The High Court · 2025

Petition Und er Article 226 of the constitution of lnd a praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue 'ivrit. order or Direction more particulz rly in the nature of lrlandamus decla ri rg the action of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 in granting permission to the Fi.espondents No. 6 to g for construction :f high rise buildings over land of the petitioner admeasuring 35,221 sq.yds., in S,r,No.71 (p aft) and 72 (Part), Sherilingam:aliy Virlage and [\rrandar, Ranga Redd1, District vide permit No.4B02l GHI\,4c,/sLP/2022-Bp, dt.28.12.2022 inspite of serious titte dispute between the petrtioner and the Respondents No.4 to I and thereafter not considering objectic ns vide legal notice dated 2B-2-2o23 filerl by the petitioner for cancellation of perrrission as per section 450 of the GHMC Act, 1955. as illegal and arbitrary and consequenfly direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the objections dated 2.8.2-2023 filed by the petitioner. |.A.NO:1 OF 2023 Petition under section l5i cpc praying that in the ciroumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respond<;nt No.1 to 3 consider the objections vice legal notice dated 28-2-2023 filed by the petitioner for cancellation of permissior as per section 450 of the GHN/C Act, 1()55 pending disposat of the writ petition. I.A.NO:2 OF 2023 Petition Uncle- Section 15'l cpc praying that in the cirr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou( may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.'1 to 3 to stop the construction ac.ivitres being carried out by the Responc ents No-4 to g over the land of the p€titioner in Sy.No.71 (Part) and 72 (Par1), admeasuring 35,22.1 Sq.yds., Sherilingampaily Village and Mandal, Ranga Redrly District pending disposal of the writ pelition. ..'' ,".L €.tr*f, I t: |.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to I to restrain from construction over petitioneis property i.e. admeasuring 35,221 Sq.yds., in Sy. .No.71 (Part) and 72 Qan) Sherilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHD NASEER UDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent No.4, 5 & 8 : SRI R.RANGANATHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.9 : SRI E.AJAY REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/s E.ANISHA REDDY The Court made the following ORDER n ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ ition. N o.2L624 of 2OtL3 This Writ t)etition is filed with the following prayer: "... to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of lYandamus de,:laring the action of the Respondents No.1 to :i in granting permission l.o the Respondents No.6 to B For construction of high rise buildings over land of the petitioner admeasuring Acs.35.22, Sq. yds. in Sy.No.71 (Part) and 72 (paft) Sheritingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Redd,r District, vide permit No.4802/GH[4ClSLpl2O2Z-Bp dt.78.12.202.2 in spite of serious title dispute between the p< titioner and the Respondents No.4 to B and thereafter not considering objections. vide legal noti:e dated 28.Z.Z0Z3 filed by the petitioner for cancellation of permission as Der section 450 of the GHMC Act. 1955, al; illegal and arbitrary and ronsequenfly direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the objections dated 2B.Z.ZOZ3 filed by the petitioner anc pass such otfier order or orders as this Hcn,ble Court may deem fit.,,

2. Heard lea-ned counsel for the petitioner, learnec Government Pleader for Munir:ipal Administration and Urban Developm,:nt appearing for respondent Nc.1 and learned Standing Counsel for GHtvlC appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Iearned counsel appearing frrr respondent Nos.4, 5 and B and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.9 and perused the record.

3. Despite the petitioner being directed to take out notice to respondent Nos,6 and 7 and file prooF of service, the same has not been 2 filed till date. However, having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition and nature of /s involved, this Court is of the view that the matter can be proceeded with, without having the audience of the said respondents.

