THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 19418 of 2010 Dated: 14.09.2010 Between: N.Krishna Mohan Rao and another. … Petitioners And The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 19418 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioners herein made an application dated 21.09.2009 for building permission before the respondents for construction of a multi- storied complex with stilt and five floors in the premises bearing No.6-3-901/1/E and 6-3-901/1/E/1, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The said application was rejected vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 30.07.2010 on the ground that the road width was not sufficient as per the requirement and that the petitioners did not have title for the 15 feet wide road, shown in the plans. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. It is pleaded by the petitioners that though the sale deed did not mention specifically with regard to title relating to the 15 feet wide passage, the possession of the said 15 feet wide passage was also transferred to the petitioners under the sale deed dated 11.08.1982 and from that day onwards, the petitioners have been jointly enjoying the entire land together with the passage with absolute rights. So far as the objection that the road width is not sufficient is concerned, it is pleaded by the petitioners that a 30 feet wide road leading from the main Highway i.e. Begumpet to Khairtabad has been shown in all the plans including the Master Plan and the said road leads from the West to the dead end of the East and on either side there are buildings constructed from time to time including many recent constructions. It is contended that as the land upon which the petitioners proposed to make the construction is also similarly situated, the rejection of the plans on the ground that the road width is not sufficient is unwarranted apart from being discriminatory. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents while reiterating the stand taken in the impugned order, it is stated that on examination of the proposals submitted by the petitioners it was observed that the 30 feet wide road as required under Hyderabad Revised Building Rules of 2007 issued in G.O.Ms.No.86 MA dated 03.03.2006 for construction of residential flats was not available. It is also stated that two separate building permissions were granted to the petitioners for two individual residential buildings and the ownership documents revealed that the petitioners had no title to the 15 feet wide common passage which was included in the proposals now submitted for construction of a multi-storied building. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. As could be seen from the material placed before this Court, the specific case of the petitioners is that they acquired valid title for the 15 feet passage shown in the building plans which has been left to have an access to the rear side plot holder, who is one of the applicants for permission to construct the multi-storied building complex. Apparently, the respondents failed to consider the title deeds in proper perspective and the impugned order appears to have been passed without application of mind to the relevant factors. The impugned order is also contrary to the settled principle of law that the application for grant of permission cannot be rejected merely on the objection with regard to title of the applicant. As held in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad District and another[1] all that the respondents required to do at this stage is to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants. The further objection that the existing road does not have the minimum width of 9 meters (30 feet width) also appears to be factually incorrect. It is pleaded by the petitioners that 30 feet wide road leading from Begumpet- Khairtabad main road is mentioned in all the plans including the Master Plan. It is also the specific plea of the petitioners that on either side of the road there are number of buildings in which the respondent sanctioned permissions from time to time. It is apparent that the respondents while passing the impugned order did not consider the afore said aspects. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.07.2010 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to resubmit their application and plans within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the respondents shall consider the same in the light of the observations made above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of resubmission of the application by the petitioners. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 14.09.2010 KLP [1] 2001 (3) ALD 600