THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 17027 of 2006 04-02-2008 Between: K. Rakesh Reddy and another. Petitioners And L.B. Nagar Municipality, rep., by its Commissioner, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy district, Presently Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, L.B. Nagar division, Hyderabad and others. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 17027 of 2006 Oral Order: The petitioners two in number assert to be the owners and in possession of plot Nos. 141, 142, 143 and 144 ad-meaasuring 2184 square yards situated in survey No.101/18 of Nagole village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. They claim title to the property under a registered sale deed in their favour dated 02-05-1991 from the original owner and pattedar. They also claim to be the owners of an extent of 300 square yards in plot No. 72 in survey numbers 101/14, 101/15 and 101/17 of the same village and mandal on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 16-07-1992. After purchase of the above extent of lands, the petitioners submitted a building application on 13-04-2005 proposing construction of a multi-storied residential apartments comprising stilt plus five floors. They claim to have paid the stipulated charges, development and others including the lay out fee. They approached the second respondent for a technical sanction. The second respondent accorded technical sanction on 30-09-2005. The petitioners assert that pursuant to the technical sanction, the L.B. Nagar Municipality, which was then an independent Municipality and is now a component of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (the 1st respondent), is required to consider their building permission application and pass appropriate orders thereon. On further enquiries however the petitioners learnt that the second respondent by a subsequent letter dated 15-05-2006 addressed to the first respondent had withdrawn and cancelled the technical sanction dated 30-09-2005 earlier granted by the second respondent. The order dated 15-05-2006 states that the Director of Town and Country Planning had addressed a letter to the 5th respondent stating that the lands in survey Nos. 101/1 to 101/20 of Nagole village under L.B. Nagar Municipality are government/assigned lands and requested the Government to direct the municipal authorities to cancel all permissions issued in the assigned lands. On the basis of this letter addressed by the Director of Town and Country Planning to the 5th respondent, the second respondent unilaterally and without notice and opportunity to the petitioners, cancelled the technical sanction granted in respect of their applications for building permission, assailing which the present writ petition is filed seeking a consequential relief of directing the first respondent to release the building permissions in their favour. This Court by an order dated 01-10-2007 after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties as well as the learned Advocate General, who had appeared for the second respondent – Urban Development Authority, prima facie recorded a finding that the order dated 15-05-2006 cancelling the technical sanction earlier granted was unsustainable as it was without notice and opportunity to the petitioners. This Court also found that the petitioners were not sensitized by the Revenue authorities as to any dispute with regard to the title to the property which they had purchased and therefore the unilateral communication by the Director of Town and Country Planning to the Revenue Department without even intimation of it to the petitioners, could not legitimize any action by the second respondent, of withdrawal of a technical sanction already granted. This Court also noted the submission made on behalf of the second respondent by the learned Advocate General that the second respondent would withdraw its order dated 15-05-2006 and would issue an appropriate notice to the petitioners within a fortnight from the date of order (01-10-2007). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the second respondent that by an order dated 31-10-2007 the second respondent has withdrawn the impugned order dated 15-05-2006 cancelling the earlier technical sanction order dated 30-09-2005. In the light of this order of the second respondent, there is now an extant and operational technical sanction by the second respondent in respect of the applications made by the petitioners for consideration of a multi-storied building. It is also the admitted factual and legal scenario that such a technical sanction obligates the first respondent to consider the building applications of the petitioners on merits and in accordance with such technical sanction granted by the second respondent. Sri Surender Rao, the learned counsel for the second respondent however urged that the property in question is valuable government property and if building permission is approved by the first respondent on the basis of the operational technical sanction, the State would be put to loss. Learned counsel for the second respondent however expressed helplessness in terms of competence or authority to in any way take action for preserving what is claimed to be Government property. In any event approval of a building permission per se does not confer title on the petitioners nor energizes any defective title. Any action in this behalf, it is conceded by the second respondent, has to be taken by the fifth respondent or other related institutions or instrumentalities of the State, but certainly not by the second respondent. The concern of the second respondent per se does not translate into authority. In the circumstances, this Court finds no basis for the lament by the second respondent. On behalf of the first respondent Sri R. Ramchandra Reddy, the learned counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation concedes the legal position that on the basis of the operative technical sanction, the first respondent is required to consider the petitioners’ application for a building permission. In the circumstances above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to expeditiously and in any event within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, consider and pass appropriate orders duly communicating the same to the petitioners’, on the petitioners’ application for a building permission. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 04-02-2008 pvks