Mrs.Fouzia Begum v. The State Of Telangana
[ 31661 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 34146 OF 2023 Between:
Mrs. Fouzia Begum, Wo Mohd. Abdul Haneef, aged about 43 Housewife, Rio. H.No.8-4-369/186, Banjan Nagar, Borabanda, 500 018.
years, Occ.
Hyderabad - ...PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), rep. by its Commissioner, Tankbund, Hyderabad.
The Deputy Commissioner, Chandanagar Circle- 21, Serilingampally Zone, GHMC, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District J ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, call for records and quash Ex.P-1 revocation letter dated 06.10.2023 in respect of building permission applicatign bearing No. 326149/ GHMCI1644312023 dated 11.O9.2023 issued by respondent no.3 by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of GHMC Act. !A NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Ex. P-1 revocation letter dated 06.1O.2023 in respect of building permission application bearing No. 326'149/GHMCt1644312023
dated 1 1.O9.2023 issued by respondent no.3 and permit the petitioner to proceed with construction in respect of Plot No. 32 in survey nos. 41112 and 41113 ol Khanamet Village, Serilingampally tVlandal, GHMC, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana as prayed in application bearing No. 326'149/GHMC116443I2O23 dated 1 1.O9.2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.SRIDHAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPLADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRt M.A.K.MUKHEED, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.3+146 of 2o.23 OR.DER:
Thls writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to carl for records and quash the revocation letter, dt.06. 1O.2O23, issued by the 3rd respondent, in respect ol building permission application bearing No.3261a9/GHMC/16443/2023, dt.11.09.2023, as being illegat, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and TS-bPASS Act,2O2O.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Deparlment appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, Sri M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage. 3.
Petitroner contends that she is the absolute owner and possessor of plot of land admeasuring 200 sq. yards in survey Nos.41/ 72 and, 4 1 / 13 situated at Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having acquired the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6 I87l2009, dt. I I .1 t.2OO9. 4.
Petitioner further contends she had approached the respondents_ authorities and submitted an application through TS-bpASS online portal on I I .O9 .2023, seeking permission for construction of a
i']'...;ri residential building in the aforesaid property; that the petitioner had obtained a provisional building permit order on 17.09.2023, which is subject to post verihcation within 21 days from the date of issuance of the said permission; and that as the respondents-authorities, in particular, the 3rd respondent, did not cause any verification within the said period of 21 days as provided under Section 7(9) of the Act, the provisional building permission generated by the petitioner through TSbPASS online portal had attained the status of deemed approval. 5.
Petitioner further contends that while the building permission obtained by the petitioner on 11.09.2023 had become hnal, the 3'd respondent-authority, who lacks jurisdiction, had issued the impugned proceeding revoking the said building permission, without even issuing a notice.
6.
Petitioner further contends that the grounds as mentioned in the said revocation letter are also contrary to the order passed by this court, dt.08.09.2023 in wP.No.24978 0f 2023.
7.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 would submit that the subject land, for which, the petitioner had obtained building permission, is an assigned land and therefore the 3'd respondent-authority had issued the impugned proceeding revoking the building permission obtained by the petitioner through TS-bPASS online portal.
8.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, does not dispute the fact that the impugned revocation order issued by the 3.d respondent is beyond the period of 2 1 days, within which period only the authorit5r could have issued the revocation letter as provided under Section 7(9) of theTS-bPASS Hct,2O2O.
9.
I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
10. This Court by order dt.08.11.2023 in WP.No.31001 of 2O23 and order d[.07.12.2023 in WP.No.33023 of 2023, while explaining the scope of operation of the provisions of law had held that a building permission, which has received the status of a'deemed approval' can only be revoked by the Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred on him under Secrion 7(1 1) of the TS-bPASS Act,2O2O. 1 1. Since, lhe impugned proceeding, dt.06.10.2023, is admittedly beyond the period of 2l days from 1 1.09.2023, uiz., the date on which the provisional building permission was obtained by the petitioner through TS-bPASS online portal, the 3.d respondent herein being the Deputy Commissioner, could not have issued the impugned proceeding revoking the building permission, and thus, the action of the 3.d respondent in issuing the impugned proceeding cannot be held as valid.
72. That apart, the issue of subject iand being declared as government land, has also been considered by this Court in WP.No.24978 of 2023. This Court taking note of the earlier orders passed in WP.No.1O352 of 2021, and the Writ Appeals No.403 of 2022
had negatived the contention of the respondents-authorities as to the subject land being assigned land; and that since, the petitioner's land is also in the same survey number, the claim of the petitioner cannot be viewed differently.
i 3. Further, mere grant of building permission by the authorities does not amount to conferring or confirming the title of the applicant, who sought for building permission lsee Hgderabdd Potteries Priaate Limited a. Collector, Hgderabad,l, the petitioner also cannot claim any equities in the event of her title to the subject property being called in question.
14 .
F or the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dt.07.12.2023, is set aside. No order as to costs.
15. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
MANU/AP/o361 12001=2001(3) ALD 600 SD/. A.V.S.P ASSISTANT REGI SAD R //TRUE COPY// sEcTto OFFICER To,
1. The Principal Secretary, [Vlunicipal Administration and Development Department, Secretariate, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.
2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad lv{unicipal Corporation (GHMC), Tankbund, Hyderabad.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Chandanagar Ctcle- 21 , Serilingampally Zone, GHIMC, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
4. One CC to SRI S.SRIDHAR, Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED, SC FOR GHIvIC [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to GP FOR [\4CPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]
7. Two CD Copies I GJ i BSR
HIGH COURT DATED: 2011212023 E STAI€ (t rAIl 2[24 fr O *
ORDER
* a S WP.No.34146 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS coti4 a,