Telangana High Court
R.Ravindranath vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.16141 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Satwik Makunur, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sheelam Ashok Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.
2. According to the petitioner, his father had purchased land admeasuring Ac.2.37 guntas in Sy.No.53 situated at Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1829 of 1969, dated 12.09.1969. His father's vendors purchased the said property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1752 of 1967 dated 06.05.1967. His father was the absolute owner and possessor of the said property. Respondents 2 to 5 are his sisters. Thereafter, his KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 2 father had executed a will deed dated 29.12.1999 in favour of the petitioner to an extent of 4461 sq.yards out of the said property and deposited the said will deed in a sealed cover with the District Registrar. Thus, on the strength of the said will deed, the petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of 4461 sq.yards of land. (for short, 'the subject property').
3. He has submitted an application with 1st respondent/GHMC on 25.08.2014 seeking permission for construction of a building. During the pendency of the said application, his sister had filed a suit vide O.S.No.301 of 2016 (old O.S.No.101/2016) against the petitioner, his mother and sisters seeking partition, separate possession of the suit schedule 'A' to 'D' properties, injunction and also to declare the said will deed as null and void. Thereafter, 6th respondent M/s Orange Avenues, etc., also impleaded in the said suit. She has also filed two Interlocutory Applications vide I.A.Nos.801 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction and I.A.No.957 of 2016, to restrain the petitioner and others in developing or raising any construction over the suit KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 3 schedule properties. The said applications were allowed vide common judgment dated 15.11.2017.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said common judgment, dated 15.11.2017, mother of the petitioner had filed CMA No.35 of 2018, 6th respondent had filed CMA No.36 of 2018 and 2nd respondent had filed CMA No.81 of 2018. During the pendency of the said appeals, parties have reached to an understanding. Considering the said understanding, vide common judgment dated 31.10.2018, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeals with certain directives.
5. Thereafter, 1st respondent has granted building permit order dated 21.04.2020 in favour of the petitioner for construction of two cellars for parking, ground + 4 Upper Floors for office over the subject property. As per the said building permit order, the petitioner has to commence construction on or before 20.10.2021 and complete the same on or before 20.04.2026. According to the petitioner, the construction was accordingly commenced and completed, and some portions are let out, lessees running commercial establishments.
KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 4
6. While the matter stood thus, on the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent had lodged a complaint to 1st respondent alleging that the petitioner had obtained the said building permit order dated 21.04.2020 by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. Basing on the said complaint, 1st respondent had issued a show cause notice dated 10.03.2022 under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, 'the GHMC Act') to the petitioner proposing to cancel the said building permit order on the ground that writ petitioner has obtained the said building permit by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
7. Challenging the said show cause notice dated 10.03.2022, the petitioner has filed writ petition vide W.P.No.19681 of 2022. Vide order dated 10.04.2023, this Court disposed of the said writ petition setting aside the show cause notice directing the 1st respondent to examine the building permit application submitted by the petitioner without being influenced by the report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records and take a decision for revocation of the building permission, strictly in accordance KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 5 with the provisions under Section 450 of the GHMC Act, after issuing notice to all the stakeholders and after considering their objections. If there is any dispute with regard to the identification and localization of the property between the petitioner and respondent No.2, they have to work out their remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
8. In compliance with the said order, 1st respondent had passed speaking order dated 20.06.2023 cancelling the building permit order dated 21.04.2020 obtained by the petitioner on the ground that he has obtained the same by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. Challenging the said cancellation order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
9. Respondent No.1 had filed counter contending that the petitioner herein had obtained the said building permit order by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. As per the common judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.Nos.35 of 2018 and batch, the B' marked portion which is facing towards Sagar ring road to Chintalkunta road is granted injunction by the trial Court in respect of plaint B' schedule KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 6 property, is confined to B' marked portion in the sketch prepared by the Surveyor and filed along with the Advocate Commissioner's report in I.A.No.1150 of 2016. But the petitioner has shown the 'B' marked portion as road affected area in the drawing and availed the setback relaxations in lieu of road affected area shown in the sanctioned plan and handed over to GHMC through undertaking on Rs.100/- NJSP, dated 28.02.2020 in File No.59560/25.08.2014/HO duly suppressing the Court orders in the suit and CMAs of this Court wherein there is clear injunction orders against him and others.
