Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Writ Petition is instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 1st respondent Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in cancelling through their proceedings dated 24.11.2012 the building permit, granted to the petitioners as on 01.05.2012, as illegal.

The case of the petitioners is that one Smt. Tashjeebunissa Begum purchased a vast extent of immovable property of approximately 15870 square yards which is known as Mumtaj Mansion near AC Guards, Hyderabad, at a public auction conducted by the competent authority of evacuee properties. It appears, the public auction was conducted on 06.01.1962. The competent authority has also granted the necessary sale certificate in her favour on 14.08.1963. Smt. Tashjeebunnisa Begum is stated to have died on 27.09.1976 and her husband and children seemed to have succeeded to her estate. Even her husband, Mr. Asif Ali Baig is stated to have died on 10.09.1986 and it is now stated that petitioners 1 to 4 herein are the legal heirs of Mr. Asif Ali Baig. It is stated further that, from the above estate, during the lifetime of Mr. Asif Ali Baig and Smt. Tashjeebunnisa Begum, certain extents of open lands have been sold to 3rd parties, while retaining still substantial extents of land with them. Petitioners 1 to 4 herein, with an intention to develop the subject property, entered into a registered development agreement-cum-general power of attorney on 14.05.2010 with M/s Tirumala Constructions, a partnership firm. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation for securing a building permission. The petitioners have also applied for grant of a 'No Objection Certificate' and the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District has referred the matter for the purpose of securing confirmation, to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, so that the genuineness of the sale certificate granted in favour of Smt. Tashjeebunnisa Begum can be ascertained. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, it appears, has confirmed, through his proceedings dated 21.08.2010 that the sale certificate granted by the competent authority of evacuee properties at Bombay in favour of Smt. Tashjeebunnisa Begum is a valid one. Thereupon the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, through his endorsement, dated 29.09.2010, granted a 'No Objection Certificate' in an extent of 2082 square meters for the purpose of considering sanction of building plan by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. It was made clear that the said endorsement does not constitute any title or right over the said land by the applicant. By a similarly-worded endorsement, dated 04.11.2010, another 'No Objection Certificate' was accorded by the Joint Collector over land of an extent of 281 square meters for the purpose of construction of a building. Taking these 'No Objection Certificates' into account and consideration and duly considering the applications submitted by the petitioners for construction of a building, comprising of ground + four upper floors, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation accorded necessary building permit on 01.05.2012, subject to the conditions specified therein. It is the case of the petitioners that they have started construction of a building in accordance with the building permit and they have not deviated while making constructions with regard to the said building permit. However, on 31.10.2012, a show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, requiring the petitioners to show cause why the building permit granted on 01.05.2012 should not be cancelled in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioners have submitted a representation dated 08.11.2012, which was received in the Office of the Commissioner as well as the office of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 09.11.2012. Since the show cause notice dated 31.10.2012 is based upon a letter said to have been sent up by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board on 22.09.2012, the petitioners sought for a copy of the said representation said to have been submitted by the Wakf Board objecting to the grant of building permit to the petitioners. However, on 19.11.2012, the Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has conveyed to the petitioners that a decision has been taken for giving an opportunity to hear the contentions of the petitioners personally and accordingly, a meeting has been proposed in the chambers of the Assistant Commissioner (Planning), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 21.11.2012 at 03.30 p.m. It is the assertion of the petitioners that they have attended the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (Planning), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 21.11.2012 and that they were informed that the Assistant Commissioner was not attending to the office as he was away in New Delhi on the said day and a further date of hearing would be communicated to them, but however, without anything more, the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 24.11.2012 cancelling the building permit granted to the petitioners. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard Sri D.V. Sitharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Corporation and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, the 2nd respondent herein.

When we examine the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, what emerges is while the Commissioner is entitled to seek for such information, as is needed for him to be satisfied that the applicant has got title over the property in question, but at the same time, he cannot enter upon an adjudicatory process or role for resolving the inter se title disputes. He has no power to adjudicate or pronounce an opinion upon the title of a person. If he is satisfied that the applicant has got prima facie title over the immovable property in question, where the building is sought to be erected, he should accord necessary building permission if the proposal is otherwise in accordance with law. But at the same time, if, any time after the building permission is accorded, the applicant deviates from the said building permission and makes constructions, such a building permit can be cancelled. For instance, if a particular piece of property is lying, let us say between ABCD boundary limits and the applicant shows prima facie title to the land bound within ABCD limits, then the building permission applied for thereon can be granted, but thereafter, if the applicant were to make a departure therefrom and start making constructions beyond the boundaries or limits of ABCD, then, the Commissioner is entitled to hear/entertain objections from the affected party and ultimately, take a decision to prevent the applicant from making any such constructions beyond the ABCD limits of the land over which the permission is sought for for construction of a building. This issue can easily be grasped from the diagram enclosed herein below.


                               R O A D

           A     B G                            E

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
            C                           D H                             F

For instance, any applicant can lawfully be the owner and titleholder for the property bound by ABCD limits. If a building permission applied for by him, when found to be in accord with the building byelaws and other regulations and when such permission is granted, if he were to start making constructions within the land bound by BDEF, the Commissioner is entitled to be approached by the titleholder for the land bound by the limits BDEF and ask for his intervention or cancellation of building permission accorded to the applicant. Any such exercise on the part of the Commissioner does not amount to resolving a title dispute, but, it amounts to a case of insisting upon the permit holder to confine his area of construction strictly to the limits of the land applied for by him i.e. ABCD. Even assuming that the applicant may not make constructions completely in the land bound by BDEF as shown in the illustration, but makes construction in land which is bound between AGCH, even then, the local body is not helpless in stopping the improper deviations of the building permit. No constructions having been allowed or permitted in the land bound by BGDH, the local body would be entitled and justified in preventing any such constructions coming up there. An exercise of that nature would not also amount to resolving a title dispute between two contenders. That would be a mere case of rendering the building permit holder confine making constructions within the land over which he has prima facie title.