Building permission for property can be lawfully denied by municipal authorities where the subject land is under active litigation before the Supreme Court and subsisting 'status quo' orders are in force, particularly when applicants fail to produce essential proof of title.

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Mr. M.M.Vali, learned counsel for petitioners in all writ petitions, Mr. V.Siddardh Goud, learned counsel representing Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA and Mr. G.Madhu Sudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC.

2. All these writ petitions are though filed by the different petitioners, however, the subject matter of the property in all the writ petitions is one and the same, and the factual matrix and the principle contentions made by the petitioners are same and their permissions for construction of building were rejected by the respondents Nos.1 to 3, thus, all the writ petitions are heard together and the issue is decided by this common order.

3. The W.P.No.33699 of 2015 is taken as the lead writ petition and the order in this writ petition will also cover all the other writ petitions, as such, the averments and contentions raised by the petitioner in the lead writ petition is taken for deciding the batch of writ petitions.

4. The present petition is filed questioning the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, wherein the building permissions were rejected by proceedings No.939/TPS/ E12/WZ/GHMC/2014-15 dated 17.08.2015 (1st respondent) and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and also violative of provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (for short, ‘Act, 1955’).

5. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of open plot No.236 issued by the then HUDA vide sanction layout bearing No.5424/MP2/HUDA/91, admeasuring 267 square yards in Sy.No.100 of Miyapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same vide registered sale deed bearing document No.9365/1992, registered in the Office of Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Ranga Reddy District, and likewise, the other respective writ petitioners have alleged to have purchased the respective plot numbers in the very same layout sanctioned by the then HUDA. It is stated by the petitioner that the said locality is well developed, which is popularly known as ‘Prashanth Nagar Colony’ and many houses were built with the due sanction accorded by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, consisting of about 750 plots. Further, it is stated that the HUDA has sanctioned the said layout in the said Sy.No.100 at Miyapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and during the period from 1990 to 1995 at about 150 houses alleged to have been constructed by various persons by obtaining loans from the Banks, LIC and other financial institutions. It is also stated that assessment of the houses is also done by the GHMC in the said cases.

6. It is stated that the petitioner so as to construct a house has prepared a plan through licensed Engineer and Planner for stilt plus two floors consisting of total floor area of 1455 square feet over the plot admeasuring 267 square yards as per the building rules and regulations and accordingly, the Demand Draft bearing No.382699, dated 09.05.2014 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, IDPL, Kukatpally Branch was obtained towards the building permission fee and submitted the same before the 1st respondent along with the application and necessary documents, however, the respondents have refused to accept the application and directed the petitioner to go to the Office of Town Planning Section. Subsequently as the Office of Town Planning Section also did not en