10. It is further contended that the petitioner, in his building permission application has not brought to the notice of the 1st respondent of the orders in O.S.No.301 of 2016, CMA Nos.35, 26 and 81of 2018 and injunction order passed therein. The petitioner gave an undertaking to the GHMC for handing over the above said injuncted portion for road widening while obtaining the building permission dragging the GHMC into their internal disputes and obtained setback relaxation. In the event of petitioner loses title in the partition suit, 1st respondent/GHMC also lose its title on the KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 7 land handed over to it, respondent Nos.2 to 5 may claim equities from GHMC.
11. It is further contended that as per Section 450 of GHMC Act, the 1st respondent has to take necessary steps for revocation of the building permit order if it finds any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement while obtaining building permit order by the applicant concerned.
12. In the present case, the petitioner has made material misrepresentation of the order in the aforesaid CMAs and in O.S.No.301 of 2016 and filed fraudulent documents before the 1st respondent.
13. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspects, 1st respondent has cancelled the building permit order dated 21.04.2020 obtained by the petitioner vide order dated 20.06.2023. There is no error in it. It is an appealable order. If the petitioner is aggrieved with the said order, he has to file an appeal in terms of provisions of GHMC Act.
14. Respondent No.2 filed counter contending that the petitioner has obtained building permit order by way of KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 8 misrepresentation and suppression of the conditions for development of the property in the common judgment dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CMA Nos.35 of 2018 and batch. The petitioner has not satisfied the requirement of proving prima facie title over the property. The petitioner had obtained building permission by playing fraud. The common judgment dated 31.10.2018 in CMA No.35 of 2018 and batch is a consensus order. The 1st respondent has passed speaking order dated 20.06.2023 cancelling the building permit order dated 21.04.2020, on consideration of the said aspects and also in compliance with the order dated 10.04.2023 in W.P.No.19681 of 2022. There is no error in it.
15. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for 1st respondent and Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 6th respondent made their submissions extensively.
KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 9
16. Sri Vedula Srinivas learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by Division Bench of this Court in India bulls Housing finance Limited, New Delhi vs. Surya Chakra Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad1, Dr. M. Satchindananda Rao vs. State of Telangana2, common judgment dated 31.08.2016 in WVMP No.757 of 2016 in W.P.No.2492 of 2016 and W.P.No.2492 of 2016.
17. 2nd respondent has placed reliance on the principle laid down by this Court in Smt. Lalitha Srikrish vs. State of Telangana3 and the order of the Division Bench dated 24.08.2021 in W.A.No.162 of 2021.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
18. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possession of land admeasuring 4461 sq.yards i.e. the subject property on the strength of will deed dated 29.12.1999 executed by his father. On the strength of the said will deed, he has submitted an application dated 25.08.2014 to the 1st respondent seeking permission for 1 2016 (3) ALD 64 (DB) 2 2022 (2) ALD 314 (TS) 3 2022 (2) ALT 37 (TS) KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 10 construction of building. During pendency of the said application, 2nd respondent and his sisters had filed a suit in O.S.No.301 of 2016 (O,.S.No.101 of 2016) for partition and separate possession over the suit schedule 'A' to 'D' properties and also to declare the said will deed as null and void. She has also filed two Interlocutory applications vide I.A.Nos.805 and 957 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction and to restrain the petitioner and other defendants from developing the suit schedule properties and raising construction over it. Vide common judgment dated 15.11.2017, learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad made the injunction order absolute in respect of 'B' schedule property partly and dismissed in respect of 'A' schedule property and status quo granted on 25.05.2016 was vacated with certain terms in respect of 'A' schedule property. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said common judgment, mother of the petitioner, 6th respondent and 2nd respondent herein preferred CMA Nos.35, 36 and 81 of 2018 respectively. During pendency of the said appeals, they have arrived at an understanding and on considering the said understanding reached by the parties, vide judgment dated KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 11 31.10.2018, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeals with the following directives:-
i. The injunction granted by the trial Court in respect of plaint 'B' schedule properly is confined to 'B' marked portion in the sketch prepared by the Surveyor and filed along with the Advocate- Commissioner's report in I.A.No.1150 of 2016. ii. The injunction is also confined to 60% of the constructed area to be allotted to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 over 'A' marked portion of plaint 'B' schedule property.
iii. Within two weeks. defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 11 shall register the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated 10.02.2014. iv. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall select 60% of the constructed area falling to their shares facing Vijayawada and Nagarjunasagar Highways.
v. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall not alienate or further encumber the 'A' schedule property which is already under mortgage to Vijaya Bank, Malakpet Branch. Hyderabad, pending the suit.
