THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.121 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. G.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior
Counsel for respondent No.1. We have also heard
Ms. Borra Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department for respondent No.2 and Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No.40836 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner.
3. Respondent No.1 had taken exception to the proceedings of Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation 2 (briefly, 'the Corporation' hereinafter) dated 22.07.2022 cancelling the building permission granted on 19.04.2022.
4. Respondent No.1 contended before the learned Single Judge that he along with one Satyapal Reddy had purchased land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey Nos.561 and 564 situated at Ursu Village, Khila Warangal Mandal in the district of Warangal (briefly, 'the subject land' hereinafter) through a registered sale deed dated 19.02.1999. The said Satyapal Reddy sold his share of the land in favour of respondent No.1 by registered sale deed dated 18.10.2021. Thus, respondent No.1 became the absolute owner and possessor of the entire subject land. He made an application before the Corporation for seeking permission for construction of residential house. By proceedings dated 19.04.2022, permission was granted to an extent of 4749.85 square yards.
5. When respondent No.1 started construction of the compound wall, show cause notice dated 10.06.2022 was issued by the Corporation calling upon respondent No.1 to 3 show cause as to why building permission granted earlier should not be cancelled. The show cause notice was issued on the basis of representation submitted by the appellant and respondent No.5 ('objectors' hereinafter). The objectors had pointed out that building permission was obtained suppressing order passed in W.P.No.26340 of 2003 as well as pendency of O.S.No.82 of 2019. It was contended by respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge that respondent No.1 was not a party to W.P.No.26340 of 2003. Thus, there was no suppression of material facts, besides there was no statutory violation of any provision of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, to warrant issuance of show cause notice for cancellation of building permission granted.
6. On behalf of the Corporation, it was submitted before the learned Single Judge that in view of status quo order passed in W.P.No.26340 of 2003, Corporation had revoked the building permission.
4
7. Insofar appellant is concerned, learned Single Judge noted that appellant had refused to receive the notice issued by the Court and therefore he would be deemed to have been served. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 was found to be not present.
8. This has been clarified by learned counsel for the appellant stating that appellant had appeared through counsel, but the counsel was delayed in reaching the Court.
9. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 06.12.2022 allowed the writ petition in the following manner:
4. In the impugned order dated 22.02.2022, the respondents have repeatedly mentioned about the status-quo orders passed by this court in W.P.No.26340 of 2003. This court has disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 29.08.2017 wherein this court has observed that the aggrieved person shall invoke the common law remedy claiming the title over the said land and also seek appropriate orders, if any, from the court and till such time, status-quo obtained as on that date shall be maintained with regard to possession and entries made in the record. Admittedly, the petitioners therein have already filed a civil suit i.e.O.S.No.82 of 5 20l9. Hence, the respondents cannot say that there is a status-quo order and the same was suppressed by the petitioner and all the more, the petitioner is not a party to the said writ petition. Further, there no restraint orders are passed in O.S.No.82 of 20l9 either restraining the petitioner or the respondents from going ahead with the construction. As the 4th respondent has refused to receive the notice, it amounts to deemed service of notice and learned counsel for the 5th respondent is not present. Taking into consideration all the above aspects, the proceedings dated 22.07.2022 and intimation letter dated 02.11.2022 are liable to be set aside.
5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 22.07.2022 and intimation letter dated 02.11.2022 passed by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. From the above, it is seen that learned Single Judge found from the record that W.P.No.26340 of 2003 was disposed of by this Court on 29.08.2017 relegating the parties therein to the forum of civil Court and till such time status quo as regards possession was directed to be maintained. Thereafter, appellant filed civil suit, being O.S.No.82 of 2019. There is no injunction order passed in the civil suit. Once, the civil suit was instituted by the 6 appellant, the status quo order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26340 of 2003 ceased to operate. Therefore, there was no status quo order restraining the Corporation from considering the request of respondent No.1 for building permission. That apart, respondent No.1 was not a party to W.P.No.26340 of 2003. Therefore, learned Single Judge set aside the proceedings dated 22.07.2022 and consequential letter dated 02.11.2022.
11. Prima facie, a view can be taken that once building permission is granted, the same should not be cancelled unless it was obtained fraudulently or there is any violation of the building permission or of the statute.
12. However, considering the fact that appellant, who had lodged objection before the Corporation leading to cancellation of building permission, did not get an adequate opportunity to contest the proceedings, we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice, if the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as 7 respondent No.5 and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, having regard to the substance of the order dated 06.12.2022 and the view that we have taken, proceedings dated 22.07.2022 as well as the consequential letter dated 02.11.2022 shall remain stayed for a period of 6 (six) weeks whereafter the same shall be subject to such order as may be passed by the learned Single Judge.
13. Ordered accordingly.
14. Writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 30.01.2023 vs