M/S. Anjana Infrastructure And ... vs The State Of Telangana And 12 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6499 Tel

    THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                 AND

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                  WRIT APPEAL No.427 of 2021


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


      Heard Ms. B.Rachna, learned counsel for the appellants;

Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader for

Municipal     Administration      and    Urban      Development      for

respondent No.1; Mr. K.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

(GHMC) for respondent Nos.2 to 5; Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy,

learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.6

to 8; Mr. M.Roopender, learned Government Pleader for Home

for respondent No.9; and Mr. G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 13.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

14.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of

Writ Petition No.5502 of 2021 filed by the appellants as the

writ petitioners.

                                   2                     HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                   W.A.No.427 of 2021

3. Appellants had filed the related writ petition

assailing the action of Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation ('GHMC' hereinafter) and its authorities in

sanctioning construction permission dated 02.12.2020 to

respondent Nos.10 & 11 in spite of pendency of civil suit with

status quo order and overlooking representations of the

appellants dated 23.02.2021 and 25.02.2021.

4. The construction in question is being carried out

in house bearing No.12-8-388/6/20 & 20/A on the plot

admeasuring 651 square yards in Survey No.796/1/5

(claiming the same as H.No.12-8-418 to 422 in Survey

No.796/2 admeasuring 704 square yards), situated at

Mettuguda, Secunderabad ('subject property' hereinafter).

5. Appellants had contended before the learned

Single Judge that vendor of the appellants had filed two suits

in respect of the subject land being O.S.Nos.535 and 536 of

2016 against respondent Nos.10 and 13 seeking perpetual

injunction which is stated to be pending on the file of XI 3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.427 of 2021

Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad. Civil

Court had granted ad-interim injunction against respondent

Nos.10 and 13 in I.A.No.344 of 2016 in O.S.No.535 of 2016

and in I.A.No.345 of 2016 in O.S.No.536 of 2016 on

16.07.2018 and 27.07.2018 respectively by restraining the

said respondents from interfering with the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the subject land. Appellants

have also filed O.S.No.213 of 2019 against respondent Nos.10

& 11 seeking declaration of title etc., which is pending on the

file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at

Secunderabad.

6. Notwithstanding the above, respondent Nos.10 to

12 had obtained permission from GHMC on 02.12.2020 for

carrying out construction of building on the subject property.

7. Learned Single Judge by the order dated

05.03.2021 had issued notice and as an interim measure

directed the GHMC and officials to ensure that no further

construction activity took place on the subject land.

                                     4                      HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                      W.A.No.427 of 2021

8. Thereafter GHMC filed counter affidavit justifying

the construction permission granted to the respondents.

9. Similarly, respondent No.11 also filed a counter

affidavit.

10. After hearing the rival contentions, learned Single

Judge passed the order dated 14.06.2021 disposing of the

writ petition in the following terms:

"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1, Sri Chatla Madhu, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, for respondent Nos.2 to 5, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.6 to 8, learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.9, and Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 12.

Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.10 to 12 have argued at length with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and also raised various points regarding the identity of the property in question, this Court is not inclined to go into the same, as the prayer sought for in the present writ petition is only a direction against the GHMC authorities to dispose of the representations made by the petitioners seeking to cancel the building permission granted in favour of 5 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.427 of 2021

the respondent Nos.10 to 12. In the counter filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5, it is specifically stated that the pursuant to the representations made by the petitioners, notices have been issued to the petitioners well as the unofficial respondents calling for explanation and also fixing the date of hearing as 03.04.2021. But, on 03.04.2021, the petitioners represented that this Court had granted stay orders of making any further construction and any hearing of the matter by the authority would amount to conducting parallel proceedings and that the matter is sub judice. In view of the same, no further hearing was conducted by the authority.

Having regard to the above facts, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits or demerits of the case as the matter is seized by the respondent No.2 and any comments or finding will prejudice the rights of the parties before the authority. Respondent No.2-Commissioner, GHMC, is directed to conduct further hearing and decide the representations dated 23.02.2021 and 25.02.2021 made by the petitioners on their own merits duly putting the petitioners as well as unofficial respondents on notice and pass necessary orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Commissioner will duly take into consideration the survey report of the Tahsildar, if any, or any other documentary evidence relied by the parties in support of their respective claims. Till such time the final orders are passed by the respondent No.2, the unofficial respondents shall not make any further construction. It is also made clear that in case parties do not cooperate with the Commissioner in disposal of the representations, as directed 6 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.427 of 2021

by this Court, the respondent No.1 is free to proceed further in the matter and pass necessary final orders, as per law.

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of."

11. Thus, from the above, it is seen that learned Single

Judge while declining to enter into the merits or demerits of

the case directed Commissioner of GHMC to conduct further

hearing and decide the representations of the appellants

dated 23.02.2021 and 25.02.2021 on merit by giving notice to

the appellants as well as to the unofficial respondents and

dispose of the same within a period of six (06) weeks in

accordance with law. Commissioner was directed to give

hearing to the affected parties and also to take into

consideration survey report of the Tahsildar and other

documentary evidence. Till a decision is rendered by the

Commissioner, it has been directed by the learned Single

Judge that respondent Nos.10 to 13 shall not make any

further construction on the subject land.

                                7                   HCJ & CVBRJ
                                              W.A.No.427 of 2021

12. On appeal, a division bench of this Court had

passed an order on 06.09.2021 admitting the appeal for

hearing and directing respondent Nos.10 to 12 to maintain

status quo of the subject property in all respects. GHMC was

directed to inform the Court as to whether respondent Nos.10

to 12 had disclosed to the Commissioner at the time of

seeking the construction permission about the status quo

order passed by the civil Court.

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and

on due consideration, we are of the view that since learned

Single Judge has remanded the matter back to the

Commissioner for further hearing, it is not necessary for the

Commissioner to state before the Court about disclosure or

non-disclosure of respondent Nos.10 to 12 about the status

quo order passed by the civil Court at the time of obtaining

building permission. This aspect can very well be verified by

the Commissioner at the time of further hearing and if there

is suppression of material fact(s), the Commissioner would be

entitled to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

                                     8                   HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                   W.A.No.427 of 2021

14. Keeping all contentions open, we relegate the

parties to the Commissioner, GHMC who shall pass

appropriate orders after hearing all the affected parties in

terms of the order of the learned Single Judge.

15. Order of the learned Single Judge shall continue to

hold the field till a decision is rendered by the Commissioner,

GHMC.

16. Let the decision be rendered by the Commissioner,

GHMC within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order.

17. Writ Appeal is disposed of. However, there shall

be no order as to costs.

18. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

__________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 06.12.2022 KL