19. It is relevant to note that the subject property is 'B' schedule property in the said suit.
20. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench held that the injunction granted by the lower Court in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property is confined to 'B' marked portion in the sketch prepared by the Surveyor and filed along with the Advocate-Commissioner's report in I.A.No.1150 of 2016. The KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 12 injunction is also confined to 60% of the constructed area to be allotted to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 over 'A' marked portion of plaint 'B' schedule property. Within two weeks, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 11 shall register the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated 10.02.2014. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall select 60% of the constructed area falling to their shares facing Vijayawada and Nagarjunasagar Highways.
21. It is the specific contention of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 that the petitioner has obtained the said building permit order dated 21.04.2020 concealing the fact that there is binding injunction order and no interest can be created in portion-B of the plaint B schedule property. The petitioner has voluntarily undertaken to surrender the portion of the land to GHMC. The petitioner could not have parted with the valuable right of other family members surrounding the suit schedule property in favour of the 1st respondent corporation. 1st respondent corporation has not satisfied itself about the prima facie title of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has executed an undertaking dated 28.02.2020 showing the 'B' marked portion as road affected area in the drawing and KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 13 availed the setback relaxations in lieu of road affected area shown in the sanctioned plan and handed over to GHMC duly suppressing the Court orders in the suit and CMAs of this Court wherein there is clear injunction orders against him and others. Thus, the petitioner has obtained building permit order dated 21.04.2020 by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
22. As discussed supra, basing on the will deed dated 29.12.1999, the petitioner herein has submitted an application dated 25.08.2024 to the 1st respondent seeking permission for construction of building. As on the said date, the said suit was not filed by 2nd respondent. However, during the pendency of the said application dated 25.08.2014, 2nd respondent has filed the aforesaid suit and trial Court passed common judgment dated 15.11.2017 and vide common judgment dated 31.10.2018 Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeals with the aforesaid directives.
Thereafter, the petitioner has pursued the said building permit application dated 25.08.2014 with the 1st respondent and obtained building permit order dated 21.04.2020 for construction of two cellars for parking, ground + 4 upper floors for office. Perusal of KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 14 the said building permit order dated 21.04.2020 would reveal that the petitioner herein has mentioned Sy.No.53, premises number as 18-15-122/1 Mansoorabad as street, Saroornagar as Mandal, Rangareddy District. Admittedly, the said property is 'B' schedule property in the aforesaid plaint.
23. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the petitioner herein had entered into MOU, dated 10.02.2014 in favaour of 6th respondent for development of subject property. It has also executed a registered development agreement - cum - General Power of Attorney bearing document No.6477 of 2018 in favour of 6th respondent with regard to development of the subject property. It appears that after the common judgment dated 31.08.2018 in CMA Nos.35, 36 and 81 of 2018, the petitioner has executed an Undertaking (road widening) dated 28.02.2020 on 100/- rupees NJSP in favour of GHMC, wherein the GHMC has put a condition that the land and the existing structure effected in the road widening to an extent of 1815.28 sq.yards also should be surrendered to the GHMC for road widening before releasing the approved plan on free of cost without claiming any compensation KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 15 towards land and the structure existing on the road widening site. The petitioner in token of accepting the said condition, undertook that he is handing over the physical possession of the land and structure to the GHMC and structure in favour of the 1st respondent Corporation.
24. It is relevant to note that in the plan therein road effected area portion proposed is 60 feet wide road H.No.8-15-822/1 Sy.No.53 of Mansoorabad Village, total plotted area is 3783.48 sq.yards, road effected area is 1517.81 sq.meters, net plot area is 2265.67 sq.meters.
