[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Jubilee Hills Cooperative House ... vs State Of Telangana on 30 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.3281 of 2026
Dated:30.03.2026
Between:
Jubilee Hills Co-Operative House
Building Society Limited, Hyderabad,
reptd by its President-B.Ravindranath.
...Petitioner
And:
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Urban
Development Department,
Hyderabad and two others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2
in granting building permission to respondent No.3-Education society,
vide Building Permit No.6202/GHMC/KHB/2024-BP, dated
20.11.2024, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner-
Society, vide representation, dated 17.08.2023, vide Ref.No
HJCHBSL/281/2023, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and in
violation of provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
LNA,J
Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the GHMC Act') and Articles-14
and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently, to quash/set
aside the same.
2. Heard Sri V.Hari Haran, learned senior counsel, appearing for
Sri Rohit Pogula, learned counsel-on-record for petitioner, Sri Vivek
Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Education Society and
Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC-
respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that the
petitioner, a registered society, was allotted land admeasuring Acs.1,398
in Sy.No.120/403-1 of Shaikpet Village and Sy.No.102/1 of Hakimpet
Village, Golkonda Taluk, Hyderabad District; that the petitioner-society
developed the said land and divided the same into plots along with
necessary amenities like parks, open spaces, etc.,; that as part of its
objects to provide infrastructure including educational facilities to
members and their families and residents of Jubilee Hills Township, it
has earmarked an extent of Acs.6.02 guntas equivalent to 29,282 square
yards in Ward No.8, Block No.2, for setting up of school/educational
institution; that the said land was leased to respondent No.3- Education
LNA,J
society vide lease deed, dated 21.08.1987, bearing document
No.2098/1997, after duly passing appropriate resolutions to that effect,
for establishment of school/educational institution; that the lease was for
a period of 30 years; that respondent No.3-Education Society was
permitted to raise structures for setting up of school/educational
institution at its own cost and after expiry of the lease period, the
petitioner-society has option to take over the said structures at the price
mutually agreed upon; that respondent No.3- Education society raised
necessary infrastructure from time to time for running of school in the
name of Jubilee Hills Public school.
3.1. It is further averred that the structures have to be raised by
respondent No.3- Education Society on the leased premises on express
written consent of Managing Committee of the petitioner-society; that
the lease period of 30 years expired on 20.08.2017; and that in view of
differences/disputes between the petitioner-society and respondent No.3-
Education Society and further, as respondent No.3-Education Society
defaulted in payment of yearly lease rents, the lease was not renewed.
3.2. It is further averred that respondent No.3- Education Society filed
a suit in OS.No.797 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil
LNA,J
Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance of agreement of lease deed
dated 21.08.1987 and to direct the petitioner-society to renew the lease
for another term of 30 years, as per Clause-15 of the said lease deed, and
also to grant perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner-society from
interfering with the affairs and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
subject property by respondent No.3- Education Society; that the
petitioner-society, after receipt of summons, filed written statement
denying the suit claim.
3.3. It is further averred that the petitioner-society came to know that
respondent No.3- Education society through its President applied for
permission for construction of three upper floors over and above the
existing building and also another building without express consent from
the petitioner-society; that the petitioner-society has submitted a
representation dated 17.08.2023 to respondent No.2 not to grant building
permission or extension for construction to respondent No.3- Education
society without producing No Objection Certificate from the petitioner-
society and also without there being any valid lease agreement from the
petitioner-society; that respondent No.2, without considering the said
representation, accorded permission for construction to respondent No.3-
LNA,J
Education Society through the impugned proceedings and therefore, the
impugned order is illegal and violative of the provisions of the GHMC
Act as well as the TG-bPASS Act and hence, aggrieved by the same, the
present Writ Petition is filed.
4. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.3- Education Society
stating that it is a registered society and it has been leased out land
admeasuring Acs.6.02 guntas in Ward No.8 Block No.2, Jubilee Hills,
vide lease deed dated 21.08.1987, however, it was handed over only an
extent of Acs.4.30 as against Acs.6.02 guntas, which is mentioned in the
lease deed; and that respondent No.3- Education society established
school in the name of Jubilee Hills Public School and the same is being
run since 40 years.
