Smt. T.B.V. Gayatri vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5169 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                           AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
                                  W.A.No. 667 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. Pranay Sohini, learned counsel for the

appellant.


2.      This appeal has been preferred against the order

dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of

writ petition No.38242 of 2017 filed by the appellant and

another person as the writ petitioners.


3.      Appellant was petitioner No.1 in the related writ petition.


4.      The related writ petition was filed by the appellant as writ

petitioner No.1 for quashing of the building permission dated

05.09.2015 granted by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation (GHMC) in favour of respondents No.6 to 11.

5. According to learned counsel for the appellant, there is a

dispute between the family members with respect to share of the ::2::

land over which building permission has been granted by

GHMC. In this connection, a partition suit being O.S.No.619 of

2015 has been filed by the appellant and Smt. T.A.D.Sowjanya

on the file of XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy

District wherein an interim injunction was granted

on 27.06.2015. It is alleged that suppressing pendency of the

civil suit, building permission was obtained by respondents No.6

to 11.

6. Learned Single Judge on due consideration came to the

conclusion that there were no materials before the Court to take

the view that respondents No.6 to 11 were aware of pendency of

O.S.No.619 of 2015 at the time of applying for building

permission. However, learned Single Judge was of the view that

consequential steps following construction of the building

should await the final outcome of the civil suit and disposed of

the writ petition in the following manner:

In the facts and circumstances, this court deems it appropriate to permit the unofficial respondents to complete the construction activity.

::3::

The unofficial respondents except completing the construction shall not lease out or create any third party rights till the outcome of the suit. The respondent corporation shall also not issue occupancy certificate to the said building pending orders of the civil court and till the outcome of the suit or till the said interim orders are vacated by the civil court.

7. We are of the view that the order passed by the learned

Single Judge is a balanced order and no case for interference is

made out.

8. Before parting with the record, we may mention that the

related writ petition was filed by the appellant and

Smt.TAD.Sowjanya as petitioners but interestingly, in the appeal

Smt.TAD.Sowjanya has been made respondent No.12 (she has

not joined the appellant in filing the appeal).

9. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge.

10. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

::4::

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

dismissed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 18.10.2022 LUR