IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Sadiq Ali Topiwala S/o.late Shabbir Hussain - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.22876 and 22921 of 2024
Decided on : 04-03-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. building permission application rejections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. ownership and previous transactions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments against rejection of permissions. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. court's review of rejection orders. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. precedents cited for legal reasoning. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. court’s directive to reconsider applications. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 7. final order and disposal of writ petitions. (Para 26 , 27) |
ORDER :
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
In W.P.No.22876 of 2024, the petitioners have questioned the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the building permission application in respect of open plot admeasuring 400 square yards in Block No.I covered by Sy.No.62 (old), Sy.No.66/1 (new) situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment, vide online status dated 24.07.2024.
2. In W.P.No.22921 of 2024, the petitioner had questioned the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting his building permission application in respect of open plot admeasuring 200 square yards in Plot No.1/part forming part of Sy.No.66/1, in the layout of Vanita Co-operative Housing Society Limited situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment, vide online status dated 01.07.2024 and insisting him to obtain NOC from State Government authorities.
3. A common issue arises for consideration in these two writ petitions. Therefore, these two writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order.
4. Heard Mr. M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. M.Srikanth and Mr. A.Muneedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Mr. K.R.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Revenue for respondent Nos.3 to 5 in W.P.No.22876 of 2024 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 in W.P.No.22921 of 2024. No representation on behalf of respondent No.1 in both the writ petitions.
Brief facts of the case
5. In W.P.No.22876 of 2024:
5.1 Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioners are claiming that they are joint owners and possessors of open plot situated in admeasuring 400 square yards in Block No. I covered by Sy.No.62 (old), Sy.No.66/1 (new) situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment and the same was purchased through registered sale deed bearing document No.2134 of 2023 dated 06.12.2023 from their vendors K.Krishna and K.Padmavati by paying valuable sale consideration and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
5.2 It is further averred that one Kalika Prasad was the owner of the agriculture land admeasuring Ac.6-08 guntas in Sy.No.62(old), new Sy.No.66/1 situated at Trimulgherry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment and he purchased the same from the Government in a public auction in 1352 Fasli (1943) and since then he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and his name was entered in the settlement records and that he died on 28.07.1959 leaving behind his five daughters and one son by name Munnalal. After his death, his son Munnalal filed Revision Petition in File No.P5/3434/81 before the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad requesting to declare the above said land as patta land. The said Revision Petition was disposed on 21.11.1983 declaring that Kalika Prasad is the owner of the above said land and the same was purchased from the Government in the public auction and therefore, the said land is not a Government land. Thereafter the legal representatives of Kalika Prasad have filed suit in O.S.No.1886 of 1989 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking partition and allotment of their respective shares. In the said suit, a final decree was passed on 05.02.1990 and allotted 1/6th share i.e., Ac.0-34.66 guntas out of Ac.6-08 guntas, to Gangia Bai who is the daughter of Kalika Prasad. The said Gangia Bai through her General Power of Attorney holder N.Vishwanath
Building permission applications must not be rejected without due process, including notice to the applicants, in accordance with principles of natural justice.
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....
Authorities are bound by survey reports in property disputes, and arbitrary rejection of building permission violates procedural fairness.
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.