4.1. It is further averred that as per Clause-12 of the lease deed,
respondent No.3- Education Society shall give first priority for
admission to Jubilee Hills Public School to the members of the
petitioner-society and their children; as per Clause-13, the President and
Secretary of the petitioner-society shall be ex-officio members of
respondent No.3- Education society; that as per Caluse-8, respondent
No.3-society is entitled to raise structures on the leased premises without
LNA,J
requirement of obtaining consent from the petitioner-society; and that as
per Caluse-15, subject to compliance of Caluses-2 to 6, 12 and 13, the
lease shall be renewed for another term of 30 years at the option of the
lessee i.e., respondent No.3- Education society.
4.2. It is further averred that respondent No.3-Education Society vide
letters dated 17.04.2015 and 27.04.2017 requested the petitioner-society
to renew the lease for another term of thirty (30) years as per Caluse-15
of lease deed; that petitioner-society vide reply dated 16.07.2018,
alleging that Clauses-12 and 13 of the lease deed were not adhered to,
called upon respondent No.3- Education society to surrender 3,000
square yards of the leased property in order to execute a fresh lease
deed.
4.3. It is further averred that the President and Secretary of petitioner-
society as ex-officio members have been attending the meetings of the
respondent No.3- Education Society and therefore, the allegation of non-
adherence of Clauses-12 and 13 was created only with an intention to
evict the respondent No.3- Education Society from the leased premises.
4.4. It is further averred that respondent No.3- Education Society
filed a suit in OS.No.797 of 2018 and the trial Court granted interim
LNA,J
orders restraining the petitioner-society from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent No.3- Education
Society over the leased premises and also the affairs of respondent No.3-
society and the said interim order was extended from time to time and
finally, by orders, dated 15.06.2022, it was extended until further orders.
4.5. It is further averred that the petitioner-society formed a sub-
committee on 29.07.2020 to examine the issue of renewal of lease deed
and basing on the report of the sub-committee, the petitioner-society in
its Managing Committee meeting held on 30.09.2020 passed resolution
extending the lease in favour of respondent No.3- Education society for
further term of 30 years in terms of Clause-15; that a joint meeting
between the members of the petitioner-society and respondent No.3-
Education Society was held on 12.10.2020, wherein it was agreed that
the lease deed would be renewed on the same rental structure with other
modifications as applicable and on even date, lease deed was executed
for another term of 30 years; that all these developments were part of
record in suit in OS.No.797 of 2018; that respondent No.3-Education
society is entitled to raise structures in the leased property and there is
no requirement of obtaining express written consent from the petitioner-
LNA,J
society for raising structures; that respondent No.3- Education Society is
intending to commence Cambridge curriculum in the school for benefit
of the students to gain exposure to international curriculum for which
purpose, it intended to construct three additional floors over existing
Block-A and another block namely Block-C for sports complex and
parking blocks; and that accordingly, it submitted an application to
respondent No.2 for permission duly enclosing all requisite documents
and also disclosing the pendency of suit in OS.No.797 of 2018.
4.6. It is further averred that upon payment of requisite amount as
well as furnishing of the Undertaking-cum-Indemnity Bond by
respondent No.3-Education Society, respondent No.2, being satisfied
with the documents filed by respondent No.3-Education Society,
accorded permission for construction, vide Permit dated 20.11.2024; that
respondent No.3- Education Society commenced construction in the year
2024 and at present, slab work of three additional floors is completed
and some walls are also raised; that while the mater stood thus, the
petitioner-society, after a period of about two years from the date of
commencement of building work, suddenly approached this Court
alleging that respondent No.3-Education society is in illegal possession
LNA,J
of the leased premises and obtained interim orders by suppressing the
execution of lease deed dated 12.10.2020 only to arm twist respondent
No.3-Education society to succumb to its unlawful requests and
surrender land as demanded by them and hence, prayed to dismiss the
Writ Petition.
5. The petitioner-society filed reply to the counter filed by
respondent No.3-Education Society denying the averments made in the
counter and it is further stated that the issue relating to renewal of lease
and other disputed facts cannot be decided by this Court and the same
are subject matter of pending suit-OS.No.797 of 2018; that the trial
Court has passed interim order dated 13.11.2018 directing both the
parties to maintain status quo as on that date; that respondent No.3-
Education Society by violating the interim orders of status quo has
indulged in unlawful acts including obtaining building permission for
construction of additional floors.
