S. Rameshwar Rao v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Judgment date: 2026-01-27

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-27. S. Rameshwar Rao v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,. Read the judgment and case...

Judgment text

[ 3383 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 16424 OF 2018 Between: 1. S. Rameshwar Rao, S/o. Late S. Ramdas. Aged about 49 years, Rlo. 1-24-282,lndira Nagar Colony, Lothkunta, Atwal, Secunderabad. 2. S. Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late S. Ramdas. Aged about 47 yea$, Rlo. 1-24-282, lndira Nagar Colony, Lothkunta, Alwal, Secunderabad. 3. T Dhan Raj, S/o. T. . Narasimha Rao, aged about 59 years, R/o. 132-2RT, Prakash Nagar Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad. 4. H. L. Srinivas, S/o. H. Lakshmin atayana, aged about 39 years, RloJ-24-212, lndiara Nagar Colony, Lothukunta, Alwai, Secunderabad. .. PETITIONERS AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, M. C. H. Buildings, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Zonal Commissioner of G. H. M.

C, North Zone, Secunderabad_ 3 The Deputy Commissioner of G. H. lV. C, Commissioner, Alwal Circle 27, Alwal, Secunderabad. 4. The Sub-Registrar, Registration Office, Vallabh Nagar, Begumpet, Prakash Nagar, Secunderabad. 5- Nemarugommula Venkateshwar Rao, S/o N. Ramchander Rao, aged 61 years Occ. Business Rl/o Presidency Avenue, Road No. 7, Alwal, Hyderabad. 6. Patlori Suresh Kumar, Sio P. Hanmanth Rao, Aged 42 years Occ. Employee R/o FIat No. 402, Patloori Amrutha Residency, Mangapuram Colony, Old AIwal, Hyderabad. 7- Dr. Vamsr Priya Aravally, Wo Sumanth Balguri Aged 37 years Occ. Doctor Rep. by her GPA namely Sri. B. Sudhakar Rao S/o Malhar Rao, aged 65 years Occ. Business Rl/o Flat No. 405, Laxmi Ganapathi Nilayam, Central Part, Kompally, Hyderabad. 8. Devendar Rendla, S/o Mallaiah, Aged 50 years Occ. Business PJo H. No. 6- 105111N20A, Godavari Homes, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad. 9. B. Ram Reddy, S/o late B. Malla Reddy, Aged 56 years Occ. Business R/o 23-6-897 / 4, Laldawvaza, Hyderabad.

-' ! 10. Gandra Sugunakar Rao, S/o G. Sugreeva Rao, Aged 3 I years Occ. Business R/o H. No. 7-6-8611, Vidya Nagar, Jagtial, Dist. Jagtial. 11. Koya Anthony, S/o Koya Raiaiah Aged 76 years Occ. I g riculture R/o H. No. 2- 1-407, Flal No. '103, Shanthi Apartments, Nr akunta, H) lerabad. , 12. Joginipally Harender Rao, S/o J. Ananda Rao, Aged years Occ. Business R/o H. No. 5-133173 and 74, Flat No. 301, Venkateshr ara Residency, Road No. 2, Mangapuram Colony, OId Alwal, Hyderabad. 13. R. Lalitha R. Sandhya, @ W/o R. Sudhakar, Aged 5'1 lr:ars Occ. Housewife Rt/o H. No. 1-7-100l14, ptor No. 112, Reddy Ent:t l\/e, Temple Alwal, Secunderabad. 14. B. Ramesh, S/o B. Pentaiah, Aged 48 years Occ. Bu iness R/o H. No. 7-13, Balanagar, Shetipally Kalan lvlandal, Medak District. 15. M Narayan Reddy, S/o Hanumanth Reddy, Aged 72. erars Occ. Agriculture R:/o H. No. 3-5-170, A/5, Narayanaguda, YMCA, Hyderab t,l. RR 5 to 15 are impleaded as per C. O. dt. 03. 03. 2025 ir lANo. 212024. 16.

