Point of law: Disputed question cannot be decided in the Writ. Only instances are given. This order will not limit the rights of parties. Whatever issues are touched upon by this Court in the preceding paragraphs are points which in the opinion of this Court need to be proved by establishing the same in the course of a regular trial. It is reiterated that this court has not finally pronounced on the merits of the issues.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the rejection of a building permission dated 20.06.2020 without verifying the petitioner’s site and without considering the application that has been submitted etc., and seeking a consequential direction to verify the documents or to restore the building permit.

2. This court has heard Smt. Preethi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents along with the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration who appears for the 1st respondent.

PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS:-

3. The petitioner submits that despite having valid title the respondents have wrongfully rejected the building application after initially sanctioning the same. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner’s husband is one S. Rajagopala Narsingarao, S/o Surya Narayana Murthy. He acquired the property through a deed of conveyance executed in his favour on 15.09.1952, by which according to the petitioner two bits of land in T.S.No.1671 (13 cents = 629.62 Sq.yards) and in T.S.No.1669 (12 cents = 580 Sq.yards) were acquired. Later, in 2004 the said Sana Rajagopala Narasinga Rao executed a registered gift deed in favour of the petitioner bequeathing 427.77 sq.yards of land in Sy.No.1671 to the petitioner. Claiming title through these two documents the petitioner had applied for a building plan, which was initially granted on 20.04.2020. Petitioner started the construction as per the plan but thereafter a shortfall notice was issued on 07.07.2020 for stopping the further construction. It is argued that despite clear and categorically representation dated 10.07.2020 the plan was not restored and therefore, the Writ is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there are two bits of lands in T.S.Nos.1671 and 1669. It is her contention that the land in T.S.No.1671 has always been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s family and that the AC sheet shed in this site has been assessed to taxes of municipality, electricity connection was also issued to the petitioner. It is purely a private site. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tax receipts etc., which are filed clearly show that the petitioner has been in settled possession and enjoyment of the property. She contends that without any basis and holding that this present site is a park area / common area in the layout, the plan was rejected. This contention of the GVMC-respondent is very vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who points out that this park and the present site are not the same and under the misconception the GVMC has wrongfully rejected the plan.

RESPONDENTS’SUBMISSIONS:-

5. In reply to this, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-Municipal Corporation, relying upon his counter affidavit, argues that the site covered by the plan is a park in the SBI Staff Housing Cooperative Society lay out in T.P. No.23/64. Therefore, the first and foremost submission is that since it is a common area meant for public purpose it cannot be used for any other purpose let alone construction of a house. Apart from that he argues that the petitioner does not have a valid title to the property. It is submitted that 1952 document, on which the petitioner relies, is an unregistered document and it could not have conveyed any title whatsoever. Therefore, he submits that any subsequent document executed on this document cannot also convey valid title. He states that the petitioner has no title at all to the property. Apart from this, it is also contended that the petitioner’s husband has filed W.P.No.20458 of 2002 before the combined High Court and sought protection from demolition of his unauthorized sheds in T.S.No.1671. It is argued that in the said Writ Petition the learned single Judge also disposed off the Writ Petition holding that in T.S.No.1671 some sheds were constructed, and that the Corporation shoul