Telangana High Court
Md. Zakir Hussian vs The State Of Telangana on 4 December, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
W.P. Nos.28890 OF 2024 AND 8922 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. Alluri Raghu Rama Aurava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. No.28890 of 2024 and Mr. Pranay Sohini, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P. No.8922 of 2022.
2. Lis involved and the parties i.e., petitioner and official respondents in both the writ petitions are one and the same. Therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and the same are being disposed of by way of this common order.
3. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No.28890 of 2024.
4. CASE OF THE PETITIONER:
i) According to the petitioner, Mr. Nawab Kazim Nawaz Jung Bahadur and others executed a sale deed with possession in favour of Mr. M. Narsing Rao. His name was mutated in the records of then Gram Panchayat, Nacharam, Rangareddy District vide orders 2 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 No.G/407/1985, dated 28.06.1985. He has obtained permission from the Revenue Department i.e., Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, Medchal -
Malkajgiri District. He has constructed an outhouse room in the said property. He also obtained election connection and paid power and water consumption charges to the authorities concerned.
ii) Mr. M. Narsing Rao executed a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) bearing document No.2747 of 2019, dated 18.02.2019 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner also executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.12008 of 2019, dated 07.08.2019 in his favour. Thus, on the strength of the said registered sale deed, the petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of plot No.72 in Survey No.238, admeasuring 336.67 square yards out of 603.43 square yards, situated at Ward No.4, Block No.1, Kartikeya Nagar, Nacharam under GHMC Limits, Kapra Circle, Uppal Mandal, Medichal - Malkajgiri District, which is hereinafter referred as 'the subject property'.
iii) It is further contended by the petitioner that on 30.04.2019, one Mr. Lakkaraju Jaya Prakash Narayana, respondent No.4 in W.P. No.8922 of 2022, represented by his GPA Holder, Mr. Lakkaraju 3 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 Srinivas S/o Mr. Subbaraidu, filed a suit vide O.S. No.592 of 2022 on the file of I Additional District Judge at Kushaiguda (Old O.S. No.434 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy), for declaration, cancellation of GPA No.2747 of 2019, dated 18.02.2019 and for perpetual injunction against the petitioner herein and his Vendor and also one Mr. Yousufuddin Khan, represented by his GPA Holder, Mr. M. Chandra Sekhar. Learned District Judge granted interim injunction in I.A. No.921 of 2019 in O.S. No.434 of 2019. The said suit is pending for trial and the said interim injunction is subsisting.
iv) It is further contended by the petitioner that on 04.01.2022, the GPA Holder of respondent No.4 in W.P. No.8922 of 2022, Mr. Lakkaraju Srinivas and his henchmen without any legal right tried to encroach and occupy the subject property. The petitioner lodged a complaint with Police, who in turn, informed him that it is a civil dispute. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the said Mr. Lakkaraju Srinivas is the brother's son of respondent No.4 in W.P. No.8922 of 2022. He mortgaged the subject property with GHMC by way of executing a Mortgage Deed bearing document No.2174 of 2022, dated 05.02.2022 for obtaining construction of building 4 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 permission. Therefore, he has filed a representation dated 04.01.2022 to the GHMC with a request not to issue any permission either to respondent No.4 in W.P. No.8922 of 2022 or his GPA Holder, Mr. L. Srinivas, or Mr. Ramesh or anybody claiming through them for construction of residential house in the subject property. He has also got issued a legal notice dated 09.02.2022. The same was not considered. Therefore, he has filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.8922 of 2022 against the GHMC and also respondent No.4 in WP No.8922 of 2022 seeking a direction to consider the aforesaid representation dated 04.01.2022 and the legal notice dated 09.02.2022 and not to issue any permission to respondent No.4 in WP No.8922 of 2022 or anybody claiming through him for construction of house in the subject property.
v) During pendency of the said writ petition, Mr. L. Srinivas executed two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.10446 and 10447 of 2022, both dated 12.07.2022 in favour of Mrs. Kosari Manjula Devi, wife of Sri Kosari Ramesh Patel and Mr. Kosari Abhishek Patel and Mr. Kosari Abhilash Patel, both sons of Mr.Kosari Ramesh Patel, respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. No.28890 of 2024 in respect of the subject property. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 mortgaged 5 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 10% of the subject property in favour of GHMC vide Mortgage Deed bearing document No.18123 of 2023, dated 18.10.2023 for the purpose of obtaining permission for construction. The petitioner also got issued legal notice cautioning GHMC not to issue any permission in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the subject property. The same was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner filed another writ petition vide W.P. No.28890 of 2024 seeking a direction to the GHMC to consider his representation and the legal notice dated 09.02.2022 and not to issue house construction permission in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in respect of the subject property.
