Telangana High Court
Shailaja Gurumitkal vs The State Of Telangana on 11 December, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.34866 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Ms. N. Niyatha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. D. Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record.
2. Petitioner is claiming that she is absolute owner and possessor of the Southern part of Plot No.296, admeasuring 200 square yards situated in Sy.No.66/2, Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on the strength of registered sale deed bearing document No.9231 of 2024 dated 10.05.2024. With an intention to construct a residential house, she has submitted an application dated 18.09.2024 seeking building permission under TS-bPASS for construction of one stilt for parking and two upper floors. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not issue any work commencement letter. Therefore, she has not KL,J W.P.No.34866 of 2024 2 commenced construction over the subject property pursuant to permission order dated 18.09.2024. In the meanwhile, 3rd respondent has issued show cause notice dated 16.10.2024 to the petitioner herein stating as under:
"As per the inspection and scrutiny of report of the TPS & ACP-20, the applicant has not submitted the deed of conveyance from the MRO since the site Under reference is falling in Sy.No.66/2 of Raidurga Nowkhalsa (v) which is notified by the Revenue Department U/s.22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and covered under OS No.92/2004 and more over the District Collector, Ranga Reddy addressed a letter vide Lr.No.E1/889/2022 dated 10.03.2022 stating that not to issue permissions in Survey No.66 of Raidargha Nowkhalsa without clearance from the competent Authority. Hence you are hereby directed to show cause in writing as to why the provisional permission obtained by you shouldn't be revoked for the reasons stated as above. Your explanation should be submitted within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which the provisional permission granted shall be revoked without further notice".
Challenging the said show cause notice, petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said show cause notice was not served on the KL,J W.P.No.34866 of 2024 3 petitioner. Petitioner obtained the said show cause notice from the office of 3rd respondent.
4. 3rd respondent issued show cause notice stating that the subject property is covered by ULC and petitioner was asked to submit deed of conveyance from the MRO since the subject property is falling in Sy.No.66/2 of Raidurg Navkhalsa village which is notified by the revenue department under Section 22 (A) of the Registration Act, 1908. It is covered under O.S.No.92 of 2004 etc. 7 days time was granted to the petitioner to submit explanation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that vide order dated 24.12.2014 in W.P.No.34726 of 2014, this Court considered the aforesaid aspect of respondent corporation. This Court allowed the writ petition, the action of the 2nd respondent therein in not regularizing the plot of the petitioner under the Layout Regularization Scheme notified vide G.O.Ms.No.902, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M1) KL,J W.P.No.34866 of 2024 4 Department, dated 31.12.2007 (Andhra Pradesh Regulation of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2007) is declared as illegal. This Court directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein to regularize the plot of the petitioner therein under the said scheme.
6. Vide Order dated 13.01.2020 in W.P.No.1916 of 2020, this Court directed municipality to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner therein for building permission without insisting for NOC from the revenue authorities. Similar orders were passed by this Court in W.P.No.9927 of 2020 dated 07.07.2020, W.P.No.7673 of 2020 dated 05.06.2020. Even then 3rd respondent has issued the impugned show cause notice dated 16.10.2024 on the very same grounds. Challenging the said action of the 3rd respondent petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue had produced written instructions of Thahsildar, Sherlingampally, wherein it is stated that as per the basic KL,J W.P.No.34866 of 2024 5 and settlement records of Raidurg village, the Government land in Sy.No.66 admeasuring 279.22 guntas is recorded as "Poramboke Sarkari". Later, said Government land has been divided into two villages i.e., Raidurg Now Khalsa and Raidur Panmaqtha. Out of which an extent of Ac.66/2 admeasuring Ac.45.00 is situated at Raidurg now Khalsa village has been claimed by private parties. Out of Ac.45.00 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.10830-10834/2011 against common orders passed by this Court dated 29.09.2008 in W.P.No.3870 of 2002, A.S.No.36 of 2006 and 37/2008 and W.P.No.22051 of 2007 has passed orders on 04.01.2012 against the Government to an extent of Ac.25.00 guntas only is covered by the Naga Hills and hence the same was demarcated by the Survey Department and fixed the fencing and NOCs and other permissions are being only issued to these Ac.25.00 and balance land in Sy.No.66/1 (Ac.55-00 gts) and Sy.No.66/3 (Ac.29.30 guntas) is Government land and is KL,J W.P.No.34866 of 2024 6 listed in the prohibited list in terms of Section 22 (A) of Registration Act. The subject property of the petitioner is Government land and it is not and it would not fall in the land to an extent of Ac.25.00 in which the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court have passed orders against the government. The said written instructions are placed on record.
