Mir Asad Sayeed Khan , Asad Khan and 11 others v. The State of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: A.ABHISHEK REDDY

Judgment date: 2020-12-18

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-18. Mir Asad Sayeed Khan , Asad Khan and 11 others v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and...

Judgment text

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: '19040 OF 2020 Between: t. l\'1ir Asad Saycetl l( hnn Asarl Khrrr, S/o. Mir Laiq Ali Klran,. Aged 64 ycars, Occ: Ilusincss, -" IVo. l I. No. l9-5- 11/29, S riuagar Colony, Illllrdurpura, l l1'derlbrr d. 1 Sabiha I{aul, W/o. lirtc AtrdLrl Raul, D/o. late Anrvar Mirzl, Agc<l72 yelrs, Occ: IIorrsovil'e, 'l-arrli I{/o. ll. No. l9-4-29,1/ | 3, N4r:er AIam llesirlc l:idgalr, I-l nh lrlu rprrln, Ilyderabarl. ,) Altoze lleguui, W/o. lltc Asad KIran, D/o. Anrvar Nlirzl, Agctl 67 years, Occ: I lousovife, IVo. l l. No. 20-3-600, Moosa lloivli, I'lussa ini Aianr, I Iyrlerabad. 4 Arshiir Mazhar Khart, W/o. Mohd Mazaruddin Kltan, D/o. late Anrvar Mirza, Aged 66 years, Occ: I-louservile, li/o. [{. No. 3-4-306, I}aghlingampally, I-Iydelabad. J. I'urvcen Kausar Khlu, W/o.

Mohd Nabizar Khan, D/o. Mohnrnurcd Ali Klnn, Agcd 63 Occ: Ilouseivilc, 1,cars, IVo. l l. No. 5-(r-56ti, Narnpalll', I lyderabacl. 6. Asit'l lussain Khan, S/o. late Nrtrvab Ilttssaitr Ali Khan, Agcd 72 years, Occ: lltrsirte'ss, Il/o. Flat No. 20-5, 2"'r Itloor, Gulslrrn Apts. , 'lank, lvlnsab I l1'dcrahud. Narvatr liarot. rtl Iltrssuin l(han @ Narvab larooq I ktssain Khan, S/o. latc Nnrvirb I Itrssain Ali Khan, Agctl 55 ycars, Occ: IJrrsirrcss, lVo. lI. No. ti-2-603/,1/t. l/l), I{ourl No. I0, lbralrinr Nagar, Ilarr. iara I lills, I'l1,derabad. 8. Adceb Unnisa Ilcgtrm, W/o. Shabbir Jah Ilahadur, D/o. Narvab Ilussain Ali Khan, Agcrl 67 ycrrs, Occ: I lorrselroltl. R/o. l LNo. l0-4- I3l7, 3"r Irloor, Lakshnri Nilayam Apts. , Masab Tank, Ilytlerabad. A x Y . *4 ) 9 Talath Begurn @ Talath Unnisa Begum, Wo. lmdad Jah Bahadur. D/o. late Mir Laiq Ali Khan & Quamarunnisa Bcgum, Aged 72 ycars, Occ: Houscwitb, R/o. I{. No. 8-2-67 6 I I / Cl A, Royal Court, Road No. l3, Banjara Flills, Hyderabad.

10. Ahtned Sayeed Khan, S/o. Mir Laiq Ali Khan, Aged 65 years, Occ: Busincss, Rio. H. No. 1 9-5-17 129, Sritagar Colony, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. I i. Sajid Ullah Khan, S/o. Mir Laiq Ali Khan, Aged 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 19-5-17l29, Srinagar Colony, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. The Petitioncrs 1 to l1 are represcnted by GPA holders who are as tbllows: I Goukaran Singh, S/o. late Pratap Singh, Agcd 48 years, Occ: Busincss, IVo. l-I. No. 14- I l-264,Upper Dhoolpet, Mangalhat, I-lyderabad, Telangana State. "l. lLatan 2 T. Vijay Singh, S/o. latc Singh, Agcd 48 years, Occ: llusincss, R/o. FI. No. 1 4- I 1 - 1 50, Mangalhat, Flydcrabad, Telangana Statc. 3 V. C. Purushotlram, S/o. late V. G. Kurmaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ: I3usiness, R/o. H. No. 1 5-7-435, Begurn Bazar, Flyderabad, Telangana State. 4 G. Mahender, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged 56 years, Occ: Business, IVo. H. No. I l -3-3 57ll 0, Shabazguda, Srinivas Nagar, Sithaphalmandi, Secunderabad, Telangana State. 5. Uttam Chand Jain, S/o.