5. CONTENTION OF R-5 in WP No.28890 OF 2024:
i) Respondent No.4 in W.P. No.28890 of 2024 filed counter contending that Mr. M. Narsing Rao obtained unregistered sale deed dated 07.02.1981 purported to have executed by one Mr. Agaiah and Mr. Chandrasekhar, the GPA holders of original owners. The said Mr. M. Narsing Rao in turn executed a registered GPA bearing document No.2747 of 2019, dated 18.02.2019 in favour of the petitioner herein. On the strength of the said GPA, the petitioner obtained a registered sale deed bearing document No.12008 of 2019, dated 07.08.2019.6
KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022
ii) Respondent No.4 in W.P. No.8922 of 2022 purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.5366 of 1981, dated 23.12.1981. The fabricated and antedated sale deed dated 07.02.1981 is claimed to be validated vide No.6186 of 2005, dated 14.10.2005 and, thereafter, GPA bearing document No.2747 of 2019 was executed in favour of the petitioner herein. Later, the petitioner obtained self-executed sale deed bearing document No.12008 of 2019, dated 07.08.2019.
iii) It is further contended by respondent No.4 that respondent No.4 has settled in USA and he executed GPA bearing document No.967/Val/2022 in favour of his brother's son i.e., Mr. L. Srinivas as his attorney who in turn filed a suit vide O.S. No.434 of 2019 (New O.S. No.592 of 2022) against the petitioner and 2 others seeking declaration of title and cancellation of said GPA No.2747 of 2019 and for perpetual injunction. The trial Court granted interim injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein from alienating the subject property to third parties. On receipt of the notice in the said suit and on entering appearance, the petitioner got self-executed sale deed bearing document No.12008 of 2019 on 07.08.2019. 7
KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022
iv) The petitioner has also filed a suit vide O.S. No.423 of 2022 against respondent Nos.4 and 5 and their mother for perpetual injunction before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar. The trial Court granted interim injunction. The said suit is also pending and the said interim injunction is also subsisting.
v) Respondent No.4 in WP No.8922 of 2022 represented by his GPA Holder submitted an application to the GHMC seeking permission to construct a building in the subject property and also executed a mortgage deed bearing document No.2174 of 2022, which was later released on 12.06.2023 vide document bearing No.10682 of 2023. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 learnt about the same, but by then, they have already purchased the property vide sale deed bearing document Nos.10466 and 10477 of 2022, both dated 12.07.2022. On the complaint lodged by their father, the Police of Nacharam registered a case in Crime No.545 of 2022 against the petitioner, his sons and Mr. M. Narsing Rao for the offences under Sections - 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 441 and 120B read with 34 of IPC. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against them and the same was taken on file vide C.C. NO.407 of 2024.
8
KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022
vi) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer addressed a letter to the District Registrar, Rangareddy District for obtaining certified copy of sale agreement bearing validation No.6186 of 2005, dated 14.10.2005. The same was furnished stating that it was a fabricated document. Neither the petitioner, nor his Vendor is having any right or title over the subject property.
vii) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted an application with GHMC under TS-bPASS for issuance of building permit order for construction of a building. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 obtained building permit order dated 27.10.2023 under TS-bPASS by way of self- certification and self-declaration. They have also obtained work commencement letter, wherein pendency of O.S. Nos.434 of 2019 and W.P. No.8922 of 2022 are reflected. Therefore, they have made an application on 04.05.2024 with GHMC for correction, the same was acknowledged and correction order was passed on 08.05.2024. The mortgage deed was executed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 in favour of GHMC vide document No.18123 of 2023, dated 18.10.2023. They have also dug a bore well in the subject plot and also obtained electricity connection. Thus, according to respondent Nos.4 and 5, the vendor of the petitioner i.e., Mr. M. Narsing Rao fabricated the 9 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 unregistered agreement of sale dated 07.02.1981. The District Registrar verified and submitted his report dated 14.10.2005 stating that the same does not pertain to the said unregistered sale deed and it pertains to correspondence file with regard to A.P. Gazette. The petitioner is a litigant and he is in the habit of filing speculative suits on the strength of fabricated and forged documents. Therefore, they sought to dismiss both the writ petitions.
