Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 759
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J.
Tummala Narsaiah and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Telangana and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 11226 of 2019 and 20201 of 2020
Decided On : 18-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Rajagopallavan Tayi, Advocate
For the Respondents:GP, Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, SC and Vedula Srinivas, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities under the GHMC Act do not have the power to decide the title to the property where serious disputed questions of title or facts are involved, and the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the Civil Court.
Headnote:
Building Permission - Disputed Title - GHMC Act - [Section 159, Section 160, Section 202] - The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking cancellation of the building permission granted to the respondent, holding that the disputed questions of title should be adjudicated by the Civil Court. The court emphasized that the authorities under the GHMC Act do not have the power to decide the title to the property where two rival claimants are seriously disputing the title of one another. The court referred to the State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha (1969) 2 SCC 187, emphasizing that the appropriate course for the authorities would be to refer the parties to a competent Court and not to decide the question of title themselves against the occupant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to cancel the building permission granted to the respondent for Plot Nos. 2 and 3 in survey Nos. 159 and 160 situated at Kakatiya Nagar, Nacharam, under GHMC, Ranga Reddy District, citing disputed title and interference with possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had no title or possession of the subject lands, and the question of canceling the building permission at their instance did not arise. The court emphasized that the authorities under the GHMC Act do not have the power to decide the title to the property where two rival claimants are seriously disputing the title of one another.
Issues: The main issue was the disputed title and possession of the subject lands, and whether the building permission granted to the respondent should be canceled at the instance of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where serious disputed questions of title or facts are involved, it is only the competent Civil Court which can give a finding regarding the title, possession, etc., based on the evidence on record. The authorities under the GHMC Act do not have the power to decide the title dispute between two or more rival parties in respect of the immovable properties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the Civil Court. The court also clarified that the order did not preclude the petitioners from agitating their rights before the competent Civil Court if any Civil Suit is filed by the petitioners or their vendors.
ORDER :
A. Abhishek Reddy, J.
1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. With the consent of both the Counsels, the main Writ Petitions are being disposed of.
2. Heard Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 11226 of 2019, Sri Mamidi Avinash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 20201 of 2020, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondent No. 1, Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
3. These two writ petitions are filed seeking to cancel the building permission dated 06.10.2018 granted in favour of respondent No. 4 in respect of Plot Nos. 2 and 3 in survey Nos. 159 and 160 situated at Kakatiya Nagar, Nacharam, under GHMC, Ranga Reddy District. W.P. No. 11226 of 2019 is filed by one T. Narsaiah and another claiming to have purchased plot Nos. 2 and 3 through registered sale deed 11.01.2018 bearing document No. 779/2018 and W.P. No. 20201 of 2020 is filed by the subsequent purchaser from T. Narsaiah and others who have sold plot No. 2 and 3 vide registered sale deed dated 28.02.2020.
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P. No. 20201 of 2020 are being referred to.
5. The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Plot Nos. 2 and 3 in Survey Nos. 159 and 258, admeasuring 760.70 square yards situated at Kakatiya Nagar, Nacharam, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 28.02.2020. It is stated that originally one Late Khaisaruddin Khan and his wife Shajahan Begum were the absolute owners of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.33 guntas in Survey No. 159 and Ac. 1.39 guntas in Survey No. 258 totally admeasuring Acs. 3-32 guntas situated at Nacharam Village, Kapra, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said properties were subject matter of C.S. No. 14 of 1958 before this Court and the same was allotted to Khaisaruddin Khan and his wife Shajahan Begum vide Receiver-cum-Commissioner Certificate, dated 23.07.1980. Thereafter, the owners of the land bearing Sy. Nos. 159 and 258 and the owners of the adjacent lands have formed into an Association and applied for layout permission by dividing the said lands into plots. The Vice Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, had approved the layout vide proceedings dated 03.01.1990. After the death of Shajahan Begum, her two sons Kareemuddin Khan and Fasiuddin Khan succeeded to the subject property, and due to family and financial needs, Kareemuddin Khan along with the legal heirs of Fasiuddin Khan alienated the subject property in favour of Sri Tummala Narasaiah (petitioner No. 1 in W.P. No. 11226 of 2019) and three others (hereinafter referred to as 'the vendors'), who in turn have sold the subject property to the petitioner herein vide registered sale deed dated 28.02.2020.
6. According to the petitioner, when his vendors tried to fence the subject land with stone khadis, respondent No. 4 interfered with the same, and therefore, his vendors filed O.S. No. 154 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction. Since respondent No. 4 failed to enter appearance, the said suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, when the respondent No. 4 continued to interfere with the possession of the vendors of the petitioner, they filed E.P. No. 4 of 2019. In the said E.P., E.A. No. 5 of 2019 was filed seeking police protection and the same was allowed. As the police failed to provide aid/protection, the vendors of the petitioner filed W.P. No. 6019 of 2019 and this Court by order dated 04.04.2019, directed the Station House Officer, Nacharam, to provide police protection as directed in the E.A. No. 5 of 2019.
7. While so, respondent No. 4, suppressing the material facts, obtained