Mangilal Jain, Agcd 61 ycars, Occ: Business, R/o. FLNo. 6- l-268, Hyderabad, Telangana Statc. 12. Mehcrunnisa Beguur, Wo. Narvab Syed Juffar, D/o. Narvab llussain Ali Khan. Aged 66 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H. No. 207lA, MLA Colony, Banjara Hills, Road No. 12, Flydcrabad. ... PETITIONERS AND i. The State ofTelangana, Rcp. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration & - Urban Development Departmellt, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana. r,ta t 2 GIIMC, I{ep, by its Couunissioner, It<t(. q|itir l'ank Ilund, Hydcrubad. 'l'hc l Dcputy Conr rn iss ior r cr, Circle 14, GI'INIC, I Iydcrabad. 4 Smt. Zelira Khltoon, Wo. Moharnmcd Moazam Khan, Aged 46 years, Occ: not known, Wo. 10-2-289141, Shanthi Nagar, Mrsab Tank, Ilyrlcrabatl. 5. Molrarnmcd Moazarn Khan, S/o. Mohanl:red Nasecb Khan, Agcd 50 ycars, Occ: not krrorvn, R/o. l0-2-289/41, Shanthi Nagar, Masab Tank, I Iydcrabad. 6 Sntt. Sltad Khatoon, Wo. I)crvcz Ahntetl Khan, Aged 60 ycars, Oco: not knorvn, lU o.

2-2-1 6 l Al l, Oslrnnn ia Univcrsit), ltord, D. D. Colorry, I ll,tlcrrbatl. 1. Molranrnrcd I Iydcr Khan, S/o. Mohanrrned Adli Khan, Agcd 4l ycars, Occ: not known, IVo. 3-6- I (r2, I Il,rlcrgudr, I lyclcrabad. ,9 lvlohanrmcd I Iussain Khan, S/o. Mohamn'rcd Adli Klian, Agcd 39 years, Occ: not knorvn, R/o. 3-6-i62, I lytlcrguda, Llyderabad. 9. Nilarnatl Mohanrnicd Klran, S/o. Mohatnmed Adli Khan, Agcd 44 years, Occ: rrot knorvn, IVo. 3-6-162, I'lyrlcrguda, I'lyderabad. Prcscntly rcsiding at U SA. (I{espondcnts 6 to 9 lrc i{cp. by their GI'A holdcr, Moltanrurcd Moazanr Khan, S/o. Mohanuned Naseeb Khan, lVo. l0-2-289/41, Shanthi Nagar, Masab Tank, I lydcrabad, tlre 5rl' rcspondcnt herein. ) ...

R]]SPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased lo issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting our objections vide proceedings No. 11C14102223120201721, dated 051-12-10-2020 and consequently granting permission for construclion vide building permit No. 1/C14110850/2020, dated 1211012020 in favour of the respondents 4 to I as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and direct the 2nd respondent not to grant any permission to respondents 4 to 9 in respect of premises bearing '1 D. Nos.

881(old) new 5-7-391 , 392/4, 393, 394, 39411, 394/A, 3941A11, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401 and 402 with attached mulgies situated at Begumbazar, Hyderabad NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be interim suspension of the building permit No. 1/c 14t1o}5ol2o2o, dated pending disposal of the above writ petition COMMON C. T. FOR t. A. NOS. 2 /' & 3 OF 2020: Between: l. Smt Zehra Khatoon Wo Mohammed Moazam Khan Aged 46 years Occ not known No 10-2-289141 Slianthi Nagar Masab Tank Hyderabad 2. Mohammed Moazam Khan S/o Moharnmed Naseeb Khan Aged 50 years Occ not known No 10-2-289141 Shanthi Nagar Masab Tank Hyderabad 3. Smt Shad Khatoon W/o Pervez Ahmed Khan Aged 60 years No 2-2-161Nl Osmania University Road D D Colony Hyderabad 4. Mohammed Hyder Khan S/o Mohammed Adli Khan Aged 41 years No 3-6-162 Hyderguda Hyderabad ! ---_- 5. Mol.

