w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Vegi Jagadish Kumar v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh

Company & Directors' Information:- JAGADISH AND COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1933PTC001919

    Writ Petition No. 19418 of 2021

    Decided On, 08 November 2021

    At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh


    For the Petitioner: ------ For the Respondent: ------

Judgment Text

1. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, senior counsel for M/s.Pillix Law Firm appearing for the respondents 5 to 11.

2. The petitioners filed the present writ petition, questioning the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in according building Permit Order vide bearing Permit No.1086/3302/B/Z3/KTA/2021 dated 07.08.2021 in favour of respondents 5 to 11 over the land admeasuring 14520 square yards in T.S.No.71 and 75 situated at Block No.8 and 9, Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam.

3. The convention of Baptist Churches of the Northern Circars (for short CBCNC) vide bearing registration No.16/48-49 has executed a registered lease deed over the land vide document bearing No.4547/2004 and 4548/2004 on the file of the District Registrar’s Office, Visakhapatnam in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners were also granted passbooks over the land and also issued Tax books bearing Nos.10861779930 and 1086149517 and they were inducted peaceful possession of the property; accordingly they are maintaining the same by paying land revenue taxes, water charges and electricity bills unequivocally over the said land.

4. That being so, on the application dated 15.07.2021 submitted by the respondents 5 to 11, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned orders under section 388, 428, 433 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 and the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Act, 2017 granting building permission in favour of the respondents 5 to 11. Assailing the said permission, present writ petition.

5. Contention of the petitioners is that the permission granted by the 2nd respondent in favour of the respondents 5 to 11 is capricious, arbitrary exercise of power, opposed to the very spirit and nature of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Without considering and without verifying the records properly, the 2nd respondent has granted permission in favour of the respondents 5 to 11. When it came to the notice of the said permission, immediately the petitioners made a representation on 21.08.2021 requesting to recall the permission granted in favour of the respondents 5 to 11.

6. Further it is submitted that in view of the permission granted by the respondents 2 to 4, the respondents 5 to 11 are trespassing into the subject land and demolishing the existing structures, without any authority of law under the grab of the impugned orders. The unofficial respondents have demolished the existing structures of the subject land, including the constructions, of 600Sq. feet bearing D.No.10-1-6 & 7 which was being utilized as student hostels. Despite bringing the same to the notice of the authorities, questioning about the illegal action of the respondents 5 to 11, the respondents 2 to 4 have not initiated any action and not recalled the permission granted in favour of the respondents 5 to 11. Hence, left with no option, the present writ petition is filed.

7. After receipt of notice, the respondents 5 to 11 filed their counter through Sri J.Malani Thyagaraj, GPA Holder denying the allegations made in the affidavit in support of the writ petition.

8. In their counter it is stated that in the year 1993, 18 companies registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 had purchased the property covered by TS. No.75 of Waltair Ward Visakhapatnam from CBCNC and the Trust Association, CBCNC for a valuable consideration and the companies were duly put in possession of the property. Said transaction is backed by proper resolutions and verification of the authenticity of the Body of Office Bearers of CBCNC and its Trust Association.

9. Questioning the said transactions, a suit was filed by one Sri Dasari Samuel, representing the Trust Association of CBCNC for declaration of its rights and cancellation of sale deeds in favour of 18 companies and for other reliefs. Said suit was dismissed after full dressed trial, with exemplary costs and the copy of the said judgment is annexed to the counter. Subsequently, the very same person also challenged the regularization granted in favour of the 18 companies in W.P.No.10955/2007, 10979/2007 and 10989/2007 respectively, before this Court and the said writ petitions were dismissed by common order, dated 05.02.2020.

10. In the year 1998, the Urban Land Ceiling [for short referred as ULC] authorities have intervened and call upon the CBCNC to file a declaration and to determine the CBCNC as a surplus landholder to an extent of Hc.1.6590 Sq. meters and the Special Officer, ULC went further ahead to declare the sale deeds of 18 companies as null and void. Pending the same, the ULC issued notification under section 10 (1) of the ULC Act, on 11.06.1998. Said proceedings were assailed by the 18 companies by filing two writ petitions in the year 1999 and 2001 and the writ petitions were allowed by this court, setting aside the order of the Special Officer, ULC in declaring the sale deeds as null and void and allowed liberty to the companies to challenge the order of the ULC in appeal under section 33 of the ULC Act.

