THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL Nos.648 of 2022 and 219 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Podila Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Ms. Borra Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation - respondents
No.2 and 3.
Mr. R.K.G.Bhatia, learned counsel for respondents
No.4 and 5.
Mr. S.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the
proposed intervenors.
2. With the consent of the parties, the writ appeals are
heard finally.
2
3. W.A.No.648 of 2022 has been filed against the order
dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge by
which the writ petition preferred by the appellant, namely
W.P.No.29992 of 2022, has been disposed of with the
liberty to the appellant to avail of the appropriate
alternative remedy.
4. W.A.No.219 of 2023 has been filed against the order
dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge by
which the writ petition preferred by the appellants, namely
W.P.No.29976 of 2022, has been disposed of with the
liberty to the appellants to avail of the appropriate
alternative remedy.
5. Facts
giving rise to filing of these writ appeals briefly stated are that the appellants claim to be the owners of different extents of land in Plot No.31 (part) in Survey No.11 situated at Gopalpur Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal Urban District (old), Hanamkonda District (new). The appellants applied for grant of building permission to the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, "the Corporation"). The building permission 3 was granted to the appellants on 24.08.2021. However, it appears that respondents No.4 and 5 made complaints against the appellants. Thereupon, the Corporation, by an order dated 28.04.2022, cancelled the building permission issued in favour of the appellants on the ground that the same was obtained by misrepresentation and by playing fraud. The order of cancellation of building permission was assailed by the appellants in the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, by orders dated 20.07.2022, inter alia found that the observation that the building permission was obtained by the appellants by misrepresentation and by fraudulent methods is unwarranted and is without any basis. The learned Single Judge, therefore, set aside the aforesaid observation made in the order of cancellation. It was further held that the appellants as well as the unofficial respondents are claiming title on the land in question on the basis of registered sale deeds. It was held that the dispute between the parties cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. The writ petitions were therefore disposed of by giving liberty to the appellants to avail of the appropriate alternative 4 remedy. Being aggrieved, these writ appeals have been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that once the learned Single Judge has found that the action of the Corporation in cancelling the building permission granted to the appellants is not justified, the appellants could not have been relegated to the appropriate alternative remedy.
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has submitted that in compliance of the liberty granted to the appellants, the appellants have already filed civil suits, namely O.S.Nos.4487 and 4488 of 2022.
8. Learned counsel for the proposed intervenors submitted that the proposed intervenors are the owners of the plot in question as they have purchased the same from respondents No.4 and 5. It is further submitted that the appellants are raising construction illegally on the land in question.
5
9. The dispute between the appellants, respondents No.4 and 5 as well as the proposed intervenors pertains to the title in respect of the land in question. The aforesaid question of title cannot be gone into in a writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the parties to take recourse to the appropriate alternative remedy. It is pertinent to mention that the appellants have already resorted to the alternative remedy by filing civil suits. Respondents No.4 and 5 as well as the proposed intervenors shall also be at liberty to take recourse to the remedy which may be available to them in law. Needless to state that any of the observations/findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions shall not be taken into account by the court or forum which is invoked by the proposed intervenors as well as respondents No.4 and 5 and the proceedings initiated by them shall be dealt with on its own merits.
10. Insofar as the validity of the order dated 28.04.2022 is concerned, suffice it to say that the parties have the 6 forum prescribed to them under Section 252 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.
11. In view of the availability of the aforesaid alternative and efficacious remedy, we are not inclined to examine the validity of the order of cancellation of building permission. However, the parties are at liberty to approach the forum of appeal provided to them by the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.
12. Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 30.10.2023 vs