IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7540 of 2005 Between: 1 G. Aruna Devi, W/o. P. Krishnaiah, R/o. Flat No. 104, Krishna Residency, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 2 A. Ramudu, S/o. A. Yellappa, R/o. 8-2-750/A/2, Balanagar, 1st Lancer, Hyderabad. 3 T. Ankamma, S/o. Lashmanna, R/o. SI-110, Sanchivalayanagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. 4 T. Vikram, S/o. T. Sarvaiah, R/o. 13-1-391, R.K. Pet, Mangalghat, Hyderabad. 5 T. Ashok Kumar, S/o. T. Sarvaiah, Mangalghat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner Appeals, Urban Land Ceilings, Nampalli Station Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Special Officer and Competant Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Hyderabad. 4 Smt. A. Bharathi, W/o. A. Bharath Reddy, R/o. 13-6-439/5, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. 5 M. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. not known to the petitioners, R/o. 13-6-439/5, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. .....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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the orders passed by he 1st respondent vide Lr. No. 634/CSC/TP4/MCH/2005 dated 26-2-2005 refusing to revoke the permission granted in favour of 4th and 5th respondent vide Permit No. B4/29 in File No. 634/CPC/TP4/2003 at premises No. 13-6-439/A/5, Plot No. 2 Situated at Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently set a side the permit No. B4/29 in File No. 634/CPC/TP4/2003 and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondents : R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the orders, dated 26th February 2005, issued in Letter No.634/CSC/TP4/MCH/ 2005, by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. 2. The 1st respondent-Corporation has granted permissions in favour of respondents 4 and 5 for construction of a building as contemplated under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 in the approved lay out covered by Survey No.135//1. The area upon which permissions are granted so far as respondents 4 and 5 are concerned is, 452 sq.yards and 516 sq.yards respectively. On the ground that respondents 4 and 5 have misrepresented and obtained permissions for construction, the petitioners have filed a representation before the 1st respondent-Commissioner. Alleging that respondent No.1 was not considering the said representation, dated 3rd January 2005, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing writ petition No.207 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order, dated 28th January 2005, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation, dated 3rd January 2005, filed by the petitioners. 3. In view of the directions issued by this Court in writ petition No.207 of 2005, the representation of petitioners was rejected by recording a finding that in support of the claim of petitioners in Survey No.135/2 to the extent of 4046 sq.metres, they have not filed any registered sale deed. Further, it is also recorded that the land in respect of which permissions are granted in favour of respondents 4 and 5, is covered by approved lay out in Plot No.22. 4. In this writ petition, the impugned order is questioned mainly on the ground that when the land of petitioners was wrongly shown in the declaration filed by the original owner under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the petitioners have carried the matter by way of appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, and the appellate authority has passed interim orders, dated 07.04.2004, in CCLA Ref.No.Hyd/27/ 2004, directing the parties to maintain status quo. Inspite of the same, respondents 4 and 5 have misrepresented and obtained permissions for construction. 5. I have perused the order of the Special Officer and competent authority, dated 29th August 2003, passed in Proceedings No.B2/8220 to 8222/76. So far as the land claimed by respondent No.4 is concerned, it is to the extent of 378 sq.metres, covered by Survey No.135/1 of Gudimalkapur village, which was purchased by her by way of a Registered Sale Deed in document No.1705 of 1976, dated 5th of July 1976. The said area was deleted from the computation of surplus land. Further, the area purchased by respondent No.5 is out of the retainable area allotted to the declarants. It is not in dispute that the claim of purchase by the petitioners is in Survey No.135/2, whereas the land claimed by respondents 4 and 5 is in Survey No.135/1. Even with regard to the land in Survey No.135/2, the petitioners claim to have obtained a decree in a suit for specific performance against their vendor, but there is no registered sale deed yet. The land claimed by respondents 4 and 5 is out of Survey No.135/1, and the said area is not part of excess land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, therefore, it cannot be said that the permissions obtained by respondents 4 and 5 are by means of any misrepresentation as contemplated under Section 450 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Further, it is also to be noticed that respondents 4 and 5 were not parties to the appeal filed by the petitioners before the appellate authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. In that view of the matter, any orders passed by the appellate authority, are also not binding on respondents 4 and 5. In the absence of any communication of such orders, it cannot be said that there was misrepresentation by respondents 4 and 5 while seeking permissions for construction. As much as the petitioners are claiming land in Survey No.135/2 based on a decree obtained by them, for which, sale deed is not executed, they have no locus to question the permissions granted in favour of respondents 4 and 5. In any event, it cannot be said that either there is any misrepresentation or fraud in obtaining permissions by respondents 4 and 5 from the 1st respondent-Municipal Corporation. When the application for grant of permission was supported by approved plan and the registered sale deed in support of title, having considered the prima facie title and approved lay out, the said authority has granted permissions. In that view of the matter, there are absolutely no merits in the representation filed by the petitioners for revocation of permissions granted to respondents 4 and 5, and I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner, rejecting the representation filed by the petitioners. However, if there are any civil disputes pending between the parties, the same cannot be decided by the authority under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and it is rightly observed by the competent authority that if there are any civil disputes, it is open for the petitioners to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of their grievances. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th April 2009. ajr