8. Perusal of the record would reveal that the vendor of the petitioner i.e., Ch. Ramchandra Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 600 square yards in Sy.No.66/2 of Raidurg village. He has sold 200 square yards to the petitioner herein under the aforesaid sale deed. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has issued building permission orders to the vendor of the petitioner in respect of balance 400 square yards in Sy.No.66/2 of Raidurg village. Therefore, the 3rd respondent cannot deny building permit to the petitioner herein. However, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions would KL,J W.P.No.34866 of 2024 7 submit that petitioner would submit explanation to the notice dated 16.10.2024 with the all the aforesaid documents and a direction may be given to 3rd respondent to consider the same.
9. Perusal of the record also would reveal that 3rd respondent has issued show cause notice dated 16.10.2024 to the petitioner calling for explanation from the petitioner as to why the building permit order dated 18.09.2024 cannot be revoked. The 3rd respondent has no power to issue said show cause notice and revoke the building permit order dated 18.09.2024. As discussed supra, petitioner has obtained said building permit order under TS-bPASS by way of self-declaration and self- certification.
10. Section - 7 of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS- bPASS) Act, 2020 deals with 'approval of building permissions' and Section 7 (11) deals with revocation of the same. It is relevant and it is extracted as under:
KL,J W.P.No.34866 of 2024 8 "7 (11) The permission issued under deemed clause can be revoked by the 'commissioner' within 21 days from the date of deemed approval if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by mis-representation of the facts or false statements, and/or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions."
11. Section - 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 deals with power of 'Commissioner' to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by applicant and the same is relevant which is extracted as under:
"If at any time after permission to proceed with any building or work has been given, the Commissioner is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under section 428 or 433 or in the further information if any, furnished, he may cancel such permission and any work done thereunder shall be deemed to have been done without his permission."
12. Rule - 12 (viii) of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-
KL,J W.P.No.34866 of 2024 9 bPASS) Rules, 2020 says that the permission issued under deemed clause can be revoked by the Competent Authority within 21 days from the date of deemed approval without any notice, if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by misrepresentation of the facts or false statements, and / or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions.
xvi) Rule 2 (vi) of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS- bPASS) Rules, 2020 deals with 'Competent Authority' and it means the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.
xvii) Therefore, the Commissioner, GHMC has power to verify the documents submitted by the petitioner, inspect the site and on coming to conclusion that the petitioner obtained building permit order under TS-bPASs by misrepresentation of fact, he has power to revoke the building permit order within twenty one (21) days.
KL,J W.P.No.34866 of 2024 10 xix) The aforesaid show-cause notice dated 16.10.2024 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC. In fact, Deputy Commissioner has no power to revoke the building permit order and it is the Commissioner, GHMC who has power. Thus, the Commissioner, GHMC has power to revoke the building permit order.
13. Whereas, learned standing counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on instructions would submit that 2nd respondent is the competent authority, he will consider the aforesaid aspect and take action in accordance with law.
14. In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 16.10.2024 within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with all the relevant documents including the aforesaid orders of this Court, 2nd respondent shall KL,J W.P.No.34866 of 2024 11 consider the same, take action strictly in accordance with law by putting the petitioner on notice and affording her an opportunity of hearing. He shall complete the said exercise within (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the said explanation.
15. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J December 11, 2024 VRKS