4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner of land in Sy.Nos.71, 72 and 74 admeasuring Acs.27.18 guntas situated at Serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having succeeded to the property of his grandfather by operation of law; that the mutation of the aforesaid land in the revenue records on to his name is pending with the revenue authorities; that when respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, he had filed a suit, rzriCe O.S.No.137 of 2020 on the file of )0/I Additional District Judge, Kukatpally, Hyderabad; and that the learned Judge, vide order dt.21.1L.2020 in I.A.No.1191 of 2020 in O.S.N0.137 of 2020 had granted ad interim injunction directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to alienate the suit schedule property; and that aforesaid ad interim injunction is in force as of date,

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.4 and 5 wilfully disobeying the order of the Court had created a partition deed dt.24.03.2021 in favour of respondent Nos.6 to B, who are none other than the family members of respondent Nos.4 and 5; and that he had ,a 3 approached this Court by filing a Writ petition, vide W,p.No.23B69 of 2020; that this Court by order dt.11.0g.2022 had direcled respondent Nos.1 to 3 to r:onsider the representation of the petiti.ner within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order; and that the 3.d respondent pursuant to the order of this Court in W.p.No.23B6g o, ZAZO, had issued letter dt.06.09.2022 directing the respondents to stop, the 3d respondent had stopped the levelling activity at the site in Sy.Nos.7l, 12 and 74 and not to proceed '/vith any kind of construction activity witl.ut obtaining prior permission "rom GHMC authorities.

6. It is the fufther case of the petitioner that unoffic al respondent Nos.6 to 8 hererin thereafter approached the 9tr resporrdent with an intention to develop the land admeasuring 35,221 square ,rards knowing fully well that the: rand is the subject matter of pending civir suit wherein an order of ad interim injunction is subsisting, have applied for permission t0 construct a hit;h rise building represented by the 9rh re:;pondent; and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had granted permission, //e permission dt.28.72.2022, in sprte of the fact that the partition deed Jt.24.03.2021 between respond:nt Nos.4 and 5 in favour of respondent Nos.6 to B is void ab initio anc the said patition deed being executed in violation of the injunction ord,tr granted in O.S.No.i37 of 2020. 4

7. Petitioner further contends that on the petitioner learning of unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 8 having obtained building permission, he got issued a legal notice dt.28.02.2023 raising objections for grant of building permission and requested respondent Nos.2 and 3 to cancel the permission granted in favour of respondent Nos.6 to B in exercise of powers under Section 450 bf the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, 'the 1955 Act'); and that the respondents-authorities have failed to consider the representation of the petitioner despite the fact that there existed serious dispute with regard to title of the proPertY. B. Separate counter-affidavits on behalf of respondent Nos.4, 5 and B and respondent No.9 are filed.

9. By the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.4, 5 and B, it is contended that the claim of the petitioner of there existing a serious dispute of title between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to B is concerned, the said claim is incorrect and untenable, and according to the said respondents, there is no dispute and it is only the petitioner had raised a dispute by filing a suit for bare injunction and on the basis of the said suit cannot claim of existence of serious title dispute'

10. By the counter-affidavit, the respondents contend that the land in Sy$rlos.7l, 72 and74 stood in the name of Laxma Reddy, the father of the 4th responder t, which has been duly entered in Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 and after his death, the,said land was mutated in the revenue records on to the names of successors in intere:;t in the year 1966 itself; that -espondent No.4 had declared is holding under th A.p. Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1961 (for short,'the 1961 Ac.,), before the Land Reforms Triltunal in the year 1975, which was duly ccmputed on to the 4th responderrt and his family members and held that there is no surplus holding tlran the extent prescribed under the 1961 Act; and that after enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) {ct, 1976 (for short, 1976 Act') also, the lands were declared before tlre competent authority and are Cetermined as non-surplus holders.

