Monday, 13, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Bandi Kumaraswamy vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 591 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 591 Tel
Judgement Date : 6 February, 2023

Telangana High Court
Bandi Kumaraswamy vs The State Of Telangana on 6 February, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
                  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
                                    W.A.No.874 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. U.Shanthibhushan Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant;        Ms.      B.Lakshmi           Kanakavalli,   learned   Assistant

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban

Development representing respondent No.1; Mr. S.Surender

Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Warangal Municipal

Corporation (GWMC) representing respondents No.2 and 3;

Mr. P.Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA) representing

respondent No.4; and Mr. G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for

respondents No.5 to 11.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order

dated 16.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.35746 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.

3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition seeking a

direction to respondents No.2 and 3 for revoking the building ::2::

permission granted to respondents No.5 to 11 in respect of the

subject land on 04.08.2022.

4. Appellant had contended before the learned Single Judge that

there are civil disputes between the appellant and respondents No.5

to 11 with regard to the subject land; if respondents No.5 to 11 are

permitted to proceed with the building construction, it would cause

prejudice to the claim of the appellant in the civil suit i.e.,

O.S.No.981 of 2022 instituted by him and pending on the file of II

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Appellant further

contended that the subject land has intruded into his bigger plot of

land and being aggrieved by such intrusion, he had submitted

representations before respondents No.2 and 3 on 16.07.2022 and

19.07.2022 seeking revocation of building permission already

granted in favour of respondents No.5 to 11 in respect of the

subject land.

5. Learned Government Pleader had pointed out before the

learned Single Judge that respondents No.2 and 3 were only

required to have prima facie satisfaction as regards title and ::3::

possession of the appellant in respect of the subject land in which

permission for construction is sought; upon verification of the

documents submitted by respondents No.5 to 11, respondents

No.2 and 3 were prima facie satisfied about their title and possession

over the subject land and accordingly granted building permission;

the same cannot be revoked now by the said respondents.

6. Learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the

parties, dismissed the writ petition vide the order dated 16.09.2022,

relevant portion of which reads as under:

This Court has time and again held that GHMC/Municipal Authorities are only required to verify as to the existence of prima facie title while granting permission and cannot adjudicate on the title dispute between the parties.

Admittedly, the sale deeds show the title of unofficial respondents to the subject property, for which the respondent-authorities have granted building permission. If that be so, mere pendency of a suit between the parties cannot be taken note of by the respondent-authorities either to deny grant of permission or revoke the permission granted.

::4::

Further, mere grant of permission building permission would not confer any title and grant of such building permission would be subject to the orders passed by the competent Civil Court and the construction, if any, made by the unofficial respondents on the suit schedule property would be governed by doctrine of lis pendens.

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). The costs shall be paid to the High Court State Legal Services Committee within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of

the Court to clause (b) of the letter of approval for commencement

of work dated 04.08.2022 issued by respondent No.2 and submits

that the extent of plot in respect of which building permission is

sought should not be part of a bigger plot split for the purpose of

obtaining permission for building construction. He submits that if

respondents No.5 to 11 are permitted to proceed with the

construction in terms of the letter of approval dated 04.08.2022, ::5::

the same would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the

appellant in O.S.No.981 of 2022 where he is the plaintiff.

8. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to such contention of

learned counsel for the appellant.

9. Respondents No.2 and 3, on verification of the documents

submitted by respondents No.5 to 11, had granted building

permission for construction of ground floor plus one upper floor in

plot No.NIL, locality: URSU, Survey No.308B (old 308), Urus

Village, Kashibugga, GWMC (M), GWMC, Warangal (Urban)

District (already referred to as the subject land). It is not the case

of the appellant that respondents No.5 to 11 have violated the

conditions of building permission or had obtained the same by mis-

representation.

10. On a query by the Court as to whether any injunction has

been granted by the civil court in O.S.No.981 of 2022, learned

counsel for the appellant submits that till date no injunction order

has been passed.

::6::

11. That being the position, we do not find any error or infirmity

in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact,

learned Single Judge has safeguarded the interest of the appellant by

holding that mere grant of building permission would not confer

any title and grant of such building permission would be subject to

such orders that may be passed by the competent civil court and

would also be covered by the doctrine of lis pendens. That being the

position, no case for interference is made out.

12. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

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

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 06.02.2023 LUR

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter