Enkanti Bixapathi And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6138 Tel

    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