Joginipelly Raj Gopal Rao, S/o J. Thirupathi Rao, : ged 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 10-1-246, Ramnagar, Karimnagar )ist Karimnagar. Respondent No. 16 is impleaded as per C. O. dl. 27. 01. 2026 in l. A. No. 1/2025. . RESPONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lnc i r praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the :ligh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of ftilandamus or any other apprrt rriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the inaction on the part of the responc( nts herein, in taking aclion on the representations d,. 0211212013, O6tj2 2:. 013, 17t02t2014, 04t 1 2t201 4. 29t 1 2t201 4, O5t01 I 20 1 5, 21 I 12t201 5. 21 I O8t2( 17 and 2511012017, submitted by the petitioners herein, and allowing illegal ;onstructions in lhe petitioners Iands to an extent of Ac. 13. 22 guntas situated r l]y No. 592 and 593 part at Old Alwal Village, (Saibabanagar), Atwal Circle, rr cler G. H. M.

C Alwal Mandal, M edcha l/lt/a lkajigiri District, by the unauthorized o l ru pa nts/en croachers without any valid permissions from the competent authority as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of G. H. M. C. Act, and conr erquently direct the respondents herein not to allow any unauthorized construc i,:ns to be made in the petitioners land and to take further action for den r Iition of the illegal constructions made by the unauthorized occu pants/encroac. r in ;rs the petitioners land to an extent of Ac. 13. 22 guntas situated in Sy. No. S) I and 593 part OId Alwal Village, (Saibabanagar), Alwal Circle, under G. H. lvl. C Alwal lrrlandal, Medchal/Matkajigiri District.

IANO:lO F 201e 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 direct the Respondents herein, not to accord any permissions for construction of buildings and regularizing any illegal permissions under BRS and LRS and also to stop forthwith the iregar constructions that is being made by any unauthorized occupants/encroachers in the petitioners rands to an extent of Ac. 13. 22 guntas situated in Sy. No. 592 and 593 part, old Alwal Village, Arwal circle 27, under G. H. M. C Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal/fi/alkajgiri District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. IANO:2OF 2018 Petition under section i51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to direct the Respondent No. 4 heretn, not to register any document in respect of the lands situated in Sy. No.

592 and 593 part near Old Atwal Village, Alwal Circle 27, under c. H. M. C AIwar ,vrandar, IVedchar/tvarkajori District, without verifying the title deed and link document, pending disposal of the above petition. Writ IANO:1OF2020 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 extend the order dated 181061201g, passed by this Honble court in l. A. No. 1 of 2018 in W. P. No . 16424 of 2018, pending disposal of the above Writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 extend the order dated 1g. 06. 2019 passed by this Hon,ble Court in lA No. 1 of - 2018 in WP No. 16424 of 2018 as extended by orde ,r i dated 17. 12. 2020, 05. O2. 2021, and 23. O4. 2021 pending disposal of the above vrit petition.

lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th€ )lrcumstances stated -l in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CcL rr ay be pleased to direct the respondents herein, not to allow/permit any . r r-authorized building constructions in S. No. 592 of Alwal GHlr,4C circle, pending ri:;posal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the )ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoL 1 may be pleased to extend the order 18-06-20'18 passed by this Hon'ble court I LA. No. 1 of 20. 18 in W. P. No. 16424 ot 2O18, pending disposal of the above Writ I 'etition. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoJ t may be pleased to ' Vacate the lnterim Order dated: 18-06-2018 passed in LA I o. of 2018 in W. P. No.

16424 of 2018 in the interests of justice and pending c :;posal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: 1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. r. y its Commissioner, M. C. H. Buildings, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2. The Zonal Commissioner of G. H. M. C, North Zone, Sec. l rrlerabad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of G. H. M. C, Commissioner, rlwal Circle 27, Alwal, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 S. Rameshwar Rao, S/o. Late S. Ramdas. Ace I about 49 years, No. 1-24-282,lndira Nagar Colony, Lothkunta, Alwal, iir 6:96(gmg66. - 2 S. Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late S. Ramdas. Aged about 4T years, Rto. 1_24_282. lndira Nagar Colony, Lothkunta, Atwal, Sedunderabad. 3 T Dhan Raj. S/oT Narasimha Rao, aged about 59 years, R/o. 132-2RT, Prakash Nagar Colony, Begumpet, Secunterabad. 4. H. L. Srinivas, S/o. H. Lakshminarayana, aged about 3g years, NoJ_24_272, Indiara Nagar Colony, Lothukuntd, Alwal, Secunderabad. ' 5. The Su!

