Telangana High Court

Ladella Ravinder vs The Greater Warangal Municipal ... on 11 March, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

     WRIT PETITION Nos.5197 OF 2023 AND 33921 OF 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Mr. Ravi Chandra Bejjaram, learned counsel representing

Mrs. G. Bhanu Priya, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.5197

of 2023 and respondent No.8 in W.P. No.33921 of 2024, Mr. Bhanu

Murthi Bala, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P. No.5197 of

2023 and petitioners in W.P. No.33921 of 2024 and Mr. Pasham Mohith,

learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Warangal Municipal

Corporation (GWMC) appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. Lis involved and parties in both the writ petitions are one and

the same. Therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and

they are being disposed of by way of common order.

3. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties are

hereinafter referred as they are arrayed in W.P. No.5197 of 2023.

4. CASE OF THE PETITIONER in W.P.No.5197 OF 2023:

i) He is a retired employee of S.C. Corporation and belongs to

S.C. Community.

ii) He has purchased an old building bearing D.No.3-9-107,

admeasuring 200 square yards, situated at Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

from one Mr. Muralidhar Sharma, under a registered sale deed, dated

18.12.1995.

iii) Since the aforesaid building was in dilapidated condition, he

obtained building permit dated 02.08.2018 for construction of Ground

Floor + 2 Floors.

iv) Respondent No.4, wife of Mr. Saibaba, claims to be the owner

of his adjacent building bearing D.No.3-9-107/1 of the very same

locality. On enquiry, it was found that originally the said building

belonged to one Mr. Ravula Lakshmi Narayana and others, who entered

into an agreement of sale with one Ms. Jangala Lalitha on 30.12.1992.

Pursuant to the same, Ms. Jangala Lalitha entered into an agreement of

sale in favour of Ms. Ghousia Begum, who in turn entered into an

agreement of sale dated 30.01.2005 with the husband of respondent No.4

to an extent of 99 square yards out of 200 square yards and remaining

extent of 101 square yards is with Mr. Rapolu Purushotham.

v) Thus, none of the aforesaid transactions right from 1992 is

valid as there are no registered sale deeds executed. However, the

husband of respondent No.4, Mr. T. Saibaba, Head Constable, executed

a registered Gift Deed dated 16.12.2015 in favour of his wife, respondent

No.4 to an extent of 108.47 square yards as against 99 square yards. On

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

the strength of the same, respondent No.4 applied for building permit on

30.10.2018 i.e., subsequent to the building permit order of the petitioner,

showing the total extent of 108.47 square yards and obtained building

permit order dated 16.12.2018 for construction of Ground + 2 Floors.

vi) The building permit order granted to respondent No.4 is in

utter violation of Building Rules framed vide G.O.Ms.No.168, dated

07.04.2012, G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 05.01.2016 and prescribed setbacks.

The setbacks prescribed in both the building permit orders are as under:

Building Permit of the Petitioner Building Permit of Respondent No.4 165.55 meters 90.5 meters Total Floors G+2 G+2 Front 2.36 meters (about 8 ft) 1.55 meters (5 ft) Rear 1.1 (4 ft) 0.55 (1 ½ ft) Side-I 1.1 (4 ft) 0.55 (1 ½ ft) Side-II 1.1 (4 ft) 0.55 (1 ½ ft)

vii) The husband of respondent No.4 is working in Police

Department started troubling the petitioner even before he started

construction on the ground that he belongs to SC Community and the

husband of respondent No.4 does not like SCs to be his neighbour.

Accordingly, he got issued a notice dated 24.05.2018 to the petitioner

from respondent No.2 as if the petitioner was making unauthorized

construction of RCC Pillars without taking prior permission from

GWMC. The petitioner had submitted explanation on 04.06.2018 to the

said notice stating that his neighbor, husband of respondent No.4 had

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

laid a drainage pipe touching his compound wall without providing any

gap, and thereby his portico and steps got fully damaged. Therefore, in

order to protect his property from untoward incidents and to reconstruct

the wall, he dismantled the steps and portico and started reconstruction.

viii) The husband of respondent No.4 also got issued another

notice dated 26.09.2018 with an allegation that he was constructing

ground floor RCC pillars in deviation to the sanctioned plan. He has

also submitted explanation dated 05.10.2018. Thereafter, without

considering the same, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated

26/27.11.2018 under Section 452 (2) of the HMC Act stating that his

explanation dated 05.10.2018 was rejected and action would be taken.

ix) Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed a writ petition vide W.P.

