T. Ananta Venkata Pradeep Raju And ... vs Smt T.B.V. Gayatri And 8 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5429 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5429 Tel
Judgement Date : 28 October, 2022

Telangana High Court

T. Ananta Venkata Pradeep Raju And ... vs Smt T.B.V. Gayatri And 8 Others on 28 October, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

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


                   WRIT APPEAL No.705 of 2022

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


       Heard       Mr.      K.Gopal,       learned        counsel    for     the

appellants;        Ms.    Borra      Lakshmi        Kanakavalli,      learned

Assistant          Government              Pleader           for    Municipal

Administration           and     Urban       Development           Department

appearing       for    respondent         No.3;     Mr.      M.A.K.Mukheed,

learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 6; and

Dr. J.Vijaya Laxmi, learned Government Pleader appearing

for respondent No.7.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

01.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing

of W.P.No.38242 of 2017 filed by respondents No.1 and 2

as the writ petitioners.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed the related writ

petition for quashing of building permission dated

05.09.2015 issued by respondents No.4 to 6 in favour of

the appellants on the ground that the building permission

was obtained on the basis of fake urban land ceiling

clearance certificate. Writ petitioners further sought for

demolition of the constructions made on the basis of such

building permission.

4. Relevant facts or rather the admitted facts culled out

by the learned Single Judge as is discernible from the order

dated 01.09.2022 are as follows:

"6. The admitted facts are that the petitioners have filed a suit i.e. O.S.No.619 of 2015 on the file of XIII District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and initially an interim injunction was granted on 27.06.2015 directing the unofficial respondents not to create any third party rights in respect of the suit schedule property. The permission was granted in favour of the unofficial respondents on 05.09.2015. Thereafter, the unofficial respondents have entered appearance in the said suit on 05.11.2015."

5. Though learned counsel for the writ petitioners

contended that interim injunction granted on 27.06.2015

was made absolute, learned Single Judge noted that no

materials were placed before the Court in this regard. On

the contrary, learned counsel representing Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation submitted that the

interim injunction was not extended. Learned Single

Judge concluded that on the date of obtaining building

permission appellants had not entered appearance in the

suit (O.S.No.619 of 2015) and therefore they were not

aware of the pending proceeding. Hence, they proceeded

with the construction. On the allegation that the building

permission was obtained by furnishing incorrect

information, learned Single Judge found no substance in

the allegation. On the other hand, it was recorded by the

learned Single Judge that though the civil suit is pending,

appellants have completed major portion of the

construction. Thereafter, the following order came to be

passed by the learned Single Judge.

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

6. When the learned Single Judge recorded that there

was no suppression or misfurnishing of information by the

appellants while obtaining building permission and that

there was nothing on record to show that injunction order

of the civil Court being in force, we are of the view that

such blanket restriction imposed on the appellants is not

justified.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has made a

statement before the Court that appellants would not

create any third party rights in the building being

constructed. We record the said statement.

8. That portion of the order of the learned Single Judge