-Registrar, Registration Office, Vallabh Nagar, Begumpet, prakash Nagar, Secunderabad. 6. Nemarugommula Venkateshwar Rao, S/o N. Ramchander Rao. aoed 61 years Occ. Business R/o Presidency Avenue, Road No. 7, Alwal, Uyber6OaO. 7. Pallori Suresh Kumar, S/o P. Hanmanth Rao, Aged 42 yearc Occ_ Employee Rl/o Flat No. 402, Pafloori Amrutha Residencyi Mang'apuram Cotoni, blJ Alwal, Hyderabad. 8. Dr. Vamsi Priya Aravally, W/o Sumanth Balguri Aged 37 years Occ. Doctor Rep. by her GPA namely Sri. B. Sudhakar-Rao S/o Malhar Rao. aoed 65 years Orc. Business Rt/o Flat No. 405, Laxmi Ganapathi Nilayam, part, Centrlt Kompally, Hyderabad. 9 D-e1u91! 9r Rendla, S/o Maltaiah, Aged 50 years Occ. Business R/o H. No. 6_ 1O5l1lN2OA, codavari Homes, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad. 10. B. Ram Reddy, S/o late B. Malla Reddy, Aged 56 years Occ. Business Rl/o 23-6-897 I 4, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad. 11 Gandra Sug-u1q[ar. Rqo, S/o G. Sugreeva Rao, Aged 64 years Occ. Business R/o H. No,7-6-8611, Vidya Nagar, Jagtiat, Dist.

Jagiial. 12 S19 (oya Rajaiah Aged 76 years Occ. Agricutture fo_y^a_ryr]h. o. ly, Rjo H. No. 2- 1-407, Flat No. 103, Shanthi Apartments, N,ltakunta, Hydlrabad, 13. Rao, S/o J_ Ananda Rao, Aged yearc loginipally-H{glder 12 Occ. Business Rl/o H. No. 5-133173 and 74,-Flat No. 301, Venkateshwaia Residency, Roid No. 2, Mangapuram Colony, Old Alwal, Hyderabad. 14. R Lalitha R @ Sandhya. W/o R. Sudhakar, Aged 51 years Occ. Housewife Ryo H. No. '1-7-100l14, Plot No. 112, Reddy Enclave, Tempte Alwat, Secunderabad. 15. B. Ramesh, S/o B. Pentaiah, Aged 48 years Occ. Business FJo H. No. 7-. 13, Balanagar, Shetipally Kalan Mandal, Medak Diskict. 16. M. Narayan Reddy, S/o Hanumanth Reddy, Aqed 12 vears Occ. Aoriculture RJo H. No. 3-5-170, AJ5, Narayanaguda, yMCA, Hyderabad. 1 7. Joginipelly_Raj. Rqo, Slo J. Thirupathi Rao, aged years, 9. op? L 65 Occ: Business, R/o. H. No.. 1 0-1-246, Ramnagar, Karimnagar, Dist: Karimnagar. ...

RESPONOENTS 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 pteased to vacate the interim direction in l. A. No. 1 of 2018 in Wp No. 16424 of 2O1B granted -,/ on 18. 06. 2018 rn and dismiss the writ petition with costs, pr nding disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: 1. Nemar_ugommula Venkateshwar Rao, S/o N. Ranrci lrder Rao, aged 61 years Occ. Business R/o Presidency Avenue, Road Nc. ', A wal, Hyderabad. 2 Patlori Suresh Kumar, S/o P. Hanmanth Rao, Aged 4 2 years Occ. Employee R/o Flat No. 402, Patloori Amrutha Residency, [\. 4arr, 2rpr- ram Colony, 0ld AIwal, Hyderabad. 3 Dr. Vamsi Priya Aravally, W/o Sumanth Balguri Agec l7 l/ears Occ. Doctor Rep b1r her GPA namely Sri. B. Sudhakar Rao Sio ,,,lathar Rao, aged 65 years Orcc.. Business R/o Flat No. 405, Laxmi Ganapatf i \ilayam, part, Central Kompally, Hyderabad. 4.