6. CONTENTIONS OF GHMC:
i) Mr. M. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, would contend that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have obtained building permit order dated 27.10.2023 under TS-bPASS by way of self-
certification and self-declaration. Work Commencement Letter dated 08.02.2024 was also issued in their favour. In the work commencement letter dated 08.02.2024, there is reference to the complaint lodged by the petitioner and pendency of O.S. No.434 of 2019 and W.P. No.8922 of 2022 against the GHMC. Hence, the building permit is deferred until the disposal of said Court cases. Thereafter, respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted an application seeking correction. Correction request acknowledgment report dated 10 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 04.05.2024 was issued. In the correction report dated 08.05.2024, it is stated that correction request was approved.
ii) He would further submit that since respondent Nos.4 and 5 obtained building permit order under TS-bPASS, Commissioner has every power to verify the documents, inspect the site and revoke the building permit order. Admittedly, two (02) suits vide O.S. No.434 of 2019 (New O.S. No.592 of 2022) and O.S. No.423 of 2022 filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are pending. Thus, there is title dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 which the Municipal Corporation cannot decide. The petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 have to wait for outcome of the said suits and then they have to approach GHMC seeking permission for construction.
iii) Mr. M. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, would further submit that the Commissioner, GHMC will consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and the aforesaid aspects and take action strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.
11
KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022
7. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) The aforesaid facts would reveal that both the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are claiming right over the subject property.
The petitioner is claiming that his vendor, Mr. M. Narsing Rao acquired the subject property on the strength of an unregistered agreement of sale dated 07.02.1981 executed by Mr. Nawab Kazim Nawaz Jung Bahadur. The said property was transferred in the name of Mr. M. Narsing Rao by the then Gram Panchayat, Nacharam, vide proceedings No.G/407/85, dated 28.06.1985. He has also obtained permission from the then Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal vide proceedings No.C/48/2018, dated 02.08.2018 for digging bore-well and thereafter he dug bore-well. He has obtained power connection and paid consumption charges to the electricity department. Thereafter, the said vendor executed a registered GPA bearing document No.2747 of 2019, dated 17.08.2019 in favour of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner obtained self-executed sale deed in his name vide document No.12008 of 2019, dated 07.08.2019. Thus, the petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner of the subject property and respondent Nos.4 and 5 have no right, title or interest over the same. 12
KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022
ii) Whereas, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are claiming that respondent No.4 in W.P. No.8922 of 2022 was the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.5366 of 1981, dated 23.12.1981. He has executed a registered GPA in favour of Mr. Lakkaraju Srinivas vide document No.967/E/Val/2022, dated 01.02.2022 who in turn executed registered sale deed bearing document No.10447 of 2022, dated 12.07.2022 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 with regard to Plot No.72 (North Part), admeasuring 280 square yards in Survey No.238 of Nacharam Village, another sale deed bearing document No.10446 of 2022, dated 12.07.2022 in favour of their mother in respect of the very same Plot No.72 (South Part), admeasuring 56.67 square yards of the very same Survey number.
iii) According to respondent Nos.4 and 5, the petitioner's vendor, Mr. M. Narsing Rao fabricated antedated unregistered agreement of sale dated 07.02.1981 and it was got validated vide proceedings No.6186 of 2005, dated 14.10.2005. On the strength of the said fabricated agreement of sale, the petitioner's vendor executed a registered GPA bearing document No.2747 of 2019, dated 18.02.2019 in favour of the petitioner, who in turn executed a 13 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 registered sale deed bearing document No.12008 of 2019, dated 07.08.2019 in his favour. Therefore, respondent No.4 in W.P. No.8922 of 2022, the vendor of respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed a suit vide O.S. No.592 of 2022 (Old O.S. No.434 of 2019) against the petitioner, his Vendor and another seeking declaration of title, cancellation of said GPA bearing No.2747 of 2019 and perpetual injunction. The said suit is pending and the trial Court granted interim injunction restraining the petitioners therein from alienating the subject property.
