Point of law : Respondents 5 to 11 are the bona-fide purchasers and they are subject to various litigations, subsequently Government has considered the representation/appeal filed by the respondents, as per the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri. N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri. Dammalapati Srinivas, senior counsel for M/s. Pillix Law Firm appearing for the respondents 5 to 11.

2. The petitioners filed the present writ petition, questioning the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in according building Permit Order vide bearing Permit No. 1086/3302/B/Z3/KTA/ 2021 dated 07.08.2021 in favour of respondents 5 to 11 over the land admeasuring 14520 square yards in T.S. No. 71 and 75 situated at Block No. 8 and 9, Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam.

3. The convention of Baptist Churches of the Northern Circars (for short CBCNC) vide bearing registration No. 16/48-49 has executed a registered lease deed over the land vide document bearing No. 4547/2004 and 4548/2004 on the file of the District Registrar’s Office, Visakhapatnam in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners were also granted passbooks over the land and also issued Tax books bearing Nos. 10861779930 and 1086149517 and they were inducted peaceful possession of the property; accordingly they are maintaining the same by paying land revenue taxes, water charges and electricity bills unequivocally over the said land.

4. That being so, on the application dated 15.07.2021 submitted by the respondents 5 to 11, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned orders under section 388, 428, 433 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 and the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Act, 2017 granting building permission in favour of the respondents 5 to 11. Assailing the said permission, present writ petition.

5. Contention of the petitioners is that the permission granted by the 2nd respondent in favour of the respondents 5 to 11 is capricious, arbitrary exercise of power, opposed to the very spirit and nature of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Without considering and without verifying the records properly, the 2nd respondent has granted permission in favour of the respondents 5 to 11. When it came to the notice of the said permission, immediately the petitioners made a representation on 21.08.2021 requesting to recall the permission granted in favour of the respondents 5 to 11.

6. Further it is submitted that in view of the permission granted by the respondents 2 to 4, the respondents 5 to 11 are trespassing into the subject land and demolishing the existing structures, without any authority of law under the grab of the impugned orders. The unofficial respondents have demolished the existing structures of the subject land, including the constructions, of 600 Sq. feet bearing D. No. 10-1-6 and 7 which was being utilized as student hostels. Despite bringing the same to the notice of the authorities, questioning about the illegal action of the respondents 5 to 11, the respondents 2 to 4 have not initiated any action and not recalled the permission granted in favour of the respondents 5 to 11. Hence, left with no option, the present writ petition is filed.

7. After receipt of notice, the respondents 5 to 11 filed their counter through Sri. J. Malani Thyagaraj, GPA Holder denying the allegations made in the affidavit in support of the writ petition.

8. In their counter it is stated that in the year 1993, 18 companies registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 had purchased the property covered by T.S. No. 75 of Waltair Ward Visakhapatnam from CBCNC and the Trust Association, CBCNC for a valuable consideration and the companies were duly put in possession of the property. Said transaction is backed by proper resolutions and verification of the authenticity of the Body of Office Bearers of CBCNC and its Trust Association.

9. Questioning the said transactions, a suit was filed by one Sri. Dasari Samuel, representing the Trust Association of CBCNC for declaration of its rights and cancellatio