IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that valid building permission negates claims of unauthorized construction, and petitioners must seek civil remedies for encroachments.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 and with the consent of parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

2. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is to the inaction of the 3rd respondent in initiating action against the illegal construction being carried out by the 4th respondent without any permission from the 3rd respondent by encroaching on to the plot of the petitioner admeasuring 120.11 square yards out of 230 square yards comprised in Sy. No. 193/A/1 situated at Yashwantapur village, Jangaon Mandal and District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 03.02.2021 and also obtaining building permission from the 3rd respondent dated 06.08.2022.

4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that on the unofficial respondent undertaking construction in the petitioner’s land without obtaining any valid permission or sanction from the authorities, he had approached the respondent authorities and submitted representation dated 07.08.2024 calling upon the unofficial respondent to take action against the aforesaid unauthorized and illegal construction being made by the unofficial respondent and inspite of the same no action is taken. Hence, this Writ Petition.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 would submit that the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities and obtained building permission through TS-bPASS Act, 2020 (for short ‘Act of 2020’) instant approval on 06.08.2022 for construction of stilt + 1 upper floor with a total built up area of 132.42 square metres in the ground floor and 66.21 square metres in the 1st floor.

6. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the aforesaid instant building approval obtained by the petitioner through Act of 2020 online process was subject to post-verification by the authorities in terms of Section 7 of the Act of 2020 and the authorities having caused verification within the aforesaid period of 21 days have rejected/revoked the aforesaid instant building permission obtained on 25.08.2022, by uploading the aforesaid rejection on the TS-bPASS.

7. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that on the authorities rejecting/revoking the instant building approval obtained by the petitioner, the amount paid by the petitioner at the time of making application has also been remitted back to his account.

8. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the unofficial respondent thereafter made an application for grant of building permission and the authorities by considering the prima facie title and lawful possession of the said land have granted building permission on 14.03.2023.

9. Learned Standing Counsel thus, submits that the construction made by the unofficial respondent is based on a building permission obtained by him and, as such, the said construction cannot be considered as unauthorized and illegal construction.

10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that though the petitioner had submitted representation dated 07.08.2024 claiming the said construction made by the unofficial respondent as unauthorized and illegal, the 3rd respondent authority ought to have communicated to the petitioner of the fact of the unofficial respondent having made construction on the basis of the building permission dated 14.03.2023.

11. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that it is due to inadvertence, the 3rd respondent had failed to inform the petitioner of the action taken on his representation