Devendar Rendla, S/o Mallaiah, Aged 50 years Occ lusiness R/o H. No. 6- 10511|N2OA, Godavari Homes, Jeedimetla, Hyderaba( . . s 5 Ram Reddy, S/o late B. Malla Reddy, Aged Q, 56 ye : Occ. Business Rt/o 23-6-897 / 4, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad. 6. Gandra Sugunakar Rao, S/o G. Sugreeva Rao, Aged 1) years Occ Business Rl/o H. No. 7-6-86/1, Vidya Nagar, Jagtiat, Dist. Jagtiat 7 Koya Anthony, S/o Koya Rajaiah Aged 76 years Occ r Jrictlture R/o H. No. 2- 1-407, Flat No. 103, Shanthi Apartments, Nallakunta, Hy lerabad. 8. Joginipally Harender Rao, S/o J. Ananda Rao, Aged;'j years Occ. Business R/o H. No. 5-1 33173 and 74, Flat No. 301 , Venka-iesh I r. a Residency, Road No. 2, Mangapuram Colony, Old Alwal, Hyderabad. 9. R. Lalitha @ R. Sandhya, W/o R. Sudhakar, Aged 51 ears Occ Housewife H. No. 1 -7-100114, Plot No. '1 12, Reddy ry" EnrtLve, Temple Alwal, Secunderabad. 10. B. Ramesh, S/o B. Pentaiah, Aged 48 years Occ. B r lness R:/o H. No. 7-13, Balanagar, Shetipally Kalan Mandal, Medak District.

11 S/o Hanumanth Reddy, Aged tZ e,ars Occ. Agricutture Y; ry? fy{_Re_d-dy, Rl/o H. No. 3-5-170, AJ5, Narayanaguda, YMCA, HyderaL rJ. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Ra1e9! rya1 Rao, S/o.. Late S. Ramdas. Q. Ar1, ct about 49 years, No. 1-24-282, lndira Nagar Colony, Lothkunta, Alwal ll rr;underabad. 2 Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late S. Ramdas. $ Aged about 4t yeas, cUo. 1-24-282, lndira Nagar Colony, Lothkunta, Alwal, Secunderabad J Dhal Raj, S{o T- Narasimha Rao, aged about years, ! 59 Rl/o. 132-2RT, Prakash Nagar Colony, Begumpet, Secunderabad. 4 H. L. Srinivas, S/o. H. Lakshminatayana, aged about 3 ) years, oUoJ-24-212, lndiara Nagar Colony, Lothukunta, Alwal, Secunderabi r -7 5. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, M. C. H. Buildings, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 6. The Zonal Commissioner of G. H. tV. C, North Zone, Secunderabad. 7. The Deputy Commissioner of G. H. M. C, Commissioner, Alwal Circle 27, Alwal, Secunderabad. 8.

The Sub-Registrar, Registration Office, Vallabh Nagar, Begumpet, Prakash Nagar, Secunderabad. ... RESPONDENTS 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 Vacate the lnterim Order date 18-06-2018 passed in LA. No. 1 of 2018 in W. P. No. l6424 of 2018 the interests of lustice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TARUN G. REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 3: SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC Counsel forthe Respondent No. 4: GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 to 16: SRI T. V. RAMANA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OII TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARIi ALISHETTY "A. NA WRIT PETITION No. 16424 of Z) ! 9 DATED: 27. 01. 2o26 Between: S. Rameshwar Rao and 4 others .. Petitioners AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, M. C. H.

Buildings, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and 3 others. . Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the inact on of respondents in considering the representations dated 02. 12:O1,1, 06. 12. 2013, t7. o2. 20t4, 04. 1,2. 2014, 29. 12. 2014, 05. 01. :t,)t5, 21. 12. 2015, 21. O4. 2OI7 and 25. 1O. 2O 17, submitt6d by l,f r petitioners and allowing illegal constructions in pelitioner's lar-r,l ; to an extent of Acs. 13 22 gts in - Sy. Nos. 592 and 593 part, srt_ rterl at Old Alwal Village (Saibaba Nagar), Alwal Circle, Alwal I landal, Medchal- Maikajgiri District, without any valid permission f r r:n the competent authorit5r as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to he provisions of G. H. M. C Act and for consequential relief. - I,NA,J W. P. No. l6424 of 2018 2 2. Heard Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned Counsel for petitioners, Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. I to 3 and Sri T. V. Ramana Rao, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. S to 16. 3.

L,earned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that originally, one Palla Narsimham, who is the grandfather of petitioners herein was the owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs. 18 - O1 gts, having acquired the same through a compromise decree dated 20. 10. 1978, in a partition suit t,,,ide o. S. No. 8O of 1963, between his brothers; that he executed Family Settlement Deed dated 17. O7. 1980, between himself, his son and 7 daughters, as per which, Ac. 1 OO gts was allotted to each daughter and the remaining to his -son P. Vishwshwar Rao, however the properry u'as not partitioned by metes and bounds and the same ! \. as in joint possession of petitioners' family; that after the demise of Palla Narsimham, as disputes arose between the family members of the petitioners, they were compelled to approach the Court by way of hling a suit uide O. S. No.

