Telangana High Court
M/S Ranga Builders And Contracting ... vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 8 September, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No.770 of 2022
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" ... to grant an order or direction or writ, more so in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the orders dated 24.12.2021 in notice No.1466/TPS/KPZ/GHMC2021 passed by the 3rd Respondent herein, rejecting the Petitioner's representation for cancellation of building permit granted to the 5th Respondent herein in Permit No.2/C25/03026/2020 dated 29.02.2020, as illegal, arbitrary and highhanded, apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and with a consequent prayer to set aside the proceedings dated 24.12.2021 in notice No.1466/TPS/KPZ/GHMC2021 and cancel the building permission in Permit No.2/C25/03026/2020 dated 29.02.2020 issued to the 5th Respondent herein..."
2. Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner gave a representation to the respondent Corporation stating that petitioner has executed an agreement of sale-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the 6th respondent - Sri Venkateshwara Buildcon, represented by its partners Sri G.Venkateshwar Rao, vide registered document bearing No.1897 of 2015 dated 09.03.2015, in respect of 4,414 sq. yards, out of 5747.59 sq. yards. He submits that the said land under the said document is undivided land without any plotting being done. Though in respect of the same, cheques were issued towards the 2 consideration, the cheques were dihonoured. He submits that in total the petitioner has executed three separate documents for the extent of 4,414 sq. yards. Though it is an undivided share, without there being any proper identification of the property, has executed double registrations over the land showing wrong boundaries and executed documents with fabricated plot numbers. These documents are executed with malafide intention. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed O.S.No.613 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Medchal for perpetual injunction. Initially status quo order on alienation was granted and thereafter the said injunction order was not extended. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the 6th respondent has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 5th respondent in the year 2015 for an extent of 888.88 sq. yards. The petitioner has already filed criminal cases and it has also filed a representation before the Registering Authorities in this regard. He submits that suppressing all these facts, the unofficial respondents have obtained the permission. Then a representation is given to the respondent Corporation to cancel the permission which is obtained by suppressing the facts. He submits 3 that without considering all these aspects, the respondent Corporation in the impugned order stated that 'the petitioner has not challenged the title or questioned the execution of sale deed to M/s.Venkateshwara Developers and moreover GHMC is not party in any of the above cases'. Accordingly, the respondent Corporation has rejected the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the civil case is pending and in the criminal case charge sheet filed that there is cheating, it is clear suppression of fact and mis-representation. In spite of that, the respondent Corporation has not considered the petitioner's representation in the proper perspective and dismissed the same.
3. Sri Chatla Madhu, learned Standing Counsel, submits that looking at the prima facie title, the respondent Corporation has granted permission in favour of the unofficial respondents. The unofficial respondents are neither parties to the suit nor to the criminal cases, therefore, question of suppression of facts and mis- representation does not arise. He submits that as the petitioner has already instituted a suit for injunction, it can pursue the remedies 4 before the Court below. Hence, the respondent Corporation has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner.
4. Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents, submits that there is no mis-representation or suppression of facts and under Section 450 of the GHMC Act, the permission can only be cancelled on these two aspects. The allegations that are made by the petitioner do not amount to suppression of fact or mis-representation on behalf of the respondent who is not a party to any of the proceedings.
5. The petitioner's case is that the respondent Corporation has failed to consider its representation seeking cancellation of building permission granted in favour of the unofficial respondents under Section 450 of the GHMC Act and they failed to take into consideration the pending suit, the criminal casxces and also his representations pending before the Registration Authority when Section 82 notice was also issued. The admitted facts in this case are that the petitioner has executed an agreement of sale-cum-GPA in the year 2015 by way of three documents for an extent of 4,414 sq. 5 yards out of 5747.59 Sq.yards and also filed a suit in the year 2015, that suit is also for a mere injunction. The petitioner has not taken any steps to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed or cancellation of the agreement of sale or for rectification, expect for a bare injunction and in that also, though initially interim injunction is granted, that was not extended. It appears that the petitioner has not taken any steps to pursue the matter from 2015 till 2022 and the agreement of sales-cum-GPA were not cancelled and even the sale deed executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the 5th respondent in the year 2015. When the petitioner could not settle the issues between the petitioner and the M/s.Venkateshwara Buildcon and it has not taken any steps to get settle the matter legally, it cannot come up with an application before the respondent Corporation under Section 450 of the GHMC Act either on the ground of mis- representation or suppression of fact. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case where petitioner is not party to any of the proceedings it will not amount to suppression or misrepresentation of fact. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order that is passed by the respondent Corporation does not require any 6 interference of this Court.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J September 08, 2022 mar