Telangana High Court
Manda Prakash, vs Bobbalaraji Reddy, on 30 January, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.121 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. G.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior
Counsel for respondent No.1. We have also heard
Ms. Borra Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban
Development Department for respondent No.2 and
Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for respondents
No.3 and 4.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
06.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing
W.P.No.40836 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ
petitioner.
3. Respondent No.1 had taken exception to the
proceedings of Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation
(briefly, 'the Corporation' hereinafter) dated 22.07.2022
cancelling the building permission granted on 19.04.2022.
4. Respondent No.1 contended before the learned Single
Judge that he along with one Satyapal Reddy had
purchased land admeasuring Ac.1.20 guntas in Survey
Nos.561 and 564 situated at Ursu Village, Khila Warangal
Mandal in the district of Warangal (briefly, 'the subject
land' hereinafter) through a registered sale deed dated
19.02.1999. The said Satyapal Reddy sold his share of the
land in favour of respondent No.1 by registered sale deed
dated 18.10.2021. Thus, respondent No.1 became the
absolute owner and possessor of the entire subject land.
He made an application before the Corporation for seeking
permission for construction of residential house. By
proceedings dated 19.04.2022, permission was granted to
an extent of 4749.85 square yards.
5. When respondent No.1 started construction of the
compound wall, show cause notice dated 10.06.2022 was
issued by the Corporation calling upon respondent No.1 to
show cause as to why building permission granted earlier
should not be cancelled. The show cause notice was
issued on the basis of representation submitted by the
appellant and respondent No.5 ('objectors' hereinafter).
The objectors had pointed out that building permission
was obtained suppressing order passed in W.P.No.26340 of
2003 as well as pendency of O.S.No.82 of 2019. It was
contended by respondent No.1 before the learned Single
Judge that respondent No.1 was not a party to
W.P.No.26340 of 2003. Thus, there was no suppression of
material facts, besides there was no statutory violation of
any provision of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, to
warrant issuance of show cause notice for cancellation of
building permission granted.
6. On behalf of the Corporation, it was submitted before
the learned Single Judge that in view of status quo order
passed in W.P.No.26340 of 2003, Corporation had revoked
the building permission.
7. Insofar appellant is concerned, learned Single Judge
noted that appellant had refused to receive the notice
issued by the Court and therefore he would be deemed to
have been served. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent No.5 was found to be not present.
8. This has been clarified by learned counsel for the
appellant stating that appellant had appeared through
counsel, but the counsel was delayed in reaching the
Court.
9. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 06.12.2022
allowed the writ petition in the following manner:
4. In the impugned order dated 22.02.2022, the
respondents have repeatedly mentioned about the
status-quo orders passed by this court in W.P.No.26340
of 2003. This court has disposed of the said writ petition
by order dated 29.08.2017 wherein this court has
observed that the aggrieved person shall invoke the
common law remedy claiming the title over the said land
and also seek appropriate orders, if any, from the court
and till such time, status-quo obtained as on that date
shall be maintained with regard to possession and
entries made in the record. Admittedly, the petitioners
therein have already filed a civil suit i.e.O.S.No.82 of
20l9. Hence, the respondents cannot say that there is a
status-quo order and the same was suppressed by the
petitioner and all the more, the petitioner is not a party
to the said writ petition. Further, there no restraint
orders are passed in O.S.No.82 of 20l9 either restraining
the petitioner or the respondents from going ahead with
the construction. As the 4th respondent has refused to
receive the notice, it amounts to deemed service of
notice and learned counsel for the 5th respondent is not
present. Taking into consideration all the above aspects,
the proceedings dated 22.07.2022 and intimation letter
dated 02.11.2022 are liable to be set aside.
5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting
aside the proceedings dated 22.07.2022 and intimation
letter dated 02.11.2022 passed by the respondents.
There shall be no order as to costs.
10. From the above, it is seen that learned Single Judge
found from the record that W.P.No.26340 of 2003 was
disposed of by this Court on 29.08.2017 relegating the
parties therein to the forum of civil Court and till such time
status quo as regards possession was directed to be
maintained. Thereafter, appellant filed civil suit, being
O.S.No.82 of 2019. There is no injunction order passed in
the civil suit. Once, the civil suit was instituted by the
appellant, the status quo order passed by this Court in
W.P.No.26340 of 2003 ceased to operate. Therefore, there
was no status quo order restraining the Corporation from
considering the request of respondent No.1 for building
permission. That apart, respondent No.1 was not a party
to W.P.No.26340 of 2003. Therefore, learned Single Judge
set aside the proceedings dated 22.07.2022 and
consequential letter dated 02.11.2022.
11. Prima facie, a view can be taken that once building
permission is granted, the same should not be cancelled
unless it was obtained fraudulently or there is any violation
of the building permission or of the statute.
12. However, considering the fact that appellant, who
had lodged objection before the Corporation leading to
cancellation of building permission, did not get an
adequate opportunity to contest the proceedings, we are of
the view that it would be in the interest of justice, if the
matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to
give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as
respondent No.5 and thereafter pass a fresh order in
accordance with law. In the meanwhile, having regard to
the substance of the order dated 06.12.2022 and the view
that we have taken, proceedings dated 22.07.2022 as well
as the consequential letter dated 02.11.2022 shall remain
stayed for a period of 6 (six) weeks whereafter the same
shall be subject to such order as may be passed by the
learned Single Judge.
13. Ordered accordingly.
14. Writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
30.01.2023
vs
