WP/7988/2011 of Water Development Employees Cooperative Housing Vs The Greater Hyderabd Municipal Corporation Rep.by on 29 December 2011

O R D E R:

1. This writ petition is filed to issue writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in notprocessing application for regularization made inapplication No.BPS/6085/MKJ/N2/2008 as illegal andarbitrary and consequently direct them to forthwithprocess the said application filed for regularization.

2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed insupport of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows:

Petitioner is a society registered under theprovisions of the Societies Registration Act. It purchasedland admeasuring to an extent of Ac.9.15 guntas insurvey no.358/1 and 358/2 of Kapra Village, KeesaraMandal (now part of GHMC) under an agreement of saledated 22.04.1975 and in pursuance of the same,substantial sale consideration was paid and possessionwas delivered to the petitioner society and it was put inpossession of subject land and mutation was effected inrevenue records. Thereafter, as the land was broughtunder the supervision of Wakf Board, permission toregister execution of sale deed was required from theGovernment and the sale deed was not executed, and asuit for specific performance of sale was filed to enforcethe agreement of sale. Thereafter, several litigations tookplace in respect of the said property. The petitioner filedseveral complaints to respondents 1 and 2 in regard toillegal constructions raised in the subject land andrequested for demolition of said constructions as theencroachers were not holding any title to the subject landand made constructions without any valid sanctioned planor permission. Initially, the respondents 1 and 2 issuednotices under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and since no reply wasgiven on the said notice, the authorities issued noticeunder Section 636 of the Act directing the encroachers toremove the construction on the subject land. At thisjuncture, the third respondent filed Writ Petition No.11581of 2008 challenging the notice issued by the authorities onthe ground that his application for regularization waspending consideration before the authorities, which wasdisposed of by this Court with a direction to the authoritiesto consider the application filed by the petitioner thereinand pass appropriate orders if otherwise there is noimpediment, and pending disposal of the application,status quo existing as on that day with regard to thestructures was ordered to be maintained. Though thepetitioner herein filed petition to implead the respondentno.3 herein as a party to a Land Grabbing Case filed by it,the petitioner herein is not made a party to the said WritPetition. The petitioners therein have no locus standi toseek regularisation since they grabbed the land of thepetitioner and raised constructions. The petitionerapproached the authorities and requested to dispose ofthe application No.BPS/6085/MKJ/N2/2008 filed by thethird respondent. But, for the reasons best known tothem, they are not taking any action, which is causingprejudice to the rights of petitioner society. Hence, theWrit Petition.

3. The third respondent filed counter affidavit denyingthe averments in the writ affidavit and stating inter alia asfollows:

Himself and five others purchased 5300 squareyards of land in survey no.358/1 and 358/2, whichoriginally belonged to Raj Pramuk, under registereddocuments, and thereafter, a function hall wasconstructed by him. Municipality allotted H.Nos. 42-736/15, 16 and 17 to the said property. The writ petitionerhas no title over the property as its claim is based on the

agreement of sale dated 22.04.1975 alleged to have beenexecuted by a person who has no title. Mere mutation inrevenue records does not confer any title. The petitionersuppressed the fact that in WPMP No.37536 of 2008 inWP No.28681 of 2008, this Court suspended G.O. Ms.No.1329, dated 03.12.1985 which is issued permittingwakf board to sell Ac.9.15 guntas of land. The petitioner,having failed to get orders before the Land GrabbingCourt, filed the writ petition suppressing the severalmaterial facts, to some how throw out the third respondentfrom the said land. The petitioner society is no wayconnected with the issue of regularization of constructionsand it is between the official respondents and the thirdrespondent. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the WritPetition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the thirdrespondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended thatthe petitioner is the owner of the property in questionhaving purchased the same in pursuance of anagreement of sale and obtained delivery of the samehaving paid entire sale consideration, and that the thirdrespondent encroached a portion of the said land andmade constructions illegally without permission and madeapplication for regularization of the said constructions, andas the said application is not being disposed of by theofficial respondents, it is causing prejudice to thepetitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel forthe respondents 1 and 2 contended that the petitionerfiled an application before Land Grabbing Court to declarethe third respondent along with others as land grabbers claiming title and possession over the property, and thatall further proceedings in the Land Grabbing Case werestayed by a Division Bench of this Court and that thepetitioner has no locus standi to file the present WritPetition.

7. The learned counsel for the third respondentcontended that the petitioner has no valid title over theproperty in question and that it has no locus standi to seekthe prayer sought for in this Writ Petition as it is a matterbetween the third respondent and the official respondents.8. The petitioner claims to be owner of the property inquestion having purchased the same in pursuance of anagreement of sale and got delivery of the same. Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted the applicationin question for regularization. The applicationNo.BPS/6085/MKJ/N2/2008 has been submitted by thethird respondent. Therefore, prima facie the petitioner hasno locus standi to seek a direction to the respondents 1and 2 to process the application for regularization madeby the third respondent. It is stated that the petitioner gota vested right because of the agreement of sale followedby delivery of possession and payment of total saleconsideration. Merely because the possession wasdelivered to the petitioner and total consideration was paidunder the agreement of sale, it does not confer any validtitle to the property in favour of the petitioner. So long asthe agreement of sale is not transformed into a regularsale deed, it does not confer any title on the petitioner. Atthis stage, the petitioner failed to show that it has got titleto the property in question. Even otherwise, that aspect ofthe case has to be decided in the Land Grabbing Case inview of the fact that the petitioner is claiming right, title andinterest over the property, which is pending in the LandGrabbing Case. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek anyrelief with regard to the question of consideration of theBPS application filed by the third respondent.

9. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed leavingopen the remedies available to the petitioner under law.No costs.

29.12.2011DRK

________________

(K.C.BHANU, J.)

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

WRIT PETITION NO. 7988 OF 2011

Date: 29.12.2011