Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN, J.
Dr. M. Satchindananda Raovs – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana and 3 others – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.15349 AND 18393 OF 2021
Decided On : 20-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Writ petition - GHMC Act, 1955 - Section 428, 429, 589 - Prima facie title - Temporary injunction - Petitioner filed various documents to show flow of title - Petitioner became owner of subject property through a registered sale deed – Petitioner submits mere pendency of civil suits is not a ground to reject building permissions - Authorities while considering an application for building permission shall only see if prima facie title exists and cannot conduct a roving enquiry - Respondent disputing title of Petitioner, claims that he is absolute owner of subject property - Claim of Petitioner that boundaries prevail over survey numbers is a misleading statement - Petitioner instead of participating in re-survey has approached this Court to delay matter - Whether Respondent, while considering a complaint questioning grant of building permission, order a re-survey and stay construction activity.
Finding of the Court :
Law is clear that concerned authority before granting permission should only see if prima facie title exists - Authorities cannot express any opinion on title of property, neither can they decide inter se disputes of title - Authorities cannot decide complicated questions of facts like title and validity of documents which will be decided by a jurisdictional/competent civil Court. Further, mere pendency of a civil suit or disputes regarding title will not impede concerned authority from granting building permission, if it is satisfied that prima facie title exists - ‘Prima facie title’, is said to exist when person claiming such title places material on record to prove his ownership over property - Such material means and includes all documentation linking person claiming property and property itself - Documents placed on record should on a bare perusal show that applicant is owner of property - Respondent has no authority to conduct a roving enquiry by ordering a re-survey - While granting permission it had satisfied itself that Petitioner had a ‘prima facie title’ - Merely because it had received a complaint that a suit is pending, it cannot revoke the building permission.
Result: Writ petition allowed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key legal points:
The authority considering an application for a building permit should only verify if the applicant has a 'prima facie' title and lawful possession of the property, based on available documentation. They are not authorized to conduct a detailed or roving enquiry into the title or ownership disputes (!) (!) .
'Prima facie' title is established when the applicant submits sufficient material, such as sale deeds and related documents, that on a straightforward review indicates ownership and possession over the property. The authority's role is limited to a preliminary assessment and does not include resolving complex ownership disputes (!) (!) .
The authority cannot reject a building permission solely based on pending civil suits or disputes regarding ownership, provided there is prima facie evidence of ownership and possession (!) .
The authority is not empowered to order a re-survey or to delve into detailed factual disputes concerning the boundaries or ownership, especially when such disputes are pending before a civil court (!) .
The decision to grant building permission must be based on the applicant's prima facie ownership and possession, and not on third-party objections or ongoing litigation, which should be resolved through civil courts (!) (!) .
The authority's role is limited to a preliminary assessment; it cannot adjudicate or decide on the substantive ownership or title of the property. Such disputes are to be resolved by competent civil courts (!) (!) .
The legal framework emphasizes that the existence of a civil suit or dispute does not automatically bar the issuance of building permission if the applicant demonstrates a prima facie case of ownership (!) .
Any action to revoke or deny building permission based on disputes of title or pending lawsuits without a detailed adjudication by a civil court is not sustainable and violates principles of law regarding administrative discretion (!) .
The authorities must ensure that their actions are confined to verifying prima facie ownership and possession, and avoid engaging in detailed fact-finding or adjudication of ownership rights, which are reserved for courts (!) (!) .
The legal position underscores that an applicant's possession and documentation linking them to the property are sufficient to justify granting permission, even if there are ongoing disputes or suits, unless a clear and final adjudication of ownership is made by a court (!) (!) .
Would you like a summary or specific legal advice based on these points?
ORDER :
Since the dispute is with regard to the same property between the same parties, both these writ petitions are heard in common and disposed of with the Common Order.
W.P.No.15349 OF 2017
2-a. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not considering the representation submitted by the petitioner on 09.06.2021 complaining about the unauthorized construction made by the 4th respondent over the piece of land in Sy.No.116, situated at Telangana, contrary to the building permission, as illegal and also issue consequential direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to cancel the permission vide permit No.3129/W1/2020/0103, dated 24.12.2020 in respect of Plot Nos.D4-Part and D5, in Sy.No.102, situated at Narsingi Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
W.P.No.18393 OF 2021
2-b. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the order dated 28.07.2021 bearing proceedings No.1214/TPS/NMC/2021 passed by the 3rd respondent directing the 4th respondent to conduct re-survey with the assistance of the 5th respondent and meanwhile directing the petitioner to stop the construction over the land admeasuring 458.33sq.yards in plot No.D4 (Part) and D5 in Sy.No. 102, Westend Meadows Layout, situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal.
3. In W.P.No.15349 of 2021, heard Sri N.Lalitha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
3-a. in W.P.No.18393 of 2021, heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri N.Lalitha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN W.P.No.18393 OF 2021
i) The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of plot No.D4 (Part) and D5 situated in Sy.No.102 Westend Meadows Layout, situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
ii) The Petitioner had applied for building permission on 04.07.2020 and the permission was accorded in respect of the subject property on 24.12.2020.
iii) Respondent No. 6 claims that the property claimed by the Petitioner falls in Sy.No.116 is owned by him.
iv) A complaint was filed by Respondent No. 6 on 09.06.2021 requesting Respondent No. 3 to stop the illegal construction as a suit bearing O.S.No.605 of 2015 is pending regarding the subject property; the application for layout regularization was rejected and; Petitioner had obtained permission in respect of property in Sy.No.102 but was making constructions in Sy.No.116.
v) In furtherance of the above said complaint, a notice dated 11.06.2021 was issued to the Petitioner to attend an enquiry. The Petitioner submitted his written submissions and additional written submissions. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 11.06.2021 to Respondent No. 4 who in turn requested Respondent No. 5 to submit a location sketch of plot No. D4 and D5.
vi) Respondent No.5 in response stated that plot No.D4 and D5 fell in Sy.No.116, after which Respondent No.3 sent another notice dated 24.06.2021 and asked the Petitioner to submit his explanation within seven days of receipt of the notice.
vii) The Petitioner being aggrieved by the notice dated 24.06.2021 filed W.P. No.14585 of 2021 seeking to set aside the said notice. This Court, vide order dated 30.06.2021, disposed of the writ petition directing the Petitioner to submit his explanation along with relevant documents and also directed the official Respondents therein to furnish the copy of survey report and sketch to the Petitioner.
viii) While things stood t
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Applicant has possession over the property and has submitted the required documents establishing the flow of title, it can grant building permission on the ground of existence of ‘prim....
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 ....
Judicial review cannot adjudicate property title claims while assessing administrative actions; these should be properly contested in court.
The Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to decide civil disputes related to property title through the cancellation of building permits.
Building permits obtained through misrepresentation can be revoked by the Commissioner, emphasizing the necessity for truthful declarations in property disputes.
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