iv) According to the petitioner, the GPA said to have executed by respondent No.4 in WP No.8922 of 2022 in favour of Mr. L. Srinivas was also validated GPA vide File No.967/E/Val/2022, dated 01.02.2022. It is not a valid document. The said Mr. L. Srinivas obtained the said GPA by forging the signatures of respondent No.4 in WP No.8922 of 2022. Therefore, he has filed a suit vide O.S. No.423 of 2022 against respondent Nos.4 and 5 and their mother seeking perpetual injunction and the trial Court granted ad interim injunction. The said suit is also pending and the interim injunction is also subsisting. Thus, the aforesaid two (02) suits vide O.S. No.592 of 14 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 2022 and O.S. No.423 of 2022 are pending between the parties. There are interim injunctions in both the suits.
v) Perusal of record would also reveal that on the complaint lodged by the father of respondent Nos.4 and 5, P.S. Nacharam registered a case in Crime No.545 of 2022 against the petitioner, his sons and his vendor etc., for the offences under Sections - 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 441 and 120B read with 34 of IPC. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.407 of 2024. The same is also pending. According to respondent Nos.4 and 5, the Investigating Officer received information from the District Registrar, Moosapet, Rangareddy District also. Thus, there are serious title disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5.
vi) During pendency of the aforesaid two suits and C.C. No.407 of 2024, respondent Nos.4 and 5 obtained building permit order dated 27.10.2023 from GHMC for construction of Stilt for Parking + 3 Upper Floors and also work commencement letter dated 08.02.2024 under TS-bPASS by way of self-certification and self- declaration.
15
KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022
vii) It is apt to note that by the date of submission of the said online application under TS-bPASS dated 27.10.2023, the aforesaid two (02) suits vide O.S. No.592 of 2022 and O.S. No.423 of 2022 filed by respondent No.4 and the petitioner seeking for declaration of title, cancellation of GPA and perpetual injunction, respectively are pending. In both the suits, the trial Court granted interim injunction. Both the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 entered their appearance in the aforesaid suits. They have also filed counters. Even then, respondent Nos.4 and 5 obtained the building permit order dated 27.10.2023 by misrepresentation of facts by suppressing pendency of the said suits.
viii) In the work commencement letter dated 08.02.2024, it is stated that it is instant approval based on the self-certification submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 5, and the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC has conducted post-verification as per GHMC TS-bPASS Act. It was observed that the permission obtained by them is found correct and they can proceed with the construction. In the very same work commencement letter, it is also stated about receipt of complaint from the petitioner, pendency of O.S. No.434 of 2019 and W.P. No.8922 of 2022 filed by the petitioner. Therefore, in the work commencement 16 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 letter dated 08.02.2024, the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC specifically stated that the building permission is deferred until the disposal of above Court cases.
ix) Thereafter, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have submitted an application 04.05.2024 seeking correction on the ground that there is mention about pendency of the aforesaid O.S. No.434 of 2019 and W.P No.8922 of 2022. They have also paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards TS-bPASS User Charges and an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards Correction Scrutiny Charges. They have also obtained a computer generated receipt. In the correction report, dated 08.05.2024, it is mentioned as follows:
"With reference to the subject and reference cited, it is to inform that corrections request in the building permit order / letter of approval for commencement of work has been examined, and considered for following corrections subjected to conditions as follows:
Changes S.No Existing Proposed Status requested
1. The building permit order, letter of approval for commencement of work are to be read with the corrections approved cited above.17
KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022
2. Conditions mentioned in building permit / Letter of approval for commencement of work shall be followed scrupulously."
Thus, perusal of the said correction report dated 08.05.2024 would reveal that though it was stated that the correction request was approved, there is no mention as to the said correction.
x) Considering the said aspects and also the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC has no power to issue correction report, this Court vide order dated 04.11.2024 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kapra Circle, GHMC to appear before this Court to explain the same. He has appeared before this Court on 05.11.2024. According to him, before issuance of correction request acknowledgment report dated 04.05.2024, his predecessor has issued a show-cause notice dated 20.12.2023 stating that he has received a complaint from the petitioner stating that he is the owner of the subject plot and civil suit vide O.S. No.434 of 2019 filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5's vendor and also writ petition vide W.P. No.8922 of 2022 filed by the petitioner is pending. Hence, building permission is deferred until disposal of the Court cases. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner requested respondent Nos.4 and 5 to submit 18 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 explanation within seven (07) days as to why permission obtained by respondent Nos.4 and 5 cannot be revoked. He has also directed respondent Nso.4 and 5 not to proceed with any type of construction work, failing which necessary action wil be taken as per the provisions of TS-bPASS Act, 2020 treating the same as unauthorized construction. He has also produced copy of the said show-cause notice dated 20.12.2023. He would further submit that further action will be taken against respondent Nos.4 and 5 for obtaining building permit order by misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
xi) Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted that pursuant to the order dated 18.10.2024, respondent Nos.4 and 5 stopped the construction. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that respondent Nos.4 and 5 stopped the construction three (03) days prior to 05.11.2024.
