. Hence, the authority has proposed for rejection. Therefore, placing reliance on the report of the RDO, Rajendra Nagar Division, the request of the applicant for building permission in Sy. No.41/5 situated at Khanamet village, Serilingampally Mandal was rejected.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since, the concerned revenue authorities have claimed the subject land being classified as poramboke in respect of which no permission can be granted, the authorities have rejected the application. 5
10. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
11. Though the respondent authorities by the counter- affidavit filed have stated that as per the TS-bPASS Act, 2020, the application submitted is required to be forwarded to the revenue authorities to offer remarks to clarify as to whether the subject property belongs to Government or private, it is not shown to this Court that any such provision was enacted under the TS-bPASS Act, 2020 which mandates or prescribing such procedural requirement.
12. Further, as per Section 13 of the TS-bPASS Act, if the authorities wanted any additional information, the same can be called for from the applicant and not otherwise. In absence of any such specification or prescription under the TS-bPASS Act, 2020, the claim of the respondent authority of the TS-bPASS Act, prescribing such a requirement cannot be accepted as a valid defence for non-consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner.
13. However, it is to be noted that the TS-bPASS Act is a special enactment which has an overriding effect on other laws which are inconsistent with the provision of the TS-bPASS Act, 2020.
6
14. It is pertinent to note that the Act provides for review of the decisions taken by the authorities and Section 18 of the Act confers power on the District Level Committee to review the decision taken by the authorities under the Act at the District level. Further, having regard to Section 3(2)(viii)&(x) of the Act which deals with the powers of the District Level Committee to examine/review of rejected cases and taking into consideration that there is unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court against the decision of the authorities rejecting the building permission application, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be relegated to avail the remedy provided under Section 18 of the Act against the impugned proceeding dated 07.03.2024.
15. At this stage learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the petitioner will approach the District Level Committee provided under Section 18 of the Act with all the relevant documents and also the various orders passed by this Court wherein this Court had held that the Municipal authorities while granting building permission are only required to look into prima facie title and legal possession and cannot insist upon obtaining NOC/ULC clearances from the revenue authorities, and thus, the Committee may be directed to 7 consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the decision of the respondent authority by taking note of the aforesaid binding precedent in expeditious manner.
16. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the Committee would consider all the objections and submissions while considering the review application filed by the petitioner.
17. The aforesaid statement made to this Court by the learned Standing Counsel is placed on record.
18. In view of the above, the petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy of review of the decision of the 3rd respondent authority rejecting the application, vide proceedings dated 07.03.2024 under Section 18 of the TS-bPASS Act, 2020 as noted above and the Committee so constituted is directed to consider the review application filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
19. Subject to the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
8
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 27.03.2024 MRKR