11. Accordingly the companies have filed an application for regularization under prevailing GO.Ms.No.455 and the Government taking into consideration of the sale deeds of the companies allowed the regularization on payment of prescribed fee. Accordingly, the government has issued two G.Os., i.e. G.O.Ms.No.2004 in the year 2005 and G.O.Ms.No.1400 in the year 2006. Accordingly Government issued notification under section 10(3) of ULC Act, whereby and where under the land of Hc.1.6590 Sq. meters vested in the government free from all encumbrances. Subsequently mutations were also carried out interims of the G.Os by the Tahsildar (Urban) Visakhapatnam vide proceedings in Rc.No.1993/2012/A, dated 24.04.2013.

12. Further it is submitted in the counter, in view of the above said proceedings, the rights and title over the property has been declared in favour of the 18 companies, thus they have filed an application for building permission, the respondents 2 to 4, on due diligence and taking entire material into consideration and fulfilling prima facie title over the property, issued the building permission in favour of the respondents 5 to 11.

13. Further the respondents have specifically denied the right of the executants of the lease deed. The lease deed claimed by the petitioners were executed by a person, who was permanently injuncted from dealing with the affairs of CBCNC as well as the properties of CBCNC vide a decree and judgment of the Court of the subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in O.S.No.57 of 1985 and the said decree and judgment attained finality. In view of the same, no valid interest that is entitled to be protected under law had passed on to the petitioners by virtue of the said lease deeds. It is further submitted that in fact the CBCNC has sold the said land to the 18 companies in the year 1993 itself. Hence, for the property which was sold to the 18 companies, cannot be executed a lease deed for 99 years in favour of third parties. Even according to the averments made in the writ petition, one TDS Kumar has executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioners only in the year 2004. Further, it is contended that the petitioners have not filed any piece of evidence in support of their possession over the property.

14. Apart from all these things, the petitioners have not mentioned about the filing of the civil suit i.e. O.S.No.965 of 2021 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for the relief of permanent injunction. They have also moved an application for an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit against the GPA holder and having failed to obtain exparte injunction, without disclosing the same present writ petition is filed.

15. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have got the subject property by way of a registered lease deed in the year 2004 and the petitioners were put in possession over subject land and tax books were also issued in their favour and they have paying regularly the revenue tax, water tax etc..

16. To support said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the lease deeds executed in favour of the petitioners on 18th day of October 2004, which are filed along with the writ petition and also tax pass books issued in favour of the petitioners by the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel contended that there is an existing building and in the said building the petitioners are running hostel and now by virtue of the permission granted by the respondents 2 to 4 in favour of the respondents 5 to 11, the respondents are interfering with the possession of the petitioners. Thus, in view of the said circumstances, the petitioners have made a detailed representation on 21.08.2021 to the respondents 2 to 4 and requested the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation and also tax receipts, issued in favour of the petitioners, thereby requested to recall the permission granted in favour of the respondents 5 to 11.

17. Learned senior counsel, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas appearing on behalf of the respondents 5 to 11 submitted that the petitioners have no right or title over the property. Respondents 5 to 11 have purchased the said property in the year 1993 itself, subsequently when ULC proceedings were initiated, government notified the said properties under section 10 (3) of ULC Act, 1976. Said notification was annexed to the counter. The schedule of the notification clearly discloses that land in TS.No.75 Wlatair Ward, Visakhapatnam in an extent of Hc.1.6590 sq. meters was notified. Questioning the said orders, the petitioners have filed the writ petition No.8068 of 1999 and it is disposed of with the following order:

“The writ petition is partly allowed with the following directions and observations:-

(a) The order dated 28-2-1998 in so far as it declares the 22 documents referred to therein as null and void, is set aside and that the said order can be treated as nothing more than information as to the illegality of the sale deeds to the concerned registering authority

(b) It shall be open to the petitioners to avail the remedy appeal against the order dated 26-2-1998 passed by the 2nd respondent under section 8(4) of the Act.

(c) If the appeal is preferred with 4 weeks from today, the same shall be entertained as having been presented within the period of limitation;

(d) The appellate authority shall adjudicate upon the mallet duly issuing notice to the affected parties, as expeditiously as possible.”

