Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J.
R.V. Ramana Rao – Appellant
Versus
The Peddapalli Municipality and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 19049 of 2020
Decided On : 05-01-2021
Building Permission - Title Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52 - The court considered the dispute arising from the building permission granted to respondent No. 2, who purchased the property during the pendency of a suit for perpetual injunction. The court found that the respondent No. 2 cannot take shelter under the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 69/2001 and that the building permission granted without considering the objections was bad, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice and equity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 1 in granting building permission in favor of respondent No. 2, who purchased part of the subject property during the pendency of a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the building permission was obtained by suppressing the judgment and decree passed in the suit for perpetual injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent No. 2 cannot take shelter under the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 69/2001 and that the building permission granted without considering the objections was bad, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice and equity.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the building permission granted to respondent No. 2, the impact of the suit for perpetual injunction on the property, and the consideration of objections filed by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The respondent No. 2 cannot take shelter under the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 69/2001. The building permission granted without considering the objections was bad, arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice and equity.
Final Decision: The building permission granted in favor of respondent No. 2 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner to consider the application for Building Permission afresh, duly taking into consideration the objections filed by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was restrained from making any further construction in the subject land until the Commissioner passes the order on the application of the 2nd respondent, afresh.
ORDER :
A. Abhishek Reddy, J.
1. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Ms. C. Avani Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner, Sri N. Praveen Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel, for respondent No. 1, and Sri Y. Rama Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent No. 1 in granting building permission vide File No. and Permit No. 3014/W1/2020/1134, dated 13.09.2020, in favour of respondent No. 2.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner of the property, admeasuring 669.16 square yards, situated in Survey Nos. 342 and 343/5 of Peddapalli Town and Mandal, Peddapalli District. According to the petitioner, earlier, he filed a suit being O.S. No. 40 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, seeking injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property. The above suit was decreed, vide Judgment dated 19.03.2018. It is stated that during the pendency of the said suit, respondent No. 2 has purchased part of the subject property i.e. an area admeasuring an extent of 402 square yards in Survey Nos. 342 and 343/5 situated at Shanthi Nagar Sivaru, Peddapally Town and District, under a registered sale deed dated 09.05.2016, and thereafter made an application for building permission before respondent No. 1-Municipality. The petitioner filed his objections before the respondent No. 1 requesting the Municipality not to grant building permission in favour of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, without disclosing the factum of decree of injunction granted by the trial Court against her vendor in respect of the very same property, has filed W.P. No. 12376 of 2020, and this Court, vide order dated 11.08.2020 has disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No. 1 to accept the application of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein) for building permission in terms of the Memo No. 2252/M1/2017, dated 28.04.2017 issued by the Secretary to Government, M.A. & UD Department, and pass appropriate orders, as per law. It is stated that after disposal of the said W.P. No. 12376 of 2020 on 11.08.2020, respondent No. 1 sought the legal opinion on the issue of granting building permission, and basing on the legal opinion, respondent No. 1 has granted building permission in favour of respondent No. 2 on 13.09.2020. Alleging that in spite of making a representation on 29.09.2020 and submitting objections on 13.02.2020 and 25.02.2020, respondent No. 1 has granted building permission in favour of respondent No. 2, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. This Court, on 02.11.2020, while issuing notice before admission, has suspended the impugned building permission.
5. The counter affidavit is filed by respondent No. 2 along with the vacate stay application, denying the averments made in the writ petition and has stated that the vendor of the petitioner got an extent of Ac. 1.00 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 342 and 343/5 of Shanthi Nagar, Peddapalli, on 07.03.2008 by way of final decree in a suit for Partition being O.S. No. 69 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli; that respondent No. 2 is not a party to the suit O.S. No. 40 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for perpetual injunction nor she is having any notice about the same. The perpetual injunction granted in O.S. No. 40 of 2011 is not binding on her; that she purchased an extent of 402.5 square yards of land for a valuable consideration from her vendor, D. Thirupathamma, who got an extent of Ac. 1.00 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 342 and 343/5, by way of final decree in O.S. No. 69 of 2001. That the petitioner instead of approaching the Civil Court
The respondent No. 2 cannot take shelter under the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 69/2001. The building permission granted without considering the objections was bad, arbitrary, and against t....
Judicial review cannot adjudicate property title claims while assessing administrative actions; these should be properly contested in court.
Building permission applications must not be rejected without due process, including notice to the applicants, in accordance with principles of natural justice.
Point of law: There is a presumption that public officials would discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with law. Even administrative power to be exercised to fulfill real purpose and not ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
