Telangana High Court
Neeli Prathap vs The State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WP.No. 26799 of 2016
Dt.09.04.2026
Between:
Neeli Prathap
.... Petitioner
and
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Principal Secretary to the Municipal
Administration and two others.
...Respondents
O R D E R:
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed to declare the notice
issued by the 2nd respondent in Lr.Roc.No.G1/646/2016,
dt.04.04.2016, directing the petitioner to stop construction in plot
admeasuring 155.55 sq. yards in Survey No. 1398 situated at
Korutla Town, though permission has been granted by the 2nd
respondent for construction of ground + First floor on 11.03.2015
through permit No. 37/2016, as arbitrary, illegal, void ab initio
and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of
Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and to
2
pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and necessary in
the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the
absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 155.55 sq.
yards in Survey No.1398 situated at Korutla Village & Mandal,
Karimnagar District, having purchased the same through a
registered document bearing No.2607/2015, dt.08.05.2015, after
getting the said plot surveyed from the office of the Assistant
Director, Survey & Land Records and the boundaries having been
duly fixed by the said authority by way of panchanama, in the
presence of respondent No.3, vide panchanama dt.02.05.2015.
3. The petitioner further contended that he had made an
application to the 2nd respondent for grant of permission for
construction of a commercial building consisting of Ground + First
Floor in the said plot and the 2 nd respondent addressed a letter
dt.31.07.2015, to clarify whether the plot of the petitioner situated
in Survey No. 1398 is patta land or government land or belongs to
Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Korutla, and that pursuant to
the said letter, the Office of the Assistant Director, Survey & Land
3
Records addressed a letter to the 2 nd respondent on 08.10.2015
stating that the plot belonging to the petitioner is in Survey
No.1398, it is a patta land and also furnished a location sketch of
the said plot of the petitioner along with the said letter and
thereafter, the 2nd respondent granted permission vide permit No.
37/2016, dt.11.03.2015.
4. It is further stated by the petitioner that after granting the
said permission by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner started
construction and completed till basement level and pillars, and at
this juncture, the 2nd respondent issued a notice, dt.04.04.2016,
to the petitioner stating that the 3rd respondent submitted an
objection petition and also addressed a letter to the Joint Collector
requesting not to accord building permission in the land of Sri
Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Korutla, i.e., the 3 rd respondent
herein, and directed the petitioner to stop construction work till
the said land is surveyed. Challenging the said letter, the instant
writ petition has been filed.
5. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent-Municipality filed
counter contending that though the petitioner has produced
4
certain registered documents to establish title, the claim of
absolute ownership is disputed, and that the petitioner failed to
disclose in his affidavit that the land in question is under dispute,
despite the 3rd respondent having brought the ownership dispute
to the notice of the 2nd respondent, and thus, there is suppression
of material facts.
6. It is further contended that the petitioner’s assertion that
the land was surveyed through the office of the Assistant Director,
Survey & Land Records and that boundaries were fixed in the
presence of panchas and the 3 rd respondent is specifically denied,
and in any event, such survey, panchanama, or fixation of
boundaries does not conclusively establish ownership rights, and
the presence of officials of the 3rd respondent does not amount to
relinquishment or confirmation of title in favour of the petitioner.
7. By the counter affidavit the 2nd respondent admitted when
the petitioner applied for building permission, a letter
dt.31.07.2015 was addressed seeking clarification as to whether
the land in Survey No.1398 is patta land or belongs to Sri
Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, and that the office of the Assistant
5
Director, Survey & Land Records replied stating that the land falls
in Survey No. 1398 and is patta land and furnished a location
sketch, but however, contended that such initial response did not
conclusively determine title or deny the claim of the 3rd
respondent, and the matter required further enquiry and
verification, for which process was undertaken.
8. It is further submitted that, upon prima facie satisfaction of
the petitioner’s claim, building permission was granted, but the
same was subject to conditions and restrictions, including that
such permission does not confer or validate title, and if the claim
is found to be false or unsupported, the permission is liable to be
revoked.
9. It is submitted that subsequently, the 3rd respondent
addressed a letter stating that the land claimed by the petitioner
forms part of temple property in Survey No.1398/1 and also
addressed a communication to the Joint Collector, marking a copy
to the 2nd respondent, thereby raising a serious dispute regarding
ownership, in view of which the 2nd respondent, taking note of the
boundary dispute between Survey Nos.1398 and 1398/1, issued
6
the impugned notice dt.04.04.2016 directing the petitioner to stop
construction until completion of a survey.