11. By the coulter-affidavit, the 4th respondent would futher contend that the co-owner; were also mutated as pattadars in the year 2014 itself and thus, the 4tr' respondent and co-o\ /ners are in continuous assertion of title and possession over the subject land for more than 70 years; and that the petitionet is claiming title under oral gift (hiba) all:ged to have been executed by his grandfather has started a speculativ€ litigation by filing a bare injunr:tion suit and obtained an order of ad inter im injunction without notice to ':he respondents; and that the respondents on learning of the petitioner filing the aforesaid suit have fired their counter and written statement and have also argued the interlocutorl application before the concerred Court for vacating the said order of injLnction. 6

12. The 4th respondent by the counter-affidavit further contended that the respondents for over a period of 70 years, since, are in possession and enjoyment of the subiect land, had approached the respondents- authorities and obtained building permission for making construction in the subject land which were duly processessed by the respondents- authorities by considering the prima facie title and possession and mere obtaining of an injunction in a simple suit filed for perpetual injunction cannotbeclaimedaSadisputerlatingtotitleforthepetitionertosubmit a representation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and seeking for cancellation ofthebuildingpermissiongrantedinexerciseofpowersconferredunder Section 450 of the Act.

13. The 9th respondent by his separate counter-affidavit, had contended that the claim of the petitioner of existence of a serious dispute of title between the petitioner and respondent Nos'4 to B is incorrect and untenable; and that the 9th respondent had purchased land admeasuring Acs.2.00 in Sy.No.73(part) out of 75362'144 square yards' which is out of 44,901.544 square yards equivalent to Acs'9-11'0871 guntas of serilingampally Village from the unofficial respondents through a registered sale deed dt-09.03.2022; that it had also acquired developmental rights in respect of balance land admeasuring 35,227'544 square yards equivalent Acs.7-11.0871 guntas comprising of Sy.Nos.7 l(part), 72(part) and 73(part) through registered Development -1 7 Agreement-cum-(ipA; that the 9th respondent being bona fide purchaser and developer, had acquired the total land under registe-ed sale deed and also deveroprnentar rights under a registered deveropmr:nt agreement and has invested huge monies for developing the subject land; and that the petitioner doers not have any right, share, claim, intere:;t in and over the land acquired by the said respondent. 14, The th resltondent by the counter-affidavit, further crtntended that though the petitic ner had raised a dispute claiming to be owner of land admeasuring Acs..17.18 guntas in Sy.Nos.7i, 72 and 14 of S:rilingampally Village, claiming t) have succeeded to the aileged pattadar rights of his grandfather by op3ration of law, in respect of the said land, the name of Laxma Reddy is entered in the Khasra pahani for the year 1954_55 and after the death of regar representative, the names of his successors have mutated in the r-evenue records in the year 1966 itself; and that respondent Nos.4 to B having declared their holding under .he 1976 Act before the Land Reforms Tribunal in the year 1975 and al:;o under the 1976 Act, the pet itioner cannot craim of his titre or inter(lst over the properties in the year 2020 after a lapse of about 60 years that too by filing a bare injunclion suit.

15. By the coun:er-affidavit, the 9th respondent further cortended that the alleged hiba stated to have been executed by the petitioner.s 8 grandfather on the basis of which the petitioner is seeking to claim the subject land, does not satisfy the three essential conditions of gift as under Mohammadan Law and as such, the said claim is not valid in the eye of law.

16. By the counter-affidavit, the 9th respondent further contended that if at all there are any title disputes, the petitioner has to approach the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction to get the title to the subject land determined and on the basis of suit filed for bare injunction cannot claim of existence oF title dispute whereby the respondents-authorities are required to exercise their power under Seciion 450 of the Act' L7. It is also contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot adjudicate the title disputes, if any, and for the said purpose, the petitioner has to avail the civil remedy and in the absence of such remedy being availed, the claim of the petitioner of the respondents-authorities not considering the objections got filed by legal notice dt.28.02.2023 is without any valid basis.

18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos'4, 5 and B would also contend that the order of injunction obtained by the petitioner dt.2l.1l.2O2O restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule propefty would not come in the way of patition of the property among respondent Nos.4, 5 and B being the family members as admitted 9 by the petitione rr himserf; and that the petitioner ha,ring faired to demonstrate of he having initiated any steps to get his tifle determined in respect of the larrd which stands mutated in the revenue records in the name of respondt:nt Nos.4 to B in the year L966, subsequerrt to the death of the 4th responrient's father, whose name stood entered in the Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55 would go to show that the long standing possession and title of the respondents over the subject lanc.