ramrned Hussain Khan S/o Moharnmed Adli Khan Aged 39 years Occ not known R/o 3-6-162 Hyderguda Hyderabad 6. Nilamath Mohammed Khan S/o Mohammed Adli Khan Aged 44 years Occ not known R/o 3-6-162 Hyderguda Hyderabad Presently residing at USA Respondents 1 to 5 are Rep by their GPA holder Mohammed Moazam Khan S/o Mohammed Naseeb Khan No 10-2-289/41 Shanthi Nagar Masab Tank HYderabad '- RESPPK;,,",il1T AND 1. Mir Asad Sayeed Khan Asad KhanS/o Mir Laiq Ali Khan Aged 64 years Occ Business R/o H No 19-5-17129 Srinagar Colony Bahadurpura Hyderabad 2. Sabiha Rauf Wo late Abdul Rauf D/o late Anwar Mirza Aged 721,ears Occ Housewife R/o H No 19-4-294113 Meer Alam Tank Beside Eidgah Bahadurpura Hyderabad 3 . Afroze Begum Wo late Asad Khan D/o Anwar Mirza Aged 67 years Occ Housewife R/o H No 20-3-600 Moosa Bowli Hussaini Alam Hyderabad 4. Arshia Mazhar Khan Wo Mohd Mazaruddin Khan D/o late Anwar Mitza Aged 66 years Occ Housewife R. /o H No 3-4-306 Baghlingampally Hyderabad @ 5.

Parveen Kausar Khan Wo Mohd Nabizar Khan D/o Mohammed Ali Khan Aged 63 years Occ Housewife R/o H No 5-6-568 Nampally Hyderabad 6. Asif Hussain Khan S/o late Nawab Hussain Ali Khan Aged 72 years Occ Business R/o Ilat No 205 2'd Floor Gulshan Apts Masab Tank Hyderabad 7. Nawab Farooq Hussain Khal Sio late Nawav Hussain Ali K. lran, aged 55 yrs Occ: Business No 8-2-603114lB Road No. 10, Ibrahimnagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 8. Adeeb Unnisa Begum Wo Shabbir Jah Bahadur D/o Nawab Hussain Ali Khan Aged 67 years Occ Household R/o H No 10413/7 3rd Floor Lakshmi Nilayam Apts Masab Tank Hyderabad 9. Talath Begum Talath Unnisa Begum Wo Imdad Jah Bahadur Dio late Mir Laiq Ali Khan and Quamarunnisa Begum Aged72 years Occ I{ouservife R/o Il No 8-2-67611lC/A Royal Court Road No l3 Ban jara Hills Hyderabad l0. Ahmed Sayeed Khan S/o Mir Laiq Ali Khan Aged 65 years Occ Business R-/o H No l-9-517129 Slinagar Colony Bahadurpura Hyderabad I 1.

Sajid Ullah Khan S/o Mir Laiq Ali Khan Aged 6l years Occ Business R/o l-l No l-9-517129 Srinagar Colony Bahadurpura Hyderabad Petitioners I to l l are represented by GI'A holders who are as follows 1) Goukaran Singh S/o late Pratap Singh Aged 48 years Occ Business R/o H No 14-11-264 Upper Dhoolpet Mangalhat Hyderabad Telangana State 2) T Vijay Singh S/o late T Ratan Singh Aged 48 years Occ Business R/o H No I4-11-150 Mangalhat Hyderabad Telangana State 3) V G Purushotham S/o late V G Kunnaiah Aged 50 years Occ Business RJo H No l5-7-435 Begum Bazar Hyderabad Telangana State 4) G Mahender S/o Yellaiah Aged 56 years Occ Business fuo H No l-13-357/10 Shabazguda Srinivas Nagar Sithaphalmandi Secunderabad Telangana State 5) Uttam Chand Jain S/o Mangilal Jain Aged 61 years Occ Business R/o H No 61268 Hyderabad Telangana State l2. Meherunnisa Begum W/o Nawab Syed Juffar D/o Nawab Flussain Ali Khan Aged 66 years Occ I Iousehold R/o H No 207lA MLA Colony Banjara Hills Road No l2 Hyderabad ..

RESPONDENTS PETITIONERS I -II C 13. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, ,f Telangana. { l4. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 15. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle No. 14, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. .... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 lA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 interim orders dated 0211112020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No '1 9040 of 2020 IAN oF 20 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 receive the sale documents Nos.