18. Following the liberty granted by the High Court, the petitioners have submitted their applications for the regularization and considering the same, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.2004 dated 23.11.2005 directing to redeliver the possession to the petitioners, directing the names of the allottees shall be incorporated in the revenue registers and the survey records.

19. Further Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.1400 dated 25.09.2006 under section 34 of ULC Act, 1976 directing the competent authority ULC Visakhapatnam to deliver a copy of the order to respective Allotee Companies together with sketch indicating the extent allotted in the G.O. Ms.No.2004, dated 23.11.2005, after clearly marking the road widening portion in the sketch to the existing road network.

20. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in the year 2009, lessor of the petitioners i.e. Sri TDS Kumar representing the CBCNC filed a suit against several persons, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 13 interfering to the peaceful possession and enjoyment plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs association. In the said suit, the 1st defendant is Sri Dasari Samuel and 9th defendant is J.Malini Thyagaraj, who is the G.P.F. holder in the present litigation.

21. After the said suit was dismissed by the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam on 23.01.2017 with costs, other I.As. were also dismissed.

22. He further brought to the notice of the Court that the said Samuel, filed O.S.No.214 of 2006 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam against the 18 companies to declare the sale transactions in respect of registered sale deeds made in favour of the said companies. After elaborate discussion, said suit was dismissed with exemplary costs. Further learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the common order passed in W.P.No.10955, 10975, 10989 of 2007, filed by the said Dasari Samuel questioning the registration made in favour of the respondents 5 to 11 and the writ petitions were also dismissed, the same was placed along with the counter.

23. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the respondents have purchased the subject properties through registered sale deeds in the year 1993, from a local exiting body of CBCNC and said sale transactions were upheld in various courts and the competent civil court has declared that the transactions were valid and also this Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the registration made in respect of the in favour of the respondents 5 to 11.

24. Apart from that the Government has also considered possession and title over the property in various Urban Land Ceiling proceedings. Accordingly Government has regularized the said properties in favour of the respondents 5 to 11 through various government orders. Hence, the petitioners have valid title over the property, therefore, they have made an application for building permission and considering the same, the respondents 2 to 4 have granted building permission as per the rules.

25. Learned senior counsel further contended that apart from all the above, it is not out of place to mention that the competent Civil Court i.e. II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in O.S.No.57 of 85 has declared the rights and granted an injunction against the lessor of the petitioner, vide order dated 14th day of November, 1995, i.e. 5th defendant, one TDS Kumar, restraining the defendants and their agents from interfering with the possession peaceful lively enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of the Trust Association.

26. In view of the said injunction granted against the lessor of the petitioners, the registered documents which are relied by the petitioners are not legally valid documents. Further the petitioners have filed a civil suit for injunction O.S.No.965 of 2021 V Additional Senior Judge, Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction and also filed an application for interim injunction against the GPA holder of the respondents 5 to 11 and after failed to get the injunction orders, present writ petition is filed and subsequently the respondents 5 to11 are impleaded as parties to the said suit and the same was not disclosed in the present writ petition. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs.

27. Sri S.Lakhmi narayana Reddy, standing counsel representing on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 adopted the arguments of the senior counsel and further submitted that the Government issued notification under section 10 (3) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and subsequently considered the application and issued G.O.Ms. 1400 in favour of the respondents 5 to 11

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

on 25.09.2006 in pursuant to the said G.O., and names of the respondents 5 to 11 were mutated in the revenue records. 28. After satisfying the prima facie title over the property in respect of the respondents 5 to 11, the authorities have considered the application made by them for grant of building permission, accordingly building permission was granted on 15.07.2021, as per the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under. 29. Considering the submissions made by all the counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the record, it clearly discloses that the respondents 5 to 11 are the bonafide purchasers and they are subject to various litigations, subsequently Government has considered the representation/appeal filed by the respondents, as per the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and passed the orders under G.O.Ms.No.2004 dated 23.11.2005 and consequential orders through G.O.Ms.No.1400 dated 25.09.2006, which clearly establishes the rights over the property of the respondents 5 to 11. It is also noticed by the Court that the petitioners have approached the competent civil court by filing a civil suit for injunction, but the petitioners have not disclosed the same in the writ petition, even on perusal of the record filed along with the writ petition, no documents are filed to support the contention of the petitioners, except the lease deeds executed by incompetent person. 30. In view of the above, I see no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 31. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.