No.22457 of 2019 to declare the action of GWMC in not initiating action

pursuant to notice dated 27.11.2018 against the petitioner as illegal.

Vide order dated 16.10.2019, this Court directed GWMC to take

necessary steps to ensure that no construction is made by the petitioner

in deviation of sanctioned plan. Pursuant to the said order, the GWMC

has issued notice 04.11.2019 to the petitioner to directing him to remove

the deviated portion of construction or else the same would be removed

by GWMC. Challenging the said notice dated 04.11.2019, the petitioner

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.24476 of 2019, wherein this Court

granted interim orders. Again, respondent No.4 filed a writ petition vide

W.P. No.6513 of 2021 seeking to take action against the petitioner

herein as if he was making illegal construction of pent house over and

above 2nd floor. Vide common judgment dated 15.07.2022 this Court

disposed of all the said three writ petitions directing the GWMC to

remove the deviations within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of said order. Challenging the said common judgment, dated

15.07.2022, the petitioner had preferred appeals vide W.A. Nos.552, 546

and 549 of 2022. Vide common judgment, dated 26.08.2022, a Division

Bench of this court disposed of the said appeals directing the GWMC to

examine the matter in terms of Rule - 26 (d) of the T.S. Building Rules,

2012 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2012 which contemplates

compounding of any setback in violation up to 10%.

x) Pursuant to the said judgment dated 26.08.2022, the petitioner

made a representation dated 09.09.2022 along with map. Thereafter, he

has also submitted several representations to GWMC against permission

obtained by respondent No.4 illegally by submitting fabricated

documents and illegal construction etc. However, on 26.04.2022, the

GWMC issued a notice to respondent No.4 to produce her ownership

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

documents etc. She did not produce the same and GWMC has not taken

any action despite the District Collector's instructions vide letters dated

05.07.2022 and 30.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ

petition vide W.P. No.43014 of 2022 and the same was disposed of

directing GWMC to consider the representation of the petitioner. Despite

the same, the GWMC did not proceed further.

xi) While so, by referring the judgment, dated 26.08.2022 passed

by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ appeals, the

GWMC issued a notice dated 12.10.2022 asking the petitioner to remove

deviation as the same is exceeding 10% deviation in respect of every

side of setback. Therefore, GWMC issued proceedings, dated

28.01.2023, directing respondent No.3 to seal the subject premises and

keep a board to that effect. Challenging the said proceedings, the

petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.4:

Respondent No.4 filed counter denying the claim of the petitioner

and further contended as follows:

i) Her husband purchased the land from Ghousia Begum vide

agreement of sale dated 04.01.2003 to an extent of 108.47 square yards,

but not 99 square yards as alleged by the petitioner.

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

ii) The petitioner is trying to grab her land and accordingly

misrepresenting the facts to gain sympathy of this Court.

iii) It is denied that her husband being employee in Police

Department is managing the Municipal Authorities.

6. CONTENTIONS FO RESPONDENT No.4 (PETITIONERS IN W.P. No.33921 OF 2024:

Whereas, W.P. No.33921 of 2024 is filed by respondent No.4 in

W.P. No.5197 of 2023 and her husband, challenging the rejection order

dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of GWMC in

review petition against the impugned order dated 31.08.2023, contended

as follows:

i) She is the owner and possessor of the residential house bearing

D.No.3-9-107/1. She has obtained building permit order dated

16.12.2018.

ii) The petitioner in W.P. No.5197 of 2023 is their neighbour.

There are some disputes among them. Therefore, they made a complaint

to the GWMC. As a counter blast, the petitioner in W.P. No.5197 of

2023 made multiple complaints.

iii) Both the parties filed writ petitions against each other as

mentioned above.

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

iv) Pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, the GWMC

had issued a show-cause notice dated 13.02.2023 to respondent No.4.