368 of 1959, 577 of 1959, 231 of 2001 ,1392 of 2004 Town Survey register and the photographs in the above Writ Petition for proper adjudication of the case in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C. RAGHU Counsel for Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI N. ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 9: SRI S. NIRANJAN REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI C. NARESH REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ULB]I JEIIUaT_No. 1eo4o of 2o2Q ORDER: This writ petition is liled seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No. 2-the Commissioner, GHMC, in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners uide proceedings No. rlC14 10222312020 172r, dated 05ll2. t0. 2O2O, and consequently granting permission for construction uide building permit No. I C14 10850/ I I 2020, dared 12. 10. 2020, in favour of re spondent Nos.

4 to 9, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioners, who are being represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder, in brief, is that they are the o\\'ners and possessors of the propert]' knorvn as 'Devcli I3e grrmbzrzar' bcaring D. No. 88 I (old), Nerv Nos. l5-7-. ]9 I . 392 I A, 393, 394, 394 I r, 391 394 400, lA, lAlr, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 4C 1 and 402 u,ith altached mulgies situated at l3egumbazar, Hl,derabad. The petitioners are claiming rights over the subject property through one Smt. Rahmathunnisa Begum. The said Rahmathunnisa Begum sold the subject property in favour of her daughter Smt. Zahoorunnisa Begum under a registered sale deed. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the said Smt. Zahoorunnisa Begum. The petitioners state that respondent Nos. 4 to 9, who do not have any right or interest over the subject property, have labricatcd seven gift deeds in relation to the subject property and approached respondent No. 2 lor building permission.

Aggrieved by Lhe steps initiated b1' rcspondent No. 2 for grant of building permission, petltioner No. 1. 2 approached 1. his Court and lileci '2O2O, W. P. No. 77O. ( of and this Court uide oldcr daLed 08. 06. 2O2O \-a disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No. 2 to consider the objections raised by the petitioner therein while considering the application for building permission of respondent No. 4 therein. However, respondent No. 12, n'ithout compll,ing with the directions issued by this Court in the said order, has granted building permission in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 9 on Ol. O7. 2O2O. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner No. 12 filed W. P. No. 10248 of 2O2O and this Court uide order dated 14. O7. 2O2O has suspended the building permission dated Ol . O7 . 2O2O. Subsequently, this Court uide common order dated 07 . O9. 2O2O disposed of W. P. No. 10248 of 2O2O along with W. P. No.

11633 of 2020, which was filed by one of the petitioners herein, directing respondent No. 2 to consider the objections and thereafter pass orders. According to the petitioners, petitioner Nos. 1 to 1 1 filed O. S. Nos. 1289 to 1295 of 2O2O before XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for cancellation of the seven gilt deeds relied upon by respondent No. 4 for the purposc o[ claiming rights and the Court below granted status quo orders on 16. 07 . 2O2A and the same are being cxtended from time to time. While so, respondent No. 2 issued notices to the petitioners for conducting hearing on 79. 09. 2020 and the petitioners have submitted their objections to the said notices. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No. 2 uide impugned order, dated 05/12. 1O. 2020, has rejected their objections, and on the very same day, granted building permission in favour of the unofficial respondents. Hence, this writ petition. On 02. ll.. 2O2O, this Court, u.

hile issuing notice before admission, has suspended the building permission. Respondent Nos. 4 to t have filed l. A. No. 2 of 2020 seeking to vacate the interim order granted by this Courr on 02. ll. 2O2O. A counter-affidavit is filed along with the vacate stay application denying the petition averments and stating that late Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung, late Nawab Mandoor Khan and late Nawab Mohd. Doulath Khan were brothers and owners of different properties in different Districts and so also the property known as 'Bahadur Yar Jung Devdi' situated at Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. The said Bahadur Yar Jung and his wile Smt. Noor Alam Khatoon being issueless adopted Smt. Khanna Khatoon D/o. Nawab Mohd. Doulath Khan and Mohd. Naseeb Khan S/o. Late Mandoor Khan. Subsequently, Nau,ab Mohd. Doulath Khan filed a suit being O. S. No. 16 ol 1961 seeking partition of the said property and the same \\,as decreed. That Smt. Noor Alam Khatoon, W/o.

Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung has sold the mulgies bearing Municipal Nos. 15- 7 -391 , l5-7 -392, lr-7 -392 I A and I 5-7-393 admeasuring 1 74 square yards, u,hich lallen to her share in 'Bahadur Yar Jung Devdi', in favour of her son - Nawab Naseeb Khan, who in turn, gifted the same to his son, Mohd. Moazam Khan under registered gift deed dated 14. 12. 1981. That Mohd. Naseeb Khan, the elder son of Mandoor Khan, who was adopted by Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung, filed O. S. No. 657 of i983 on the file of the Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, seeking administration of Estate of the deceased Nawab Mandoor Khan in respect of the properties left by him including the properties which were orally . gifted by late Mohd. Mandoor Khan to his children including Mohd. o-' Adli Khan, and the said suit was decreed partl1,. That the said Mohd. Adli Khan has executed four different gift deeds in favour of his children. That the names of the predecessors of respondent Nos.