5.1. It is specifically stated that in fact, no report was submitted by
the sub-committee; that the Managing Committee has not passed
resolution renewing the lease deed in favour of respondent No.3-
Education Society in its meeting held on 30.09.2020; and that the
LNA,J
purported lease deed dated 12.10.2020 was signed by President and
Secretary of the previous Managing Committee, after constitution of
Person-in-Charge Committee with effect from 01.10.2020, therefore, the
same has no basis and the legality and genuineness of the same is
doubtful.
6. Rejoinder is filed on behalf of respondent No.3-Education Society
inter alia stating that the allegations of the petitioner-society that
renewal of the lease deed ought to have been signed by President acting
as person-in-charge and not by Secretary of the previous Managing
committee are all false, since there was no specific direction from
Co-Operative Department that it is only Person-in-charge who is
authorized to sign such document and more over, the renewed lease deed
was signed by one Hanumantha Rao, Secretary, in the capacity of Office
Bearer of the petitioner-society, therefore, the objection raised by the
petitioner-society in this regard is trivial and further, the renewed lease
deed, dated 12.10.2020, was duly stamped in accordance with law.
7. This Court is not inclined to refer to the various allegations and
counter allegations made in the reply-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, as
this Court is not going to adjudicate upon those allegations, since the
LNA,J
same are factual in nature and are also subject matter of pending suit in
OS.No.787 of 2018.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the lease deed in
favour of respondent No.3-Education Society expired on 20.08.2017 and
there was no renewal of the said lease deed and therefore, respondent
No.2 erred in granting building permission to respondent No.3-
Education Society without looking into the prima facie title of the
subject property and as such, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary.
9. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited Vs. Collector,
Hyderabad and another 1 and Rameshwar Vs. Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Others 2.
10. Learned senior counsel also specifically referred to Section 450 of
the GHMC Act, 1955, as per which, the Commissioner has authority to
cancel or revoke permission, if such permission has been obtained by
material misrepresentation, fraudulent statements, or suppression of facts
regarding the property.
2001 SCC Online AP 397
2006 SCC Online AP 269
LNA,J
11. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in the present case,
the lease deed expired on 20.08.2017 and the same was not renewed;
that the alleged renewed lease deed 12.10.2020 is not registered,
therefore, it has no legal sanctity in view of Sections 17 and 49 of the
Registration Act and Section 107(3) of the Transfer of Property Act. He
further submitted that suppressing all the said material facts, respondent
No.3-Education Society obtained building permission. He further
submitted that the renewed lease deed was executed by Hanumantha
Rao, Secretary of the previous Managing Committee when, at the
relevant time, Person-in-Charge was at helm of affairs of the petitioner-
society, therefore, respondent No.3-Edcuation society has no valid title
over the leased premises which disentitles it from applying and
obtaining building permission.
11.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the file pertaining to
lease is missing from the office of petitioner-society and a criminal case
is also filed to that effect, therefore, suit for eviction could not be filed,
however, the petitioner-society is taking steps to initiate appropriate
proceedings for eviction.
LNA,J
11.2. Learned senior counsel further submitted that as per Section
429 of the GHMC Act, the Commissioner may require plans and other
documents to be furnished and as per Section 429-1(aa) of the GHMC
Act, a copy of title deed of land duly attested by gazette officer of the
Government together with Urban Land Ceiling clearance Certificate,
as the case may be, should be filed along with the application.
11.3. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in the present
case, the petitioner-society filed an objection on 17.08.2023 with
respondent No.2 not to grant building permission to respondent No.3-
Education society and despite submitting the same and without there
being any valid lease in favour of respondent No.3-Edcuation society,
the Commissioner accorded permission contrary to the provisions of the
GHMC Act and that too, without any notice to the petitioner-society and
hence, the impugned building permit dated 20.11.2024 is unsustainable
and the same is liable to be set aside.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Education
Society submitted that as per Caluse-15 of the lease deed, the lease shall
be renewed for further term of 30 years at the option of lessee i.e.,
respondent No.3-Education society subject to compliance of Caluses-2
LNA,J
to 6, 12 and 13 thereof; that respondent No.3-society addressed letters
dated 17.04.2015 and 27.04.2017 with a request to renew the lease deed
for another term of 30 years, however, the petitioner-society gave reply
dated 16.07.2018 calling upon respondent No.3-society to surrender
3,000 square yards to renew the lease deed and also alleging non-
compliance of Caluses-12 and 13 of the lease deed. He further submitted
that prior to letters seeking renewal, at no point of time, the petitioner-
society had pointed out non-compliance of any of the terms of the lease
deed and it had raised the alleged non-compliance for the first time after
addressing letters for renewal and the same is invented only for the
purpose of forcing respondent No.3-Education society to surrender
3,000 square yards of land.
