Ujjal Bhuyan, C.J.
1. Heard Mr. Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants; Mr. K. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for respondents No. 1, A and B/writ petitioners; and Mr. K. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) for respondents No. 2 to 5.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 36387 of 2021 filed by respondents No. 1, A and B as the writ petitioners.
3. The related writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
(a) declaring the action of the District Collector, Hyderabad in issuing proceedings bearing Lr. No. E1/333185/2021 dated 27.10.2021 thereby declaring its own title and claiming that the land admeasuring 4616 sq. yards out of total land Admeasuring 8263 sq. yards in Sy. Nos. 31 and 32 at Bakaram Village, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad as Government Land as illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and also the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India reported in 2010 (5) SCC 382 [LQ/SC/2010/415] and consequently to declare the letter Lr. No. E1/333185/2021 dated 27.10.2021 as null and void;
(b) declaring the inaction on the part of the GHMC in processing/approving the building permission as sought for by the writ petitioners in respect of land admeasuring 8263 sq. yards in Sy. Nos. 31 and 32 corresponding to Plot Nos. 1-4-887/A, 1-4-887/A/1, 1-4-109/1, 1-4-909 & 1-4-909/A in Sy. Nos. 31 and 32 situated at Bakaram Village, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad on the basis of the letter of the District Collector in Lr. No. E1/333185/2021 dated 27.10.2021 as Government Land as illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and also the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in judgment reported in 2001 (3) ALD 600 [LQ/TelHC/2001/418] and consequently direct the GHMC to grant sanction to the writ petitioner in respect of the application for building permission submitted by the writ petitioner on 27.05.2021.
4. Writ petitioners contended before the learned Single Judge that M/s. Blue Wings Developers LLP (respondent No. 1) is a duly registered limited liability partnership firm which had entered into a development agreement-cum-irrevocable general power of attorney in respect of 8263 square yards vide document No. 503 of 2021 dated 24.08.2020 executed by Shanti Lal Patel and 18 others in respect of 3123 square yards bearing municipal Nos. 1-4-909/1, 1-4-909 and 1-4-909/A (schedule 'A' property) and document No. 2423 dated 24.08.2020 executed by M/s. K.K. Patel and company and 18 others in respect of 5140 square yards bearing municipal Nos. 1-4-887, 1-4-887/A and 1-4-887/A/1 (schedule 'B property').
5. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that predecessors-in-title of the writ petitioners were in possession and occupation of both schedule A and B properties. They were absolute owners of the said properties. Writ petitioners had applied for online building permission on 27.05.2021 for construction of residential building consisting of two cellars+two stilt+20 upper floors.
6. It is alleged that Surveyor of Special Duty Collector, Land Acquisition, GHMC had carried out an inspection of the aforesaid lands behind the back of the writ petitioners whereafter he had prepared a sketch map stating that land measuring 4616 square yards out of the 8263 square yards is Government land as per Telangana State Land Revenue record. He opined that building permission could be granted by the GHMC after excluding such Government land. Thereafter, GHMC had issued letter to the writ petitioners on 14.06.2021 stating that the said land was recorded as Government land. Further, report was submitted by Special Deputy Collector of GHMC on 30.06.2021 leading to subsequent letter dated 06.09.2021. Based on such reports and communications, Collector of Hyderabad District had issued impugned letter dated 27.10.2021 contending that subject property is Government land resulting in GHMC not approving building permission of the petitioner.
7. Mandal Revenue Officer of Musheerabad Mandal filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents contending that subject land is Government land and therefore, action of GHMC is justified.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, learned Single Judge passed the following order:
Appellants before us are GHMC and its officials. Respondents, as the writ petitioners, had filed W.P. No. 16868 of 2022 assailing the decision of the appellants contained in letter dated 15.03.2022 to obtain No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Revenue Department, Government of Telangana, for the purpose of granting construction permission. The writ petition was contested by the appellants by filing counter affidavit.
After hearing both the sides, learned Single Judge vide the order dated 26.04.2022 held that the question as to whether GHMC can insist on production of NOC from the Revenue Department is no longer res integra. The same has been decided in the case of Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District ( 2001(3) ALD 600). Learned Single Judge further noted that building permission was granted to the respondents' land since 1976-79 whereafter several constructions have been made thereon. Respondents are in possession of the constructed tenements since 1970s. In the year 2022, they had made an application before the appellants for developing their houses. It was thereafter that appellants insisted upon furnishing NOC. Learned Single Judge held as follows:
"While granting permission, whether the Municipal Corporation can insist for NOC from the Revenue Department or any other Department is no longer res integra as this Court in Hyderabad Potteries's case (2001 (3) ALD 600 [LQ/TelHC/2001/418] ) has observed as under:
of course, the Commissioner has to consider the objections, if any, raised for grant of permission. But, an objection raised by a member of the Committee itself would not be enough to reject the application for grant of permission. The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants. The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objector (s), whether the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. All that the Commissioner required to do is to find out prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purposes of granting permission and nothing more.
In the present case, earlier, building permission was granted to petitioners' land from 1976-79 and they have already made constructions and house numbers were also allotted and they have been paying property taxes, as such they are in possession of the subject houses from 1970s and now, in the year 2022, when they made application for developing their houses, the respondent Corporation has come with an objection basing on the revenue records that the land belongs to the Government. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Hyderabad Potteries's case 2010 (5) SCC 382 (supra), which is upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court, the respondents cannot take such objection and they cannot insist for NOC. Hence, the order impugned dated 15-03-2022 is set aside, directing the respondents to process the petitioners' application for building permission in accordance with law without insisting for NOC.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs."
Upon thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. On the admitted facts as culled out by the learned Single Judge, no case for interference is made out.
Consequently, writ appeal is dismissed.
9. Learned Single Judge held that all that GHMC is required to examine at the time of granting permission is prima facie title of an applicant. If the State has a better claim to the subject property, it has the remedy to establish its claim. Further, entries in revenue records are not conclusive of title; neither does it confer any title. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Hyderabad Potteries 2010 (5) SCC 382 [LQ/SC/2010/415] .
10. From the materials on record, learned Single Judge recorded the finding of fact that writ petitioners could establish that they are in possession of the subject property since last eighty years; on the same subject property, earlier municipal permissions were granted in 1973 and 1974 to Sri Vishram Patel for building construction; therefore, it is not open to GHMC to raise new objection every time fresh building permission is sought for; barring the land revenue records, there is no other document to even prima facie support the claim of the Government.
11. Similar is the view taken by a learned Single Judge in the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in W.P. No. 16868 of 2022 (Syed Iftekhar Ahmed v. Commissioner, GHMC). Appeal filed by the GHMC against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge being WA. No. 403 of 2022 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide the order dated 05.07.2022.
12. On thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge to warrant interference.
13. Consequently, Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