4 to 9 $,ere mutated as owners of the said properties and they have been paying the property tax, and that the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 9 were also mutated in the municipal records. It is further stated that respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject properties since more than four decades and that they themselves and their predecessors-in-title are enjoying the subject properties. The property being claimed by them and the petitioners is totally different. The petitioners have not filed a single scrap of paper showing their possession over the schedule property and also failed to produce or lile an iota of paper showing co-relation ol old house numbers and neu, numbers. It is lurther stated that if thc interim order dated 02. 11. 2020 is not vacated, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 u,ould be put to great loss and hardship. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners stating that the right of Rahamunnisa Begum, W/o.

Kamal Yar Jung is independent. The fact that she sold the property under registered sale deed to Smt. Zahoorunnisa Begum itself shows that late Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung is no way connected with the subject property. It is stated that Nawab Mohammad Mandoor Khan does not have any right in the property and therefore, the persons claiming right through him do not have any valid title. That the petitioners are no way connected ra,ith O. S. No. 657 ol 1983 and the alleged oral gifts do not have any legal sanctity and that the appeal filed against the decree passed in the said suit is E C pending before this Court. It is also stated that the gift deeds executed by Mohd. Adli Khan in favour of his children do not disclose any link title, and therefore, seven suits have been filed to cancel the said gift deeds. That respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are now trying to claim 'l{amal Yar Zung Devdi' as 'lSahadur Zung Devdi'.

'l'hat the old r-rumbers/ neu' numbers and the boundaries are in consonance witl-i thc contenLs of the sale dccd Doc. No. 926l1328 Fasli. It is lurther stated that the unofficial respondents are wrongly identifying the property and since it is a complex issue, the same cannot be adjudicated by the Corporation and that since suits are already filed, the Corporation ought to have directed the parties to get adjudicated the issue before the Civil Court in pending cases instead of passing the impugned order. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No. 1, Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri S. Niranjar-r Reddv, learned Senior Counsei appearing on behall of Sri C. Naresh lReddy, lcarned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 9. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage oI admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the objections of the petitioners is manifestly illegal since no reasons have been assigned for such rejection of objections. Learned. counsel has further stated that when respondent No. 2 came to the conclusion that he is not the competent authoriry, he ought to have relegated the parties to Civil Court; that the seven gift deeds relied upon by \-the unofficial respondents are silent with regard to the tracing of the title; that it is simply mentioned that the donor in the gift deed had been given an oral gift by his father, and that no particulars with regard to the alleged oral gift have been mentioned in the gift deed. Learned counsel has further stated that though it was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 with regard to the pendency of the seven suits and passing of stalus quo orders in the said suits, the same has not been mentioned in the impugned order.

Learned counsel has further stated that the building permission has been granted in favour of the unofficial respondents on thc very same day the impugned order of rejectiorr was passed, and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand. Sri S. Niranjan i? ecidr', iearned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri C. Naresh Redd5,, learneci counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 9, sought to sustain the impugned order stating that respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are the ow,ners of the subject properties and that the petitioners have not filed a single scrap of paper showing their possession over the schedule property and that there is no iota of evidence showing co-relation of old house numbers and new numbers, and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the wrjt pel,itjon. A perusal of the record discloses that earlier when respondent Nos. 4 to 9 approached respondent No. 2 for building permission, petitioner No. 12 herein approached this Court and filed W. P. No.

77O7 of 2O2O, and this Court, on O8. 06. 2020, has passed the following order: "In that u{ew of the matter, tle Wrtt Petition deserues to be allowed with a direction to the Corporation to consider the specifi. c objections ratsed bg tlrc petitioner with respect to the subject properta whtle consideing the Application for permission bA the 4rh respondent. At this stage, stnce no prejudtce would be caused to the 4tn respondent, it is not necessary Io issue ang notice as this Court ts not expressing any opinion Luith regard to merits of the matter or the claim of the petitioner. cts il tuould be tuithit the power and . jurtsdiction of the Muntcipal Commissioner Lo examine the . some Ho*,ever, llespondent No. 2, rnsread of complying u,ith the order passed b1, this Court in W. P. No. 7707 of 2020, granted building permission to the unofficial respondents. Therefore, petitioner No. 12 again approached this Court and filed W. P. No. 10248 of 2O2O and this Court, on 74. O7 .

