Sura Kumaraswamy vs State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5165 Tel

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

                   WRIT APPEAL No.585 OF 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Bhaskar Reddy)

       This writ appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order

dated 04.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.26991 of 2022 allowing the writ petition.

2.     The appellant is respondent No.5 in the writ

petition. Respondent No.5 herein is the writ petitioner.

The writ petition has been filed to issue Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 and 3

in revoking the building permission No.174509/GWMC/

3416 of 2022, dated 01.06.2022, vide proceedings in File

No.R-237229/GWMC/TP/2022, dated 20.06.2022, as

illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct

respondent Nos.2 and 3 to restore the building

permission granted in her favour.

3. The brief facts are that the petitioner, claiming to be

the owner of plot admeasuring 215.25 square yards

situated in Survey No.157(new) and 552 (old) of

Waddepally Revenue Village, Hanumakonda Mandal,

Warangal City and Urban District, has applied for

building permission duly enclosing the necessary

documents and respondent No.2 after considering the

said documents granted building permission in favour of

the petitioner vide proceedings No.174509/GWMC/ 3416

of 2022, dated 01.06.2022. However, the said permission

was revoked by respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.R-

237229/GWMC/TP/2022 dated 20.06.2022, on the sole

ground that a civil suit i.e., O.S.No.477 of 2020 is

pending against the vendor of the petitioner and the

appellant (respondent No.5 in the writ petition) and the

vendor of the petitioner, to create dispute over the

property, during the pendency of the suit has disposed of

the property in favour of the petitioner and suppressing

the fact of pendency of O.S.No.477 of 2020 the petitioner

has obtained building permission from the respondent

authority. The grievance of the petitioner as ventilated in

the writ petition is that respondent No.2, in exercise of

powers under Section 176(9) of the Telangana

Municipalities Act, 2019 (briefly "the Act", hereinafter),

has erroneously revoked the building permission on the

ground of misrepresentation of facts and admittedly the

petitioner is not a party to the suit, as such it cannot be

said that she has suppressed the said fact in her

application. Respondent No.2 on being satisfied that the

writ petitioner is having prima facie title has granted

permission, whereas respondent No.5 in the writ petition

(appellant) relying on the agreement of sale dated

01.08.2003 and the LRS proceedings dated 20.04.2018,

has submitted objections and in fact respondent No.5 in

the writ petition is not having any title or ownership over

the subject property and thus prayed for allowing the writ

petition.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the contesting

respondent No.5 in the writ petition stating that the

petitioner has suppressed the factum of pendency of the

suit i.e., O.S.No.477 of 2020 on the file of VI Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, and originally his wife has

purchased the property from Renuka Co-operative

Housing Society Limited under agreement of sale dated

01.04.2003 and thereafter executed a registered gift deed

in his favour on 21.10.2010 and as such he is the

titleholder of the property. The petitioner knowing very

well about the said fact purchased the subject property

during the pendency of the suit and suppressing the said

fact, she obtained building permission and respondent

No.2 has rightly revoked the order and the same does not

warrant inference of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

5. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 also filed a counter

affidavit in the writ petition stating that the petitioner

and the unofficial respondent No.5 in the writ petition are

claiming the same property in respect of which a suit is

pending before the civil court; the respondent corporation

is not empowered to decide the title; if any permission is

granted, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings; as such

they have rightly revoked the building permission; and

thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival

contentions, allowed the writ petition and set aside the

order dated 20.06.2022 impugned in the writ petition.

7. We have heard Mr. A. Rajendera Prasad, learned

counsel for the appellant; learned Government Pleader for

Municipal Administration for respondent No.1;

Ms. P. Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.2 and 3; Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned

Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.4; and

Mr. J. Dheeraj Reddy, learned counsel for respondent

No.5, and perused the material on record.

8. The appellant is claiming title relying on a gift deed

dated 21.10.2010 executed in his favour by his wife, who

in turn said to have purchased the property vide

agreement of sale dated 01.04.2003 from Housing Society

Limited. Except stating that the appellant availed the

benefit of the scheme introduced in G.O.Ms.No.151 dated

02.11.2015 for regularisation of unapproved layouts, no

document of title is placed in support of his contention

that he is the absolute owner of the property.

9. It is settled proposition of law that mere

regularisation or payment of tax does not confer title in

the property. Further, the suit instituted by the

appellant is against the vendor of the petitioner, that too

a suit for injunction simplicitor, which does not decide

the inter se dispute with regard to title or ownership. The

appellant knowing very well that the petitioner has

purchased the property through a registered sale deed,

vide document bearing No.13985 of 2021 dated

26.04.2021, and her vendor in turn purchased the same

through a registered sale deed vide document No.22232

of 2019 dated 31.08.2019, did not take any steps for

impleading the petitioner as a party defendant in the

pending suit. Further, except submitting objection

petition to the municipal corporation, the appellant has

not instituted any suit disputing the title or obtained any

orders restraining the Commissioner from entertaining

the building application. Unless there are

prohibitory/restraining orders, the statutory authorities

can proceed to examine the claims of the parties. As per

provisions of Sections 428 and 439 of the Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (briefly "the

GHMC Act", hereinafter) the Commissioner is empowered

to examine the building applications basing on the title

deeds. While examining prima facie verification of the

title, the Commissioner cannot assume the role of an

adjudicator or arbitrator to decide the inter se title

disputes between the applicant for building permission

and the objector. If the applicant is able to show prima

facie title and he has right to proceed with the

construction in conformity with the building permission

granted by the Corporation.

10. Section 450 of the GHMC Act prescribes that at any

time after permission to proceed with any building or

work has been given, if the Commissioner is satisfied that

such permission was granted in consequence of any

material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement

contained in the notice given or information furnished

under Section 428 or 433, he is empowered to cancel

building permission.

11. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Commissioner

has not given any reasons stating that the petitioner has

suppressed the material information. Moreover, the

petitioner is not a party to the pending suit and further

the title of the petitioner is traceable to the registered

documents, whereas the title of the appellant is based

upon the agreement of sale. The Commissioner while

exercising powers to grant building permission, if any

objections regarding title are received, he is required to

prima facie satisfy about the title of the applicant and he

cannot decide the title dispute because he is not provided

the adjudication machinery to resolve the inter se

disputes.

12. It is also a settled principle that the person setting

up a rival claim of title is free to approach the Court of

competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate relief in that

regard. If the applications for building permission are

rejected, merely on the ground of third party claims or

disputes of title, it may result in serious hardship to the

owners of the properties. Since the Commissioner has

not applied his mind while issuing revocation orders, the

learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition

which does not warrant interference of this Court in

exercise of Letters Patent jurisdiction.

13. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J

18.10.2022 JSU