19. on beharf .f the 9th respondent, it is contended that Lhe injunction obtained by the p,:titioner herein, videorder dt.21.fi.2020.ruas extended only till 09.06.20:12, and thereafter, the said injunction o-der was not extended by the Court below, and as such, on the date of the respondents appll,ing and obtaining building permission d:.28.t2.2022, there is no order of prohibition operating against the respondents and as such the claim of the petitioner of the respondents obtai ring building permission during the subsistence of injunction order cannot be accepted as valid; and that the petitioner realizing the order of injurction is not subsisting himself rad filed an interlocutory application, rzrde I.A.No.1153 of 2023 seeking extension of the interim order dt.21.11.2020j and that no orders are passed by the trial Court in the said I.A., and as such, no interim orders ar(l subsisting on the date of gr.anting of building permission dt.29.l2: .2022 by respondent Ncs.2 and 3. 10

20. Petitioner had filed a reply-affidavit to the counter-affidavit flled on behalf of respondent Nos.4, 5 and B. By the reply affidavit, the petitioner contended that the 4th respondent's father was Police Patel of Serilingampally Village and by using his post got entered his name in the revenue recordings without there being any proceeding by the competent authority; that in the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the petitioner's grandfather's name is shown and the name of the 4th respondent's father is only recorded as possessor; and that the said fact would also be evident from various communications addressed by the revenue authorities to the District collector which was obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the 2005 Act'), and not proceeding by which the name of the 4th respondent's father is shown as pattadar in the revenue records, based on which, since, has been granted infavourofrespondentNos.4and5intheyearlg66,therespondents cannot claim of having any valid title to the subject property'

21. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged'

22.Attheoutset,itistobenotedthatthoughthepetitionerclaimsof existence of a title dispute in relation to the subject land, between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents herein, wherein an order of injunction dt-23.0g.2021, having been granted by the Competent Coutt of Civiljurisdiction,videl.A.No.llglof2O2OinO'S'No'137of2020'inthe 11, writ alfidavit filec, he did not mention the relief that has b:en sought for in the subject suit, Further, the respondents by the.r corinter-affidavits having specificalhz craim of the subject suit fired being onry a suit for bare injunction and not relating to any tifle dispute, the petition--r though had filed his reply, did not convert the said claim of the respond,lnts by firing a plaint copy of tht: said suit. Thus, it is to be construed asi the said suit being only a suit 1br injunction and not relating to any tiUe rlispute for the petitioner to clairl existence of any titre dispute between the petitioner and the unofficia respondents herein, thereby preventing the unofficiar respondents apprrtaching respondent Nos.2 and 3 and obtaining buildlng permission.

23. Further, it is also pertinent to note that though lhe petitioner claims of subsisterce of injunction order dt.21.11.2020 in I A.No.1191 of 2020, no order has been filed into this Court to show the said order having been extended from time to time and being in ope-ation on the dale viz., 12.08.2020 when the respondents made an al)plication for grant of building permission, for the petitioner to clatm that the respondents in volation of the order oF injunction havng obtained building permission and proceeding with the constructions. Further, the fact of petitioner firing LA.No.1r53 of 2023 in I.A.N..119 of 2020 in O.S.N..137 of 202'.0 before the Trial Court, whereby the petitioner has categorl.a(y admit:ed to the fact that ad interim injunction granted earrier 72 L having not been extended beyond 09.06.2022, the petitioner could not have claimed by the said order of injunction subsisting on the date of filing of the present Writ Petition on 09'08.2023, thus approaching this Court with unclean hands disentitling him from being granted any relief'

24. Further, it is also to be noted that mere pendency of a suit though claim to be as relating to serious title dispute itself would not act as a bar, for the respondents-authorities to consider the application filed for grant ofbuildingpermission.Itissettledpositionoflawthatthemunicipal authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes while granting building permission and are only required to consider prima facie title and legal possession.

