Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
A. Abhishek Reddy, J.
Mir Asad Sayeed Khan Asad Khan and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19040 of 2020
Decided On : 18-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :C. Raghu, Advocate
The main legal point established was that the authorities under the GHMC Act do not have the power to decide title disputes, and the proper remedy for the aggrieved party was to approach the Civil Court.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Building Permission - GHMC Act - [GHMC Act, Section 14] - The court discussed the rejection of objections by the Commissioner, GHMC, and the subsequent granting of building permission. The key legal provisions discussed were the authority of the Municipal Commissioner to decide on building permissions based on prima facie title, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in title disputes, and the principle that the Commissioner should not decide on title disputes but refer the parties to a competent Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus declaring the rejection of their objections and the granting of building permission as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claimed rights over a property and objected to the building permission granted to unofficial respondents. The court had previously directed the Commissioner to consider objections and suspended the building permission. The petitioners also filed suits for cancellation of gift deeds relied upon by the unofficial respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commissioner's rejection of objections and granting of building permission were not illegal, as the Commissioner's role was to consider prima facie title for building permission. The court emphasized that the Commissioner should not decide on serious disputed questions of title and that the proper remedy for the aggrieved party was to approach the Civil Court. The court also clarified that any construction made would be subject to the final result of the pending civil suits.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of objections by the Commissioner, GHMC, the granting of building permission, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in title disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established was that the authorities under the GHMC Act do not have the power to decide title disputes, and the proper remedy for title disputes was to approach the Civil Court. The court also emphasized that the Commissioner should not decide on serious disputed questions of title and should refer the parties to a competent Court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the court found no merit to interfere with the impugned order. The court clarified that any construction made would be subject to the final result of the pending civil suits and that the observations and findings made in the order should not influence any civil suit.
ORDER :
A. Abhishek Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No. 2-the Commissioner, GHMC, in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners vide proceedings No. 1/C14/02223/2020/721, dated 05/12.10.2020, and consequently granting permission for construction vide building permit No. 1/C14/10850/2020, dated 12.10.2020, in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 9, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The case of the petitioners, who are being represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder, in brief, is that they are the owners and possessors of the property known as 'Devdi Begumbazar' bearing D. No. 881(old), New Nos. 15-7-391, 392/A, 393, 394, 394/1, 394/A, 394/A/1, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401 and 402 with attached mulgies situated at Begumbazar, Hyderabad. The petitioners are claiming rights over the subject property through one Smt. Rahmathunnisa Begum. The said Rahmathunnisa Begum sold the subject property in favour of her daughter Smt. Zahoorunnisa Begum under a registered sale deed. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the said Smt. Zahoorunnisa Begum. The petitioners state that respondent Nos. 4 to 9, who do not have any right or interest over the subject property, have fabricated seven gift deeds in relation to the subject property and approached respondent No. 2 for building permission. Aggrieved by the steps initiated by respondent No. 2 for grant of building permission, petitioner No. 12 approached this Court and filed W.P. No. 7707 of 2020, and this Court vide order dated 08.06.2020 disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No. 2 to consider the objections raised by the petitioner therein while considering the application for building permission of respondent No. 4 therein. However, respondent No. 12, without complying with the directions issued by this Court in the said order, has granted building permission in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 9 on 01.07.2020. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner No. 12 filed W.P. No. 10248 of 2020 and this Court vide order dated 14.07.2020 has suspended the building permission dated 01.07.2020. Subsequently, this Court vide common order dated 07.09.2020 disposed of W.P. No. 10248 of 2020 along with W.P. No. 11633 of 2020, which was filed by one of the petitioners herein, directing respondent No. 2 to consider the objections and thereafter pass orders.
3. According to the petitioners, petitioner Nos. 1 to 11 filed O.S. Nos. 1289 to 1295 of 2020 before XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for cancellation of the seven gift deeds relied upon by respondent No. 4 for the purpose of claiming rights and the Court below granted status quo orders on 16.07.2020 and the same are being extended from time to time.
4. While so, respondent No. 2 issued notices to the petitioners for conducting hearing on 19.09.2020 and the petitioners have submitted their objections to the said notices. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No. 2 vide impugned order, dated 05/12.10.2020, has rejected their objections, and on the very same day, granted building permission in favour of the unofficial respondents. Hence, this writ petition.
5. On 02.11.2020, this Court, while issuing notice before admission, has suspended the building permission.
6. Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 have filed I.A. No. 2 of 2020 seeking to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 02.11.2020. A counter-affidavit is filed along with the vacate stay application denying the petition averments and stating that late Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung, late Nawab Mandoor Khan and late Nawab Mohd. Doulath Khan were brothers and owners of different properties in different Districts and so also the property known as 'Bahadur Yar Jung Devdi' situated at Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. The said Bahadur Yar Jung and his wife Smt. Noor Alam Khatoon being issueless adopted Smt. Khanna Khatoon D/o. Nawab Mohd. Doulath Khan and Mohd. Naseeb Khan S/o. Late Mandoor Khan. Subsequ