2O2O, has granted an interim order suspending the said permission. Subsequently, W. P. No. lO248 of 2020 was disposed of along with W. P. No. 1 1633 of 2O2O by common order dated 07. O9. 2O2O, the operative portion of which reads as under: "Since as on today, there is no permission granted in fawsur of a n1,' of the partie. s b," GllMC, thc parlies cannol prctceed making . fitrther c:onsn'uctions in respect oI the sub. ject f'ont properly, till the ohiectbns are considered and a dccilsion is taken by the Contmisioncr-2"'t respondent jbr g1anting perntission, as directed in lI'. P.. \o. 7707 of 2020. withitt u perk tyf three weeks date ol rcceipt o/ a copy tt/ this order. It is open the Ji'om the Jbr parlies to rttise all objectitsns be/ore lhe 2nd respondent. " Pursuant to the said common order passed b1, this Court on 07 . 09. 2020, respondent No. 2 had issued notices to the petitioners for conducting hearing on 19 . O9 . 2020, and thereafter passed the order dated O5112. 10.

2020 rejecting the objections filed by the B petitioners, and subsequently, granting building permission in favour of the unofficial respondents on 12. lO. 2O2O. Admittedly, the respondent Corporation is not a competent authority to decide the title aspects. But, if the applicant is seeking building permission and produces valid title deeds, the Corporation can look into the same and grant building permission in his/her favour. In the instant case, respondent No. 2 has granted building permission in favour of the unoflicial respondents alter looking into the pima title onl1". Merelv granting of facie building permission will not take at,a1'thc right, titlc or interest of the rival claimants. It is well accepted principle of larv that u,here serious disputed questions of title or facts are involved, it is only the competent Civil Court which can give a finding regarding the title, possession etc. , based on the evidence on record.

The authorities under the GHMC Act do not have the power to decide the title to the property where two rival claimants are seriously disputing the title of one another. Neither the Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner of the Municipal has the jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between two or more rival parties in respect of the immovable properties. It is only the Civil Courts that have the exclusive domain and jurisdiction to adjudicate the right/ title/dispute between the rival parties in respect of the immovable properties, It is only the Civil Court which can record the evidence and taking into account the oral and documentary evidence adjudicate the rights of the parties. The role of thc Municipal Commissioner is onlv to see if the party applying lor building permission is having pima title or not and whether focie the building plan submitted are in accordance with the Act, Rules, By-laws, and various G. Os. , issued from time to time.

Ultimately, if a decree is passed by a Civil Court, the same is not only binding on the parties but also the Municipal and Revenue authorities. The Three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Nathal, at para 14, has held as under: "We are also of the optnion that the Commissioner should not haue gone into the question of title. It seems to r-rs i that when the title of an occupant is disputed" bg ary1 partg before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dtspute ts serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner Luould be to refer the parlies to a competent Court and not to decide the questton of tttle himself against the occupant.

" In view of the above proposition of lau, neither the authorities under the GHMC Act nor the High Court under Article 226 of th-e Constitution of India can intervene where serious disputed questions of title or facts are involved, the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the Civil Court. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any merit to interfere n,ith the impugned order. However, it is made clear that an]'construction made rvill be subject to the linal rcsult ol rl-re O. S. Nos. 1289 to 129,; of 2O2O pending on thc file of the XXI Junior Civrl Judge, Citl,Civil Court, Hrvderabad. lt is also made clear that any observations and findings made in this order are for the purpose of deciding this writ petition only and should not be construed as giving any finding on merits or r(1969) 2 SCC 187 demerits on the title of the parties.

In case, any civil suit is filed, the Civil Court should decide the case on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations or findings recorded in this writ petition. Subject to the above observations, the rvrit petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- M. MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ 'r: '/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri C Raghu Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT) 4. One CC to Sri N. Ashok Kumar, SC for GHMC (OPUC) 5. One CC to Sri C. Naresh Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) 6. Two CD Copies MBC I HIGH COURT DATED: 1811212020 1 He s I4 ( o o 29DEt 2Pg c * t) . \ 'r C ^ ORDER WP. No. 19040 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ($/. €c,rPla4 )r-f\r',{- "A

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.