IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21863 of 2002 Between: Kosuri Simhachalam, S/o. Late Kannaiah. R/o. Parimi Tatayya Street, Thagarapuvalasa, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., Rep. Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Bheemunipatnam Municipality, Rep. Commissioner. Bheemunipatnam, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 P.Niranjan Reddy, Bheemunipatnam, Municipality, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. M.JAYARAM REDDY FOR MR.V.RAVINDER RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1:AGP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for respondent No.2: MR. S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings in ROC No.1447/2002-G1, dated 26.10.2002, whereby the petitioner’s application for building permission was rejected. On the directions given by this Court for personal appearance, the Commissioner, Bheemunipatnam Municipality, is present in the Court today. Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel, who has taken instructions from him, submitted that in pursuance of the interim injunction granted by this Court on 25.10.2002 in Writ Petition No.19822 of 2002, the petitioner has constructed commercial complex and the same is being utilized. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner’s application for building permission was rejected for the following reasons. (i) though the survey No. of the site is not furnished by the applicant, as per the Lr. L.Dis.No.580/02-C dated 25.9.2002 and the enclosures, it is found that the land in Sy.No.40 is classified as Road Poramboke as per the Settlement Fair Adangal. Hence, as per Sub Section 6 of Section 215 of A.P.M. Act, 1965. This plan need to be rejected on the ground that the site belongs to Government. (ii) In respect of the Building Regulations in Vogue, as per G.O.Ms.No.423 MA, dated 31.7.1998, the minimum front set back required in the Commercial zone below and above 300 Sq.Mtrs is as follows: Width of abutting Road in Mtrs. Minimum Front set back to be left in Mtrs. 1. Upto 12 Mtrs. 2. Above 12 and upto 18 Mtrs. 3. Above 18 Mtrs. 3 Mtrs. 4 Mtrs. 6 Mtrs. As per the VUDA Master Plan the site in question is classified under Commercial Zone and as per the document submitted by the applicant, the site is in between the 80 F1 (24.38 Mtrs.) road i.e. Visakhapatnam – Vizianagaram Road and 60 Ft. (18.28 Mtrs.) road i.e., Tagarapuvalasa – Bheemunipatnam road. Hence, the application has to show front set back of 6 Mtrs each on the both sides i.e., Eastern side & Northern side. But, the extent of the site itself 20.89 Sq.Mtrs., as per the document and the plan. Hence, the plan need be rejected on the ground, that there are no required set backs for the proposed building.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the grounds are unsustainable. As regards the first ground, he placed reliance on the proceedings issued by the District Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam vide R.P.No.494/63, dated 10.10.1964. With regard to the second ground of rejection, the learned counsel relied on G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 15.01.1998 which provides for exemption in respect of the building affected by road widening for maintaining setbacks, if the size of the plot on which the building is constructed is less than 100 sq.meters. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, however, submitted that proceedings, dated 10.10.1964 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner have no relevance and that at any rate, when the property is admittedly classified as road poramboke in the Settlement Fair Adangal, the burden lies on the petitioner to prove his title over the property on which he constructed the building. Under Section 215(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1964, one of the grounds of rejection of permission to raise construction or reconstruction is failure to produce information or a copy of the title deed of the land or link documents, by the petitioner under the Rules or byelaws. The petitioner, when called upon to produce the link documents, while furnishing a copy of the sale deed registered in his favour, informed respondent No.2 that the property was inherited by his vendor’s father though his ancestors and, therefore, there are no link documents of title in existence. The questions as to what is the effect of classification of property as road poramboke and whether the title in respect of the land is vested in the petitioner, require to be examined and adjudicated by the Court of competent jurisdiction after appreciation of evidence to be adduced by both the parties. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to embark upon these questions and give a conclusive finding thereon. The effect of proceedings, dated 10.10.1964 of the District Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, on which, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, requires to be examined by the competent Civil Court while adjudicating on the question of title. Though the Municipality is not entitled to make an intrinsic examination of the title of the parties, the obligation still casts upon the person, who applies for granting of building permission to prima facie satisfy the Municipality about his title and lawful possession. Having regard to the events, which transpired after filing of this writ petition, culminating in completion of construction by the petitioner, I am of the view that interests of justice would be met by disposing of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of his title. Ordered accordingly. For a period of three months from today, the respondents shall not interfere with the building already constructed by the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner is entitled to file a civil suit and seek appropriate interim orders to protect the property till disposal of the civil suit. If the petitioner is able to establish his title in the Civil Court, the respondents shall not interfere with the building already constructed by the petitioner. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th MARCH, 2009. kvni