THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.767 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Ms. Sridevi Keerthi, learned counsel for the
appellants.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
08.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
Writ Petition No.35061 of 2022 filed by the appellants as the
petitioners.
3. Appellants had filed the related writ petition
assailing the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the 3rd
respondent rejecting the representation of the appellants as
well as for quashing of construction permission dated 26.04.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of respondent Nos.5 & 6.
4. Basic contention of appellants before the learned Single Judge was that a suit has been instituted by them 2 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.767 of 2022 being O.S.No.124 of 2014 wherein an order of injunction was passed. Despite pendency of the suit and order of injunction, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal granted building permission to respondent Nos.5 & 6. However, learned Standing Counsel for the said Corporation had submitted before the learned Single Judge that the Corporation was only required to see prima facie title. Corporation had looked into all aspects of the matter including the representation of the appellants. It was contended that neither respondent Nos.5 & 6 nor their vendors were made parties to the suit. Being satisfied, the Corporation had granted building permission to respondent Nos.5 and 6.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in the following manner:
"4. The petitioners have made a representation to the respondent officials to cancel the building permission. For cancellation of building permission, there should be suppression or misrepresentation of facts before the authorities. The petitioners are solely relying on O.S.No.
3 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.767 of 2022
124 of 2014 to which both the unofficial respondents or their vendors are not parties. Hence, the question of suppression of facts does not arise and apart from that, when an Application is made seeking building permission, the respondent municipality can only look into prima facie title to the property and they cannot go beyond that. Basing on the sale deeds in favour of the unofficial respondents and their vendors, the respondent Corporation has granted permission.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent Corporation has rightly rejected the representation made by the petitioners seeking cancellation of the building permission. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the action of the respondent officials.
6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
6. Learned Single Judge has held that appellants had made a representation before the Corporation to cancel the building permission granted in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Cancellation of building permission can only be allowed if there is suppression or misrepresentation of facts. Appellants were solely relying on O.S.No.124 of 2014 in which both the Corporation as well as respondent Nos.5 & 6 are not parties. Therefore, question of suppression of fact does not arise.
4 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.767 of 2022
6.1. Learned Single Judge also held that the
Corporation can only look into prima facie title before granting building permission. When respondent Nos.5 & 6 had produced before the Corporation the sale deeds in their favour, Corporation could not have withheld building permission to them. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge was of the view that Corporation was justified in rejecting the representation filed by the appellants.
7. We have also carefully perused the material papers including the order of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal dated 25.02.2014 in I.A.No.84/2014 in O.S.No.124/2014 as well as the plaint filed by the appellants. From the plaint, we find that the suit was for grant of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. It is not a suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the subject land. Neither the Corporation nor respondent Nos.5 & 6 are defendants in the suit.
5 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.767 of 2022
8. That being the position, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge to warrant interference. There is no merit in the writ appeal.
9. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
___________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 24.11.2022 KL