12.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has further specifically
contended that the Managing Committee of the petitioner-society passed
resolution on 30.09.2020 renewing the lease deed, basing on report of
the sub-committee, and the renewed lease deed was executed on
12.10.2020 and the same was duly stamped and therefore, respondent
No.3-society has valid title entitling it to grant of building permission.
LNA,J
12.2. Learned counsel further contended that respondent No.2, taking
into consideration the documents submitted by respondent No.3-
Education Society and the Undertaking-cum-Indemnity Bond, dated
28.08.2024, of respondent No.3-Education Society has rightly granted
building permission; that the petitioner-society approached this Court
belatedly after respondent No.3-society raised structures substantially
over the lease premises, therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of any
merit.
12.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the structures are
being raised only for the benefit of the students for providing
international Cambridge education programme. By submitting thus,
learned counsel prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
13. This Court is not inclined to delve into the aspect of
genuinity/validity of the resolution dated 30.09.2020 or the renewed
lease deed dated 12.10.2020, since the same are subject matter of suit in
OS.No.797 of 2018 and in view of fact that this Court exercising the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot decide
the disputed questions of fact.
LNA,J
14. Suffice to say that this Court is required to only adjudicate the
issue as to whether the Commissioner was right in granting permission
for construction to respondent No.3-Education Society.
15. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to lease deed in
favour of respondent No.3-Education society dated 21.08.1987 for a
period of 30 years and respondent No.3-society establishing a school
named Jubilee Hills Public School. As per Clause-15 of the said lease
deed, the lease term can be extended for further term of 30 years at the
option of lessee i.e., respondent No.3-Education Society, subject to
compliance of Caluses-2 to 6, 12 and 13, therefore, the contention of the
petitioner-society that lease is renewable on mutual consent is incorrect.
16. As per Clause-8 of lease deed, the lessee is empowered to raise
structures for setting up of school/educational institution and there is no
requirement for obtaining express written consent from the petitioner-
society. In the teeth of the said clause, the contention of petitioner-
society that respondent No.3-Education society cannot raise structures
without express consent of petitioner-society is untenable. However, the
fact remains that the lease deed expired on 20.08.2017 and the same was
renewed vide renewed lease deed dated 12.10.2020. As per Section 107
LNA,J
of the Transfer of Property Act, any lease exceeding more than one year
is mandatorily registerable. It is pertinent to note that the renewed lease
deed dated 12.10.2020 purported to have been executed by the
petitioner-society in favour of respondent No.3-society does not satisfy
the requirement of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as
Sections-17 and 49 of the Registration Act, though stamp duty is paid.
17. Furthermore, it is relevant to refer to Section 429 of the GHMC
Act, as per which, the Commissioner may require the applicant to
produce title document of property for which permission has been
sought by the applicant. Further, as per the ratio laid down by the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Hyderabad Potteries Private
Limited's case as well as Pavan Raj Vs., the Commissioner has to prima
facie examine the title and possession of the applicant while granting
permission for construction.
18. In the present case, the petitioner-society has submitted
representation dated 17.08.2023 to respondent No.2-Commisioner
requesting not to grant any permission to respondent No.3-Education
society without there being any valid lease deed from the petitioner-
society and without producing No Objection certificate from the
LNA,J
petitioner-society, however, respondent No.2-Commissioner granted
permission without referring to the objections raised by the petitioner-
society, which is contrary to the ratio laid down in T.Rameshwar's case
(cited supra), wherein it was held that the Commissioner is required to
consider objections as and when they are raised for grant of permission
on the ground of title in a pragmatic manner taking into consideration
only prima facie factors.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceedings are liable
to be set aside.
20. Accordingly, The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned
Building Permit, vide No.6202/GHMC/KHB/2024-BP, dated
20.11.2024, of respondent No.2 is set aside and the matter is remanded
back to respondent No.2 with a direction to consider the objections
raised by the petitioner-society and to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, after duly affording opportunity of hearing to both
the parties. This exercise shall be completed within a period one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
LNA,J
21. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No
costs.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:30.03.2026
dr