10. It is further contended in the said counter affidavit that the
stoppage of construction is only a temporary measure, and it
would be reconsidered upon clarification and re-survey with
regard to the land in Survey No.1398 claimed by both the
petitioner and the 3rd respondent-temple authorities, and that the
impugned notice has been issued by following due procedure
under law, and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed.
11. Heard Sri A.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for petitioner,
Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 2 nd
respondent, and Sri C.S.Satish Kumar, learned counsel for 3rd
respondent.
12. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that initially the
Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records has fully demarcated
the plot of the petitioner by conducting survey along with sketch
map and also panchanama, dt.02.05.2015, in the presence of the
3rd respondent and categorically stated that the land of the
7
petitioner was situated in survey No.1398 and that it is a private
patta land and that the 2nd respondent also while granting
permission for construction of Ground + First floor commercial
building has also addressed a letter to the Assistant Director,
Survey & Land Records, wherein the said survey was conducted in
the presence of the 3rd respondent and the Assistant Director has
categorically opined that the plot of the petitioner is located in
Survey No. 1398 and also furnished the details of the survey to
the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent having satisfied with
the prima facie title of the petitioner and also the plot where the
petitioner’s land is situated was in Survey No.1398, being a patta
land, granted due permission for construction of commercial
building consisting of Ground + First floor and that now after
granting permission and also commencing construction up to
basement level, the impugned letter vide Lr.Roc.No.G1/646/2016,
dt.04.04.2016, was issued by the 2nd respondent, which is
untenable and violative of due procedure of law.
13. It is further stated by the learned counsel that in a similar
set of facts, this Hon’ble Court in the case of K.Pavan Raj Vs.
8
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad 1 held that once the
municipal authorities are prima facie satisfied with the legal title
of the applicant and lawful possession, they are bound to consider
the building permission on merits, leaving the objector free to
approach the appropriate Court.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
petitioner herein is similarly placed as in the aforesaid judgment,
as in the instant case the 2nd respondent having satisfied as to the
prima facie title and possession of the petitioner over the subject
land and granted permission by following due procedure of law, is
estopped from giving directions to the petitioner to stop
construction till the measurement of the land of the 3 rd
respondent is completed, which is violative of due procedure
contemplated under law and that at present, in view of the interim
suspension granted by this Court, the petitioner has compelted
the construction in accordance with the building permission and
thus, the impugned proceeding is liable to be set aside and
quashed.
1 2008 (1) ALD 792
9
15. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel while reiterating the
counter averments, contended that, though the petitioner placed
reliance on certain registered documents, his claim of absolute
ownership is disputed by the Revenue and Endowments
Departments, and he suppressed the material fact that the land is
under dispute, despite the same having been brought to the notice
of the 2nd respondent by the 3rd respondent.
16. It is further contended that though clarification was sought
and a reply was received stating the land to be patta land, the
same was only preliminary and did not conclusively determine
title, as counter claims require further enquiry and further
building permission granted was only upon prima facie
satisfaction and subject to conditions that it does not confer title
and is liable to be revoked if based on incorrect or disputed
claims, and thus, the impugned notice dt.04.04.2016 was issued
directing stoppage of construction pending survey and prayed to
dismiss the writ petition.
17. It is contended that such stoppage is only temporary,
pending clarification and re-survey, and that the impugned action
10
is lawful, procedural, and the writ petition is devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed.
18. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made
by the counsel appearing on either side and perused the record.
19. It is an admitted fact that the building permission has been
approved by the 2nd respondent by following due procedure as
contemplated under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation Act, 1955 and it is also an admitted fact that even
before the issuance of the building permission, the 2nd
respondent addressed a letter to the Assistant Director, Survey &
Land Records, so as to confirm whether the plot of the petitioner is
a patta land or belongs to the government or 3rd respondent-
Temple and in pursuance of the same, the Assistant Director,
Survey & Land Records conducted a detailed survey in the
presence of the 3rd respondent authorities and addressed a letter
along with site plan and sketch plan of the plot to the 2 nd
respondent by categorically stating that the said plot of the
petitioner is a patta land and is not coming in any way or belongs
to the 3rd respondent or Government and that a panchanama was
11
conducted by clearly fixing the boundaries of the said plot on
02.05.2015.
