IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6101 of 2004 Between: G. Dayakar, S/o. Krishnaiah, R/o. MIG 23-B, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 008. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Prinicipal Secretary, UD & MA Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Circle V, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 4 The Housing Board, rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Gruhakalpa Building, Nampally Road, Hyderabad. R-4 is impleaded as per Court Order Dated 9-4-2004 in W.P.M.P.No. 8362 of 2004. ....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or directions particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to approve the plan as per the Municipal Corporation Act, its by laws and its records by declaring the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, much less violative of article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, discriminative in nature, malafide and consequently set aside the letter No. 396/2/10/22/1/7/2003 dated 21-4- 2003 as well as the letter bearing No. 396/2/10/22/1/7/2003, dt. 1-9- 2003 of the 3rd respondent, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed, questioning the order, dated 21.04.2003, issued in letter No.396/2/10/22/1/7/2003 by 3rd respondent, and further order, dated 01.09.2003, issued in letter No.396/2/10/22/1/7/2003 by 3rd respondent, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of building permission. 2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of house property, bearing No.7-1-396/2/10/22, with appurtenant land admeasuring 300 square yards, in survey Nos. 102 and 102/2, situated at B.K. Guda, Balkampet, Hyderabad and he purchased the said property from one Sri Gopi Kishan Shankala by a registered sale deed, dated 03.01.1996, vide bearing document No.16/96. Subsequently, he has applied for building permission on 22.03.2003 to the Assistant City Planner, Town Planning Section, Circle V, Hyderabad-3rd respondent, but the same was rejected by the impugned proceedings, basing on the letter of the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, issued in proceedings No. A5/TS/75/2003, dated 18.02.2003. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have not examined the documents produced by him in support of his title, and merely basing on the letter of the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, his application for building permission was rejected. The petitioner seeks to rely on a Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.22046 of 2003, wherein, rejection of the request for building permission by recording similar reasons, is disapproved by this Court. It is also submitted that though it is stated in the letter of the Inspector of Survey and Land Records that the land in question, on which building permission is sought for by the petitioner, belongs to the A.P. Housing Board, but the petition filed by the Housing Board before the competent Authority under the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956 was also dismissed by an order, dated 03.02.1989. 4. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. However, it is submitted by Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that as much as there are no supporting documents in proof of title to the petitioner, and further, as it was stated in the letter of the Inspector of Survey and Lands Records, dated 18.02.2003, that the land in question belongs to the A.P. Housing Board, the application of the petitioner for building permission was rejected. 5. In a Judgment of this Court in the case of Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. the Collector, Hyderabad District[1], a learned Single Judge of this Court held that as per the scheme of the provisions under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955, the Commissioner has to take an independent decision as to whether permission is to be granted or not. In the said Judgment, it is also held that with reference to interpretation of Section 13 of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act 1923, entries made in Town Survey and Land Records are not conclusive proof of ownership, and permission to construct a building cannot be refused on the mere ground that the land is a Government land as per the entries of Town Survey and Land Records. 6. Coming to the case on hand also, the rejection appears to be based on the letter addressed by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, stating that as per the entries in Town Survey and Land Records, the land in question belongs to the A.P. Housing Board. In view of the Judgment referred to above, the only reason assigned in the impugned rejection orders, is unsustainable. 7. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased the land through a registered sale deed from his vendor by name Gopi Kishan Shankala, and further, there is also an order by the competent Authority under the provisions of the A.P. Housing Board Act, dismissing the petition filed by the A.P. Housing Board, but the ownership of the land is to be examined by the competent Authority i.e. the Commissioner, for grant of permission. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order, dated 21.04.2003, issued in letter No.396/2/10/22/1/7/2003 by 3rd respondent, and further order, dated 01.09.2003 issued in letter No.396/2/10/22/1/7/2003 by 3rd respondent, are set aside and respondents 2 and 3 are hereby directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh, by considering the documents filed in support of his title and possession, for grant of building permission, and to take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also open for the petitioner to file any other documents and also enclose a copy of the judgment referred to above before the 2nd respondent, for grant of permission. Till a decision is taken by respondents 2 and 3 pursuant to this order, status-quo as on today shall be maintained with regard to the structures on the disputed land. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd July, 2009 YVL/CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6101 of 2004 23rd July, 2009 YVL/CBS [1] 2001 (3) ALD 600