Smt. A. Srilatha vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1484 Tel

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


                   WRIT APPEAL No.404 of 2023

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



       Heard Mr. P.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for

the    appellant;        Ms.     B.Lakshmi          Kanakavalli,      learned

Assistant          Government              Pleader           for    Municipal

Administration and Urban Development Department for

respondent No.1; Mr. M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing

Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

(GHMC) for respondents No.2 and 3; Mr. D.Jagan Mohan

Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4; and

Mr. K.S.Suneel, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. This appeal is directed against the interim order

dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.6680 of 2023 filed by respondent No.5 as the writ

petitioner.

3. Respondent No.5 has filed the related writ petition

seeking the following relief:

To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the order dt.03.03.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.683/TPS/CP/ LDNZ/GHMC/2022 to the extent of cancelling the permission granted in favour of the petitioner vide Permit No.2/C3/17656/2018 dt.13.11.2018 and directing the petitioner not proceed further with the construction activity, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and also against the settled principles of law and consequently set-aside the same.

4. An interlocutory application has also been filed,

being I.A.No.1 of 2023, for stay of the order dated

03.03.2023.

5. On 17.03.2023, learned Single Judge ordered as

follows:

Heard both sides.

There shall be interim suspension as prayed for. However, any constructions carried out on the subject

property are subject to further orders being passed by this Court.

List on 16.06.2023.

6. From the materials on record we find that appellant

has raised a dispute qua respondent No.5 in respect of plot

Nos.474 and 475 out of Survey Nos.66/11, Plot Nos.474

and 475 out of Survey No.66/12 and Plot No.79 out of

Survey No.66/14 situated at Rock Town Colony,

Mansoorabad Village (hereinafter referred to as, 'the

subject land).

7. We find that the injunction suit filed by the appellant

was dismissed all throughout right up to the Supreme

Court. Thereafter appellant has filed a declaratory suit

without any injunction. Notwithstanding the same,

appellant lodged representation before the GHMC to stop

construction carried out by respondent No.5 over the

subject land. We may mention that respondent No.5 was

granted building permission by GHMC on 13.11.2018.

8. After a lengthy narration, GHMC has passed the

following order on 03.03.2023:

There are various sale deeds in favour of all the parties and all the parties are claiming the same land on registered documents. There are O.S.No.758 of 2017 & O.S.No.878 of 2017 cases pending prior to the building permission and O.S.No.454 of 2019, O.S.No.1652 of 2022, C.R.P.No.2886 of 2022 & W.P.No.7656 of 2021 are pending after the building permission. The permission was granted to the respondent/applicant (i.e., G.Lalithamma) on 13-11-2018, but not started construction within the time and subsequently Chitta Santhisri applied building permission vide application No.2/C3/08056/2021 dated 28.06.2021 got fee intimation letter on the same land and paid the fees. Hence, the permission granted in favour of G.Lalithamma and fee intimation issued in favour of Chitta Santhisri are stands cancelled. G.Lalithamma is hereby directed not to proceed further with the construction activity. All the parties are hereby directed to approach civil court to establish their title, as all the parties are having registered sale deeds. After that only they can apply for building permission, as the GHMC is not competent authority to decide title disputes.

9. From the above, it is seen that GHMC has cancelled

the permission granted to respondent No.5 on the ground

that there are multiple sale deeds in respect of the subject

land and all the parties are claiming ownership. It is this

order which is under impugnment before the learned

Single Judge.

10. Learned Single Judge has posted the matter on

16.06.2023 and in the meanwhile directed interim

suspension of the order dated 03.03.2023, however,

making it clear that any construction carried out on the

subject land would be subject to further orders by the

Court.

11. Since the above is an interim order, we see no good

reason to interfere with the same in appeal proceeding. It

is open to the appellant to contest the writ petition and

also seek vacation of the interim order.

12. Without expressing any opinion on merit, we decline

to entertain the writ appeal.

13. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

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

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 31.03.2023 vs