A municipality does not have the power to enter into the disputed questions of title and possession and issue notices.

ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

"....to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents served an impugned Notice dt. 15.10.2019 even though the respondent Corporation was earlier got approved a Building Plan vide B.A. No. 1086/0652/B/24/KDA/2018, dt. 24.09.2019 after receipt of all the documents of the includes Link documents even without issuance of show cause notice all are illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, violation of the laws as guaranteed under Articles 19, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India, violation of principles of Natural Justice. Consequently to set aside the impugned Notice dt. 15.10.2019 in the interest of the justice and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

PETITIONERS SUBMISSIONS:

2. The 1st petitioner before this Court is a builder, who entered into a Development agreement with Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dt. 22.05.2017 with the 2nd" petitioner and one R. Sudha Madhavi, who are the owners of a site in an extent of 610 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 12/4 at Kapparada, Ayyappanagar, Visakhapatnam.

3. The 1st petitioner was given an approved building plan for construction of a building in September, 2019. After the plan was approved and while he was constructing a building, the impugned notice dated 15.10.2019 was issued directing him to stop all further constructions. Sri Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioners, points out that the notice is bad in law and that the 4th respondent-municipality does not have the power to enter into the disputed questions of title and possession etc., and issue notices. Relying upon the impugned notice learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the work was directed to be stopped as (1) there is a pending dispute between the Hindustan Shipyard House Building Cooperative Society and others (2) A No objection certificate was not obtained from the ULC authorities and (3) Proper link documents were not submitted. Learned counsel submits that the 4th respondent-municipality can only go into prima facie title. He submits that the registered documents etc., were given and the building plan was approved in his favour in September, 2019. At that point of time the respondents did not raise any issues about the title. He also argues that the Writ Petition mentioned for a declaration of a title is between Hindustan Shipyard House Building Cooperative Society and others is not in any way related to the present site. He argues that NOC from ULC authorities is no longer necessary as the ULC Act itself has been repealed. Lastly, he submits that the proper link documents were demanded without making it clear as to what are these documents. Without prejudice he also relies upon Section 429(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act (in short "the Act") and argues that a copy of the title deed duly attested by a gazetted officer along with a ULC certificate are only the two documents that are required to be filed. Therefore, he submits that the 4th respondent-municipality has committed a serious error in stopping the work and entering into an area to which it is not statutorily entitled. He points out that the notice itself does not show what is the "dispute" pending or what are the proper link documents. Therefore, learned counsel argues that this is a fit case in which the Court should interfere and set aside the impugned notice dated 15.10.2019.

RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS:

4. In reply to this, Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent, vehemently argues that there is a Writ Petition No. 1216 of 2004 which is pending and that the municipality has a duty to ensure that the litigated properties are not built upon. He also points out that the land is situated in Sy. No. 12/4, and is included in the Section 22-A "prohibited list" of ULC prope