xii) It is also relevant to note that vide order dated 18.10.2024, this Court directed respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to proceed with construction pursuant to the building permit order dated 27.10.2023. Thus, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have obtained the building permit order dated 27.10.2023 by misrepresentation of facts i.e., pendency of 19 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 the aforesaid O.S. No.434 of 2019 and W.P. No.8922 of 2022 under TS-bPASS by way of self-certification and self-declaration.
xiii) Section - 7 of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2020 deals with 'approval of building permissions' and the same is relevant which is extracted as under:
"7. (1) No piece of land shall be used as a site for the construction of a building, and no building shall be constructed or reconstructed, and no addition or alteration shall be made to an existing building without the self certification based declarations or the required approval in the manner prescribed, relating to the use of building sites or the construction or reconstruction of buildings:
Provided that the Government may exempt certain buildings from taking building permission under this section, in the manner prescribed.
(2) For plot size up to 75 square yards (63 square meters), and the construction of ground or ground plus one floor, will not require any permission.
The applicant however need to register online with a token amount of Rs.1 and duly self certifying his title, the size of the plot and floors, it shall also not require a completion certificate or occupancy certificate. Any plot bigger than 75 sq yards cannot 20 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 be split for this purpose or this provision cannot be misused for taking up constructions in government or prohibited or disputed land and action as prescribed shall be initiated for violations noticed. (3) Plot size upto 500 square meters and height upto 10 meters: The permission applications for all the individual residential buildings having plot area of 500 square meters and less and building height of 10 meters as specified, shall be processed through an online based Self-Certification System in accordance with the Master Plan or Detailed Planning Scheme or Local Area Plan and the building rules and in the manner prescribed, and upon furnishing all required information details shall get instant online approval.
(4) The onus to ensure authenticity of self- certification and compliance with the self- certification lies with the applicant, who shall be held personally accountable and liable in case of false declaration and action shall be initiated against the said person, as prescribed.
(5) The owner or developer shall along with the building application form, submit an undertaking that in case of any actual construction made by him or her in violation of sanctioned plan, the Government or the Commissioner or the Agency authorized by him or her shall take-up the demolition without issuance of any notice. Further, 21 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 the District level committee may verify the documents so submitted, and in case of any misrepresentation or false statement, the action shall be taken as prescribed.
(6) Citizens shall be encouraged to bring to the notice of Municipality and District Collector cases where unauthorized construction or construction in violation of or in excess of permissions, in the manner prescribed. The identity of such informers shall be kept confidential. All such cases shall be examined within a week from such information and appropriate action initiated. The informant shall be incentivized in all such cases where the information furnished by him is found to be correct.
(7) Plot size above 500 square meters and height above 10 meters: There shall be a single window system in case of applications for building permission in plots of area above 500 square meters and height above 10 meters and all Commercial Buildings, High Rise Buildings, Group Development Schemes, Group Housing, Apartment Complexes, Multiplexes, Non Residential Buildings and other such constructions, which require multiple NOCs, one common application form shall be submitted through web based online system as prescribed.
22
KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 (8) The online application has to be submitted with all requisite documents as may be prescribed. The online system shall not accept the application unless all such documents are submitted. Such documents upon submission shall be examined by the single window committee set up for this purpose and shortfalls or incompleteness or cases where further information or clarification is needed shall be communicated to the applicant within 10 days from the date of applying, in such manner, as may be prescribed.
(9) In all other cases, the applications for building permissions accompanied by all valid and required documents, as required and prescribed, shall be sanctioned within 21 days and in such manner, as may be prescribed.
(10) If no order is issued on the building application within the time prescribed, then the approval will be deemed to have been issued, as may be prescribed. The official concerned shall be liable for disciplinary action, if there has been a delay in arriving at a decision within the time period.
