M/S Manbhum Construction Co Pvt ... vs Konda Ravinder Reddy And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 783 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.197 of 2023

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


       Heard Mr. M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellants; Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for

respondents No.1 and 2; Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy,

learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration

and Urban Development Department appearing for

respondent No.3; and Mr. M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for respondents No.4 to 6.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

23.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing

of W.P.No.36832 of 2022 filed by respondents No.1 and 2

as the writ petitioners.

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

petition seeking a direction to the Greater Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and its officials to consider

their representation dated 19.07.2022 and thereafter to

withdraw the building permission granted in favour of the

appellants. Further prayer made was for a direction to

GHMC and its officials to dismantle the under-construction

building of the appellants.

4. Learned counsel representing respondents No.1

and 2 had contended before the learned Single Judge that

respondents No.1 and 2 had submitted a representation

dated 19.07.2022 before GHMC for withholding building

permission. However, GHMC had granted building

permission to the appellants on 16.03.2022. It was

contended that land covered by building permission is in

the waterbed area of Parikicheruvu and therefore it was

clearly illegal, as the building permission was obtained by

suppression of facts and misrepresentation.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC had submitted

before the learned Single Judge that GHMC will consider

the representation of respondents No.1 and 2 and

thereafter pass appropriate orders.

6. Recording such submission of learned Standing

Counsel, learned Single Judge passed the order dated

23.09.2022 disposing of the writ petition by directing

GHMC and its officials to consider the representation of

respondents No.1 and 2 and thereafter to pass an

appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of

six weeks. Learned Single Judge observed that since

GHMC and its officials will issue notice to the unofficial

respondents therein (appellants), issuance of notice to the

appellants was not necessary.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

appellants had lodged two caveats before this Court on

15.07.2022, being Caveat Nos.3902 and 3903 of 2022.

While in Caveat No.3902 of 2022 respondent No.2 was

arrayed as the respondent, in Caveat No.3903 of 2022,

respondent No.1 was arrayed as the respondent. In both

the caveats it was pointed out that the caveators were

carrying out construction in the subject land pursuant to

permission granted by the GHMC on 16.03.2022.

Apprehension was expressed that respondents No.1 and 2

may file writ petition in this regard and hence caveats were

lodged. Bypassing the two caveats and without issuing

notice to the appellants, the writ petition was disposed of.

He further submits that had the appellants been given an

opportunity, they could have informed the learned Single

Judge that two civil suits are pending before the parties

wherein injunction order has been passed in favour of the

appellants restraining respondents No.1 and 2 from

interfering with the possession of the appellants over the

subject land.

8. Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for

respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the said respondents

had no knowledge about lodging of caveats by the

appellants. Had they knew about lodging of caveats, they

would have certainly served a copy of the writ petition on

the caveators. That apart, he submits that as per direction

of the learned Single Judge, GHMC has issued notice to the

appellants on 11.01.2023 pursuant to which appellants

had appeared before GHMC on 28.01.2023 through video

conference, but sought adjournment. The adjourned date

was 10.02.2023 on which date appellants did not appear.

9. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the

representation filed by respondents No.1 and 2 seeks

demolition of the construction carried out by the

appellants. Any direction by the Court to GHMC to

consider such a representation would amount to a

direction adverse to the appellants, as acceptance of such

representation would lead to demolition of the

construction. It was, therefore, necessary for learned

Single Judge to have put the appellants, who were arrayed

as respondents No.6 and 7 in the writ proceeding, on

notice and given an opportunity of hearing. Consequential

notice and hearing by the GHMC cannot be a substitute for

non-issuance of notice and non-affording of hearing by the

writ Court. Sometimes, orders of Courts which appear to

be innocuous are capable of serious mischief.

10. That being the position, we set aside the order dated

23.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.36832 of 2022 and remand

the matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge for

adjudication afresh in accordance with law. We make it

clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merit and

all contentions are kept open.

11. Since, we have set aside the order of the learned

Single Judge, proceedings initiated by GHMC on the basis

of the direction of the learned Single would be of no legal

consequence.

12. Writ appeal is accordingly allowed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 14.02.2023 vs