206 of 2008, on the hle Principal District Judge, Malkajgiri District, for partition of subject property and the same was pending adjudication. '1 P. No 3 4. Learned Counsel for petitioners furthc-sr. rbmitted petitioners neither sold the subject property to ar y third executed General Power of Attorney (G. P. A) or zLrr. authorization favour of anybody including P. Vishweshwara Rao . r-rd for conversion of subject land from agriculture t I non-agriculture and also not submitted any layout plan before corr otent authorities, I however, several unauthorized persons/encroaarl ri-s sLlbject property and obtained permissions [,)-construction submitting false and fabricated documents arr i rnaking cons[ructions in the subject property. The mu - r:ipal without verifying the title to the property anc link granting permissions for constructions; that pct i ioners several representations dated 02. 12. 2013, 06. 72. 2 ) la',, 04. 12. 2014, 29. 12 2014, 05. 01. 2015, 21,12. 201: . 21. O8.

2O17 25. 10. 2017, to respondents Corporation -j to take rticn illegal constructions being made in the subjecr roperty, same were not considered by the respondents CorJr, r. ation. by the same, present writ petition is filed. 5. Per contra, iearned Counsel for respondent \ ts. lj to submit that respondent Nos. 5 to 16 are bona fidl:1 uLrchasers which are developed in the subject property, hav I gJ paid valid ll/. P. No. 16424 of 2018 4 consideration to their vendors; that the vendors of the respondent Nos. S to 16 started purchasing the subject plots from the year i. e. , much prior to the filing of suit uide O. S. No. 206 of 2OO8 and plot owners formed into a Sociely named as 'Sai Baba Nagar Association' and number of houses were constructed by obtaining building permissions from the respondents Corporation much prior to the interim Orders passed by this Court. He placed on record, copies of registered sale deeds, basing on which, respondent Nos.

S to 16 are claiming right over the subject property- 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 referring to the Counter would submit that the suit hled children of P. Narasimh arr^, uide O. S. No. 206 of 2008, on the Principal District Judge, Malkajgiri District, for partition of property was dismissed on 2l . Oq . 2022, r't'ith the following observation: 'On careful perusal of euidence of P. W. 1 and P. W'2 read tuith Exs. Al to A16 and Exs'B 1 to 825, it categoically established the that plaintiffs ond defendants acted fact theg upon the Fomilg Settlement . Deed, occordinglg conuerted the tand into plots and sold autoy the same are uaious people and that tLte prospectiue purchasers possession of the said land and tlrcre is no land as such suit scLedule propertA and the plaintiffs herein failed of the establish that theg uere not giuen possession land per tfle Familg Settlement Deed as such the plaintiffs are - LV. f'. No.

16424 of 2018 5 entitled ong partition of the for suit schedu,t properties as praged u. then for there is no partition, the qu:;i,. ion of shares does not aise ot aII and issue No. 2 and 3 is n :i'd ogainst the plaintiffs and in fauour of defendant. " 7. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent rlos. 1 to 3 further submits that in view above findings, petitioners a.. r nct the owners of the subject properly; that the total land covered rL Siy. Nos. 592 and 593 is Acs. 27 - 14 gts, whereas, petitioners are clrt rning interest over Acs. 13 22 gts rn - the said survey numbers, and . r 1ve not mentioned the boundaries of the land being claimed by the I ; that unless and until petitioners identify their land on ground ancl 3re,lt a compound wall or fencing, it is very difficult for the responder ts ()orporation for not considering the applications for grant of builclir g permissions.

He further submitted that large number of houses we: ' constructed over the subject property much prior to the interim Orrl rrs passed by this Court and i[ is for the petitioners to safeguard thei prlperty; that as and u. hen a person approaches respondentl; Crrrporation by submitting a copy of registered sale deecl, the respondent Corporation would grant permissions for constrrr: ion based on the prima facie title and possession of such appli r(rnt. He further submitted that petitioners did not furnish z rticulars F of the unauthorized constructions and that the responder ts tlorporation is neither empowered nor dut5r bound to get into the . itle issues of the - W. P. No. l6424 of 2018 6 petitioners and the alleged encroachers and prayed to dismiss the writ petition as the same is devoid of any merit. 8. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding filing of suiL uide O. S. No. 206 of 2008, for partition, by the children of late P.