(11) The permission issued under deemed clause can be revoked by the commissioner within 21 days from the date of deemed approval if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by 23 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 mis-representation of the facts or false statements, and/or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions."
xiv) Section - 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 deals with power of Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by applicant and the same is relevant which is extracted as under:
"If at any time after permission to proceed with any building or work has been given, the Commissioner is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under section 428 or 433 or in the further information if any, furnished, he may cancel such permission and any work done thereunder shall be deemed to have been done without his permission."
xv) Rule - 12 (viii) of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Rules, 2020 says that the permission issued under deemed clause can be revoked by the Competent Authority within 21 days from the date of deemed approval without any notice, if it is found that deemed approval has 24 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 been obtained by misrepresentation of the facts or false statements, and / or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions.
xvi) Rule 2 (vi) of the Rules, 2020 deals with 'Competent Authority' and it means the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.
xvii) Therefore, the Commissioner, GHMC has power to verify the documents submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 5, inspect the site and on coming to conclusion that respondent Nos.4 and 5 obtained building permit order under TS-bPASs by misrepresentation of fact, he has power to revoke the building permit order within twenty one (21) days.
xviii) In Smt. Lalitha Srikrish v. The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad 1, this Court held that twenty one (21) days period mentioned in Section - 7 of the TS-bPASs Act, 2020 is directory, but it is not mandatory. Therefore, the Commissioner, GHMC has power to revoke the building permit order obtained by respondent Nos.4 and 5 by misrepresentation of facts beyond 21 days. 1 . W.P. No.16456 of 2021, decided on 17.01.2022 25 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 xix) The aforesaid show-cause notice dated 20.12.2023 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC. In fact, Deputy Commissioner has no power to revoke the building permit order and it is the Commissioner, GHMC who has power. Thus, the Commissioner, GHMC has power to revoke the building permit order.
xx) As discussed above, though the Deputy Commissioner has no power to correct/issue correction report, respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted an application dated 04.05.2024 under TS-bPASS seeking correction. In the correction report, dated 08.05.2024, though there is mention about the correction request approved, nothing is corrected. However, the Deputy Commissioner has no power to issue such correction report.
xxi) The Deputy Commissioner, Kapra Circle-I, GHMC submitted to this Court that the said Correction Request acknowledgment report, dated 04.05.2024 and correction report dated 08.05.2024 are computer generated and there is no human intervention. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 sought to correction under TS- bPASS.
26
KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 xxii) The aforesaid discussion would reveal that there are serious disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 with regard to the title over the subject property. The aforesaid two (02) suits and C.C. are pending between them. During pendency of the said suits, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have obtained building permit order dated 27.10.2023 and work commencement letter dated 08.02.2024 under TS-bPASS by way of self-certification and self- declaration by misrepresentation and suppression of facts. In the work commencement letter dated 08.02.2024, there is specifically mention that the building permit order is deferred until the disposal of the above court cases. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are claiming that they are proceeding with construction. They cannot submit online application dated 04.05.2024 seeking correction and cannot claim that the said correction was approved vide proceedings dated 08.05.2024. Thus, the entire action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in obtaining building permit order, proceeding with construction and submission of correction application dated 04.05.2024 and correction report dated 08.05.2024 is in violation of the procedure laid down under GHMC Act, 1955 and TS-bPASs Act, 2020 and the same is illegal. 27
KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022
8. CONCLUSION:
i) As discussed above, the Commissioner, GHMC has power to revoke the building permit order issued in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, the Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad i.e., respondent No.2 in W.P. No.28890 of 2024 is directed to consider the representation dated 04.01.2022, legal notices dated 09.02.2022 and 08.11.2023 got issued by the petitioner and the representation dated 14.10.2024 submitted by the petitioner with a request not to issue building permit order in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. He shall pass an order strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under GHMC Act by putting the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 on notice and affording them an opportunity. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, it is made clear that both the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall wait for the outcome of the aforesaid suits and then can approach the GHMC authorities seeking building permit order for construction, and it is for the GHMC to consider the same. Till then, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed not to proceed with construction pursuant to the building permit order dated 27.10.2023 and the work commencement letter dated 28 KL,J WP Nos.28890 of 2024 & 8922 of 2022 08.02.2024, failing which liberty is granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P. No.28890 of 2024 and the Deputy Commissioner of GHMC concerned to take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5 in accordance with law.
ii) Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
iii) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the writ petitions shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 4th December, 2024 Mgr