20. Evidently, the petitioner has established prima facie title
over the said plot, which is falling under Survey No. 1398 and the
2nd respondent having satisfied with the prima facie title of the
petitioner over the said plot, now cannot in any way obstruct the
construction of the house over the said plot.
21. Initially, when the matter came up for hearing for admission
on 11.08.2016, this Court in WP.MP.No.33173 of 2016, has
observed the aforesaid fact and granted interim suspension of the
said letter dt.04.04.2016 and it is stated by the learned counsel
for petitioner that as of date, entire construction is completed.
22. Further, the 2nd respondent has not denied the positive
assertion of the petitioner in respect of survey conducted by the
Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, moreover, specifically
admitted the fact that the petitioner has prima facie title, but in
view of the letter addressed by the 3rd respondent to the Joint
Collector in respect of the claim of the 3rd respondent’s title over
12
the plot along with other lands, the impugned notice has been
issued.
23. Further, in view of the order passed by this Court in
K.Pavan Raj‘s case that once the municipal authorities are
satisfied with the prima facie title of the applicant or the
prospective person, and also the lawful possession, they are
bound to consider the building permission application on merits
leaving the objectors to approach the appropriate Court of law.
24. Also, in Sura Kumaraswamy vs. State of Telangana and
others2, a Division Bench of this Court while considering the
similar issues, held as under:
“9. It is settled proposition of law that mere regularisation or
payment of tax does not confer title in the property. Further,
the suit instituted by the appellant is against the vendor of
the petitioner, that too a suit for injunction simplicitor, which
does not decide the inter se dispute with regard to title or
ownership. The appellant knowing very well that the
petitioner has purchased the property through a registered
sale deed, vide document bearing No.13985 of 2021 dated
26.04.2021, and her vendor in turn purchased the same2Judgment dated 18.10.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No.585 of 2022 by the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court
13through a registered sale deed vide document No.22232 of
2019 dated 31.08.2019, did not take any steps for
impleading the petitioner as a party defendant in the
pending suit. Further, except submitting objection petition to
the municipal corporation, the appellant has not instituted
any suit disputing the title or obtained any orders
restraining the Commissioner from entertaining the building
application. Unless there are prohibitory/ restraining
orders, the statutory authorities can proceed to examine the
claims of the parties. As per provisions of Sections 428 and
439 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,
1955 (briefly “the GHMC Act“, hereinafter) the
Commissioner is empowered to examine the building
applications basing on the title deeds. While examining
prima facie verification of the title, the Commissioner cannot
assume the role of an adjudicator or arbitrator to decide the
inter se title disputes between the applicant for building
permission and the objector. If the petitioner is able to show
prima facie title and he has right to proceed with the
construction in conformity with the building permission
granted by the Corporation. 10. Section 450 of the GHMC
Act prescribes that at any time after permission to proceed
with any building or work has been given, if the
Commissioner is satisfied that such permission was
granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation
or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or
information furnished under Section 428 or 433, he is
empowered to cancel building permission.
14
12. It is also a settled principle that the person setting up a
rival claim of title is free to approach the Court of competent
jurisdiction and seek appropriate relief in that regard. If the
applications for building permission are rejected, merely on
the ground of third party claims or disputes of title, it may
result in serious hardship to the owners of the properties.
Since the Commissioner has not applied his mind while
issuing revocation orders, the learned Single Judge has
rightly allowed the writ petition which does not warrant
interference of this Court in exercise of Letters Patent
jurisdiction.
25. In the instant case also, the 2nd respondent having satisfied
with the prima facie title of the petitioner in the light of the survey
report of the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, and the
panchanama conducted in the presence of the officials of the 3 rd
respondent, having granted permission to the petitioner, and
moreover, pending writ petition, pursuant to the interims
suspension granted by this Court, the petitioner is stated to have
competed the construction, this Court is of the considered view
that the 3rd respondent-Temple has got appropriate course under
Section 87 of the Endowments Act and thus, the impugned notice
is not tenable and is liable to be set aside and quashed.
15
26. In view of the above stated findings, the Writ Petition is
allowed and the impugned proceeding, dt.04.04.2016, is hereby
set aside and quashed. However, this does not preclude the 3rd
respondent from approaching the Endowment Tribunal under
Section 87 of the Charitable and Endowments Act, 1890, if they
intend to do so. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if anyu shall
stand closed
________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
09th April, 2026
gra
16
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WP.No. 26799 of 2016
Dt.09.04.2026
gra