Narasimham and dismissal of the suit by the trial Court uide Judgment and decree dated 2LO9. 2O22, and though an appeal in A. S. No. 245 of 2023 has been preferred, against the said Judgment before this Court the same is pending adjudication. In the Judgment and decree dated 21. 09. 2022, the trial Court specihcally observed that petitioners' family members acted upon the Family Settlement Deed dated 17. 07 . 1980 and converted the land into plots and sold away the same to third parties ald that prospective purchasers are in possession of their respective plots and there is no land as such of plaint schedule property and thus, the petitioners have no right over the lands in Sy. Nos. 592 and 593 as claimed by them. Even in the writ petition, petitioners neither mentioned the boundaries of the subject propert5r nor gave the details of the encroachers as aileged by petitioners, therefore, without identifying or locating their land, petitioners cannot seek any reiief in the writ petition.

Further, third party rights have already been created in respect of the subject property in the year 2O00 onwards and the subsequent purchasers - lr I'No. 16424 of2018 7 i. e. , respondent Nos. s to 16 after obtaining ne( ( ssary permissions from the respondents Corporation, constructed ,. ouses and are in possession of their respective houses. 9. The respondent Nos. 5 to 16 have placed <,; record, copies of registered sale deeds and building permissions ot t,ained by them in respect of their properties to prove their ownersl- :p and possession and thus, the contention of the petitioners that Jrird parties have encroached upon the subject property and have I ardr: constructions without any valid permissions is untenable. The ret;tioners cannot seek direction to the respondents Corporat < rL not lo granl permissions to third parties in respect of slL rject property by submitting representations, without establishin ; their title and possession over the subject property.

From the re :orC, it is evident that the saies in respect of subject property havr: taken place since 2000 and structr-lres have been raised by thr: purchasers duly obtaining permission from GHMC and whereas, srr : for partition was hled in the year 2OO8. Furthermore, from the co ries of sale deeds and photographs placed on record, it is evident Lhat the subject property has been developed and has been convertr 1 into plots and it is no more an agricultural land even prior to fili rg of the suit for partition, however, in the suit, the subject pr rperty has been . - W. P. No. l6424 of 2018 8 mentioned as agricultural 1and. Though, Appeal in A. S. No. 245 of 2023 is hled aggrieved by the dismissal of suit i. e. , O. S. No. 2O6 of 2008, before this Court and the same is pending adjudication. 10.

It is appropriate to note that it is a settled principle of law that while granting permission for construction, the Commissioner, GHMC has to only consider the prima title and possession facie of the applicant in respect of the property for which permission for construction has been sought for and the Commissioner cannot go into the disputed question of title of the property and adjudicate the same. 11. In Hgderabad. Potteries Priaate Limited u. Collector, Hgd. erabadt the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the Commissioner is not empowered to decide any disputed questions ol title or the ownership over the properfy and he is only entitle to proceed on the basis of prima facie title of the applicant seeking permission. 12. lr K. Pauan Raj o. The Municipal Corporation of Hgderabadz the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that ' zoot il; ,Lt-o ooo '2008 (r) ArD 792 t4/. P. No.

16124 of 2018 9 the Commissioner therefore cannot be compelle<l to decide the title dispute if it is complex in nature and he is entitlc r to proceed on the basis of prima facie title of the applicant for grant r f permission. 13. The Commissioner on being satisfied that tt spondent Nos. 5 to 16 have pima title and possession over ttr subject property, facie -, has granted the building permission. Furthermo , this Court while exercising the ivrit jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot go into disputed question of facts arr [itle disputes and also cannot sit in appeal over the decision o1 a,n administrative aul hority, i. e. , Commissioner in granting permissi: r 14. In the light of foregoing discussion and the egzrl position, this Court is ol the considered opinion that the writ r :r-iU on is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 'lhere shall 15. In the result, the rvrit petition is dismissec. be no Order as to costs. Sd/-C.

DEEPIKA AS S STANT REGISTRAR ,/-.. //TRUE COPY// SETCTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI TARUN G REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI T. V. RAIUANA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI K. RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC l( PU,3l 4. Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, Fi, ir Crourt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies BSR HIGH COURT DATED: 2710112026 t -l: 1 Ii R hl, ( o I ORDER + C) v t ? at1ln? t WP. No. 16424 ot 2018 * . l s! t. : 1 - i-tll' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ao lal*t

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.