She has submitted her reply to the said show-cause notice. Having

dissatisfied with her reply, the GWMC passed impugned order dated

31.08.2023, revoking her building permit order dated 16.12.2018.

Challenging the same, she filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.1203 of

2024 before this Court. Vide order dated 16.02.2024, the same was

disposed of granting liberty to avail remedy of appeal under Section -

252 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Instead of preferring an

appeal, her advocate advised her to wait till receipt of another notice

from GWMC.

v) While so, GWMC has issued notice dated 05.06.2024 stating

that despite granting liberty to avail remedy of appeal, so far, she has not

filed such appeal and, therefore, the order dated 31.08.2023 held good

and accordingly directed her to vacate the premises and remove

unauthorized construction. She has submitted reply dated 07.06.2024 to

the said notice and, thereafter, her advocate prepared the appeal and sent

the same through registered post on 12.06.2024. Thereafter, she has

filed another writ petition vide W.P. No.15682 of 2024 and the same was

dismissed on 08.07.2024.

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

vi) Subsequently, the GWMC passed order dated 31.08.2023

dismissing the said statutory appeal and, thereafter, served a notice of

eviction dated 12.09.2024 and for removal of unauthorized construction

within two (02) days from the date of receipt of said order. She made an

application for grant of time to vacate the premises.

vii) She has also filed a review petition under Section - 114 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to review the order dated 31.08.2023

dismissing her statutory appeal. Vide order dated 08.11.2024, the

GWMC dismissed the said review petition on the ground that the said

review petition filed by her under Section - 114 of C.P.C. is not

maintainable.

viii) Challenging the said order dated 08.11.2024, respondent

No.4 in W.P. No.5197 of 2023 and her husband filed W.P. No.33921 of

2024. They also sought to set aside the order dated 31.08.2023.

7. The petitioners in W.P. No.5197 of 2023 and respondent No.8

in W.P. No.33921 of 2024 filed her counter reiterating the contentions

made in her writ affidavit in W.P. No.5197 of 2023.

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

8. CONTENTIONS OF GWMC:

i) Respondent No.4 in W.P. No.5197 of 2023 filed building

application to grant permission for her proposed construction over the

house bearing D.No.3-9-107/1 as if it was constructed in the year 1984

and created the property tax assessment record in Form-B for the

assessment year 1984 and 1993 with the help of false assessment to

avoid payment of LRS charges and obtained building permit order dated

16.12.2018.

ii) The husband of respondent No.4 gifted the house bearing

No.3-9-107/1 to an extent of 108 square yards to his wife, respondent

No.4 vide gift settlement deed bearing document No.8041 of 2015, dated

16.12.2015. In the said gift settlement deed, the age of building is

mentioned as 11 years, whereas respondent No.4 filed building

application as if it was constructed in the year 1984. Thus, she obtained

building permission by misrepresenting the facts and using fraudulent

methods. She is also liable for criminal prosecution. Accordingly, vide

order dated 31.08.2023, revoked the building permission dated

16.12.2018 by directing respondent No.3 to lodge a complaint before the

Station House Officer, Hanamkonda Police Station against her and the

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

Police registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2024 for the offences under

Sections - 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B read with 34 IPC.

iii) The appeal filed by respondent No.4 under Section - 252 of

the Act, 2019 was dismissed vide orders dated 05.06.2024 by the

Appellate Authority confirming the orders dated 31.08.2023.

iv) In view of revocation order dated 31.08.2023 and considering

reply dated 29.01.2024, GWMC passed orders dated 05.06.2024

directing respondent No.4 to vacate the premises by removing

unauthorized construction within fifteen (15) days. Challenging the said

order dated 05.06.2024, respondent No.4 filed a writ petition vide W.P.

No.15682 of 2024 and the same was dismissed vide order dated

08.07.2024. Once again, she filed an appeal before the Appellate

Authority on 28.06.2024 challenging building permit revocation order

dated 31.08.2023 and its consequential order dated 05.06.2024, and the

same was dismissed on 30.08.2024.

v) Respondent No.4 instead of complying with the orders dated

12.09.2024, filed a review petition on 28.10.2024. However, the said

review petition was also dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction

and maintainability.

