Sri. Poloju Vikram And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3396 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                   AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


     WRIT APPEAL Nos.648 of 2022 and 219 of 2023

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


       Mr. Podila Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the

appellants.

       Ms. Borra Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and

Urban Development Department for respondent No.1.

       Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation - respondents

No.2 and 3.

       Mr. R.K.G.Bhatia, learned counsel for respondents

No.4 and 5.

       Mr. S.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the

proposed intervenors.


2.     With the consent of the parties, the writ appeals are

heard finally.
                               2




3.   W.A.No.648 of 2022 has been filed against the order

dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which the writ petition preferred by the appellant, namely

W.P.No.29992 of 2022, has been disposed of with the

liberty to the appellant to avail of the appropriate

alternative remedy.


4.   W.A.No.219 of 2023 has been filed against the order

dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which the writ petition preferred by the appellants, namely

W.P.No.29976 of 2022, has been disposed of with the

liberty to the appellants to avail of the appropriate

alternative remedy.


5.   Facts

giving rise to filing of these writ appeals briefly

stated are that the appellants claim to be the owners of

different extents of land in Plot No.31 (part) in Survey

No.11 situated at Gopalpur Village, Hanamkonda Mandal,

Warangal Urban District (old), Hanamkonda District (new).

The appellants applied for grant of building permission to

the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (hereinafter

referred to as, "the Corporation"). The building permission

was granted to the appellants on 24.08.2021. However, it

appears that respondents No.4 and 5 made complaints

against the appellants. Thereupon, the Corporation, by an

order dated 28.04.2022, cancelled the building permission

issued in favour of the appellants on the ground that the

same was obtained by misrepresentation and by playing

fraud. The order of cancellation of building permission was

assailed by the appellants in the writ petitions. The

learned Single Judge, by orders dated 20.07.2022, inter

alia found that the observation that the building

permission was obtained by the appellants by

misrepresentation and by fraudulent methods is

unwarranted and is without any basis. The learned Single

Judge, therefore, set aside the aforesaid observation made

in the order of cancellation. It was further held that the

appellants as well as the unofficial respondents are

claiming title on the land in question on the basis of

registered sale deeds. It was held that the dispute between

the parties cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. The

writ petitions were therefore disposed of by giving liberty to

the appellants to avail of the appropriate alternative

remedy. Being aggrieved, these writ appeals have been

filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

once the learned Single Judge has found that the action of

the Corporation in cancelling the building permission

granted to the appellants is not justified, the appellants

could not have been relegated to the appropriate

alternative remedy.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the

Corporation has submitted that in compliance of the liberty

granted to the appellants, the appellants have already filed

civil suits, namely O.S.Nos.4487 and 4488 of 2022.

8. Learned counsel for the proposed intervenors

submitted that the proposed intervenors are the owners of

the plot in question as they have purchased the same from

respondents No.4 and 5. It is further submitted that the

appellants are raising construction illegally on the land in

question.

9. The dispute between the appellants, respondents

No.4 and 5 as well as the proposed intervenors pertains to

the title in respect of the land in question. The aforesaid

question of title cannot be gone into in a writ petition.

Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly relegated

the parties to take recourse to the appropriate alternative

remedy. It is pertinent to mention that the appellants have

already resorted to the alternative remedy by filing civil

suits. Respondents No.4 and 5 as well as the proposed

intervenors shall also be at liberty to take recourse to the

remedy which may be available to them in law. Needless to

state that any of the observations/findings recorded by the

learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions shall

not be taken into account by the court or forum which is

invoked by the proposed intervenors as well as respondents

No.4 and 5 and the proceedings initiated by them shall be

dealt with on its own merits.

10. Insofar as the validity of the order dated 28.04.2022

is concerned, suffice it to say that the parties have the

forum prescribed to them under Section 252 of the

Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

11. In view of the availability of the aforesaid alternative

and efficacious remedy, we are not inclined to examine the

validity of the order of cancellation of building permission.

However, the parties are at liberty to approach the forum of

appeal provided to them by the Telangana Municipalities

Act, 2019.

12. Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

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

______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

30.10.2023 vs