25. Since, copies of the proceedings obtained by the petitioner under the2005Actasenclosedwiththereplyshowthattheunofficial respondents to be in possession of the land subsequent to the death of the father of the 4s respondent by way of mutation affected in the year lg66andthesaidmutationproceedingnotunderchallengecannotbe said as not having valid title and in possession of the land for the petitioner to approach the respondents-authorities and seek for cancellation of building permission granted in favour of the unofficial exercise of Powers respondents, vide proceedings dt.2B.L2'2022 in conferred under Section 450 of the 1955 Act'

26. Further, it is trite law that even in a suit relating to l)are injunction, and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary tc examine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession and in the facts of the present case, the names of the respcrndents in the possessory colunrn in the revenue records being shown for considerable Iong period of ttre subject land, it cannot be said that they are not in possession of thr: subject land, as it is settled principle that ,,possession follows title" (see Ananthuta Sudhakar v/s. p.Buchi Retldy'). 27. In so far as powers of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in reation to grant of building peflnission are concerned, the said autrorities were approached this Couft in Dnq.Satchindananda Rao v./s. State of Telanganl, whe rein it is held in para 13 as under: "Therefore, the law is clear that the concerned authority before granting pernrission shourd onry see if prima facie tifle er(ists. The authorities cannot express any opinion on the title of the property, neither can they decide inter se disputes of tiue. The authorities cannot decide complicated questions of facts like title and,/alidity of documents wlrich will be decided by a jurisdictional/comp(rtent civil Court. Further, mere pendenry of a civil suit or disputes r.egarding title will not irnpede the concerned authority from granting building permission, if it is satisfied that prima facie tiue exists.,, '1zoo81 + scc ss+ ' 1zozz1 t- ett zza L*- I 14 (

28. Further, mere pendency of a civil suit or dispute regarding title while granting permission which had satisfied itself that the petitioner had a prima facie title merely because it had received a complaint that a suit is pending which cannot be revoked building permission.

29. This Court in W.P.No.2432l of 2024, by referring to a decision of this Court in K.Pavan Raj v/s. the Municipal Corporation of Hgderabad, had held that mere pendency of civil proceeding cannot be used as a ruse for refusing or granting building permission, inasmuch grant oF building permission by itself does not confer or confirm title on the applicant and any building permission obtained and construction made on the basis of such permission granted, would have to abide by the result of the civil proceeding.

30. Since, in the present, case, the petitioner claims of existence of a serious title dispute in respect of the land, he can only claim of the respondents not having title on succeeding in the suit filed by him if any for adjudication of such title dispute and not otherwise, merely on the basis of a simple suit filed for bare injunction, wherein an order of ad interim injunction was granted in his favour, which was not subsisting either on the date of unofficial respondents approaching respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking for grant of building permission or on the date the 'zooElry nlo z9z 15 petitioner approaching this Court by the present Writ petit on suppressing the fact that the order of injunction was not in force on the said date.

31. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

32. lr4iscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. No order as to costs, SD/ H . GOWRI SHANKAR TANT REGISTRAR i/TRUE COPY' \jsecnoru oFFrcER ELOPtt/ENT, High

1. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [O CC tc SRI IVOHD NASEER UDDIN, Advocate [OF'UC] CC tc N1/s E.ANISHA REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) CC tc SRI tM.A.K.tUUKHEED, Advocate (OPUC) CC to S RI R.RANGANATHAN, Advocate (OPUC) CD Cof ,ies To SA GJ

2. One 3. One 4. One 5. One 6. Two I r E l HIGH COUFIT DATED:231(1712025 in i- 87 0[T ffifi l' ,i ,; ,,,,1' / _': I ,'. ..:', ORDER WP.No.21624 of 2023 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT CIf,STS. i: l i t i I I t , I I ! I I l I I I i I I I