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

vi) On the complaint made by the petitioner with regard to filing

of such false assessment certificate, the GWMC took the action by

cancelling permission.

vii) Thus, there is no error in issuing notices as well as orders

passed by GWMC.

9. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

i) W.P. No.5197 OF 2023: a) The afore-stated facts would reveal

that it is the specific contention of the GWMC and respondent No.4 that

the petitioner proceeded with construction in deviation to the building

permit order 02.08.2018 and such deviations are specifically mentioned

by GWMC in a tabular form in the impugned proceedings dated

28.01.2023. Therefore, after issuance of notice dated 04.11.2019 and

proceedings dated 12.10.2022 and also considering the orders of this

Court in the aforesaid writ petitions and writ appeals and the explanation

submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned

order dated 28.01.2023. According to the petitioner, there is no

deviation and she has proceeded with construction strictly in accordance

with building permit order dated 02.08.2018, whereas, according to

GWMC and respondent No.4, the petitioner proceeded with construction

in deviation to the aforesaid building permit order dated 02.08.2018.

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

The same are factual aspects, which this Court cannot consider in a writ

petition filed under Section - 226 of the Constitution of India.

b) Admittedly, the impugned order is an appealable order in terms

of Section - 252 (1) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. It is not

the case of the petitioner that GWMC has passed the said impugned

order in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the

procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, to

maintain present writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy

of appeal.

ii) W.P. No.33921 OF 2024: a) Respondent No.4 in W.P.

No.5197 of 2023 and her husband are the petitioners in this writ petition.

They filed a review petition under Section - 114 of the CPC challenging

the order dated 31.08.2023. The same was rejected by GWMC vide

order dated 08.11.2024 holding that it lacks jurisdiction.

b) In the light of the above, it is relevant to extract Section - 114

of the CPC and the same is as under:

"114. Review.-Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Court, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."

c) Thus, a review in terms of Section - 114 of the CPC is

maintainable under the aforesaid three (03) circumstances. But, in the

present case, respondent No.4 and her husband filed the aforesaid review

petition under Section - 114 of CPC to review the order dated

31.08.2023 passed by GWMC. Therefore, the said review application

filed by respondent No.4 and her husband is not maintainable.

Moreover, GWMC cannot review its own order dated 31.08.2023 on the

aforesaid grounds mentioned by respondent No.4 and her husband. It is

not a reviewable order. If respondent No.4 and her husband are

aggrieved by the said order, they have to take steps in accordance with

law. Instead of doing so, they filed the aforesaid review application in

terms of Section - 114 of CPC before GWMC and the same was rejected

by GWMC, vide order dated 08.11.2024. As rightly held by GWMC, it

lacks jurisdiction. There is no error in it. Respondent No.4 and her

husband failed to make any ground to interfere with the order dated

08.11.2024. Therefore, this writ petition fails and the same is liable to be

dismissed. However, during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings,

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

d) However, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and her

husband submitted that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings,

respondent No.4 came to know the fraud played by the petitioner in

collusion with GWMC Authorities. Fraud vitiates everything at any

stage. He has also placed reliance on the decision in A.V. Papayya

Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. 1. There is no dispute with regard to principle

laid down by the Apex Court that fraud vitiates everything at any stage.

But, respondent No.4 and her husband have to take proper legal steps to

establish such fraud. They cannot file a review application in terms of

Section - 114 of CPC before GWMC and plead 'fraud'.

10. CONCLUSION:

i) W.P. No.5197 of 2023 is disposed of granting liberty to the

petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of Section - 252 (1) of the

Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 before the Regional Director - cum -

Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration concerned, and it

is for the appellate authority to consider the same in accordance with

law. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner, GWMC and respondent

No.4 to raise all the contentions and grounds which they have raised in

the present writ petitions before the appellate authority.

. (2007) 4 SCC 221

KL,J W.P. Nos.5197 of 2023 & 33921 of 2024

ii) W.P. No.33921 of 2024 is dismissed. However, liberty is

granted to the petitioners therein to initiate appropriate legal steps

pleading and establishing 'fraud'.

iii) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to

costs in both the writ petitions.