25. As discussed supra, vide common judgment dated 31.10.2018 in CMA Nos.35, 36 and 81 of 2018 and Division Bench of this Court categorically held that injunction granted by the trial Court in respect of plaint-B schedule property is confined to 'B' marked portion in the sketch prepared by the Surveyor and filed along with the Advocate-Commissioner's report in I.A.No.1120 of 2016. The injunction is also confined to 60% of the constructed area to be allotted to defendants 1 and 2 over 'A' marked portion of Schedule 'B' property. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 16 11 in the suit shall select 60% of the constructed area falling to their shares facing Vijayawada and Nagarjuna Sagar Highways. Thus, according to the respondent Nos.2 to 5, the petitioner has obtained said building permit order dated 21.04.2020 and executed the said undertaking dated 28.02.2020, handed over the physical possession of the land and the existing structure effected in the road widening to an extent of 1815.28 sq.yards for the purpose of releasing the approved plan on free of cost without claiming any compensation towards land and the structure existing on the road widening site. Thus, the said undertaking is in violation of the aforesaid common judgment dated 31.10.2018 of the Division Bench of this Court in CMA No.35 of 2018 and batch, and the petitioner has obtained building permit order dated 21.04.2020 by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
26. As rightly contended by the 1st respondent -corporation, as per the common judgment of the High Court in the aforesaid appeals, 'B' marked portion which is facing towards Sagar ring road and Sagar ring road to Chintalkunta road is granted injunction by the trial Court in respect of plaint B' schedule property, is KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 17 confined to B' marked portion in the sketch prepared by the Surveyor and filed along with the Advocate Commissioner's report in I.A.No.1150 of 2016. But the petitioner has shown the 'B' marked portion as road affected area in the drawing and availed the setback relaxations in lieu of road affected area shown in the sanctioned plan and handed over to GHMC by way of undertaking on Rs.100/- NJSP, dated 28.02.2020 in File No.59560/ 25.08.2014/ HO duly suppressing the Court orders in the suit and CMAs of this Court wherein there is clear injunction orders against him and others.
27. It is the specific contention of the 1st respondent that the petitioner has obtained the building permit order by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts i.e. orders passed by the trial court in O.S.No.301 of 2016 and common judgment dated 31.10.2018 in CMA Nos.35, 36, 81 of 2018. The undertaking dated 28.02.2020 executed by the petitioner is contrary to the common judgment of Division Bench and trial Court order.
28. In the light of the same, it is relevant to note that the suit vide O.S.No.301 of 2016 for the partition, separate possession of KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 18 suit schedule A to D properties, injunction and to declare the will deed dated 29.12.1999 as null and void, is pending. As rightly contended by 1st respondent that in the event of the petitioner losing title in the partition suit, 1st respondent also loses its title on the land which was handed over to GHMC by the petitioner by way of undertaking (road widening) 28.02.2020. There is every possibility of respondent Nos.2 to 5 claiming equities from the 1st respondent corporation. Thus, the petitioner has obtained building permit order dated 21.04.2020 by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
29. On receipt of representation dated 20.12.2021 from 2nd respondent, on representation dated 07.01.2022 from respondent Nos.3 to 5, 1st respondent has issued show cause notice, dated 10.03.2022 under Section 450 of GHMC Act as to why the building permit order dated 21.04.2020 obtained by the petitioner shall not be cancelled on the ground of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. Seven (7) days time was granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation. Instead of submitting explanation, the petitioner herein had filed W.P.No.19681 of 2022.
KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 19 Vide order dated 10.04.2023, this Court disposed of the said writ petition setting aside the said show cause notice directing the 1st respondent to examine the building permit application of the petitioner without being influenced by the report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, and take a decision for revocation of the building permit order strictly in accordance with Section 450 of the Act, after issuing notice to all the stakeholders and after considering their objections. This Court also observed that if there is any dispute with regard to the identification of the local investigation of the localization of the subject property between the petitioner and respondent No.2, they have to work out their remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. In compliance with the said order, 1st respondent has issued hearing notice to the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6. They have appeared before the 1st respondent and submitted their explanation/written submissions. 1st respondent has also heard Sri Vijay Kumar Deuskar and others. He has passed a speaking order dated 20.06.2023 holding that the petitioner herein has obtained building permit order dated 21.04.2020 by way of KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 20 misrepresentation of facts and cancelled the said building permit order dated 21.04.2020.
30. In the light of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to note that Section 450 of the Act, deals with the power of the Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by the applicant which is relevant and is extracted below:-
450. Power of Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by applicant.
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.
31. Thus, as per the said provision, 1st respondent has power to cancel building permit order by following the procedure laid down under law. In the present case, 1st respondent has issued show cause notice, dated 10.03.2022 and on receipt of explanation, on considering the same and also in compliance with the order dated 10.04.2023 in W.P.No. 19681 of 2013, he has passed KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 21 speaking order dated 20.06.2023 cancelling building permit order dated 21.04.2020 obtained by the writ petitioner. There is no error in it. It is a reasoned and well founded order. 1st respondent has considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner, written submissions submitted by the parties and on hearing them and following the procedure laid down under Section 450 of the Act, passed the impugned order. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down under the GHMC Act by 1st respondent. He has also complied with the order dated 10.04.2023 in W.P.No.19681 of 2022 passed by this Court.
32. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 1st petitioner placing reliance on the aforesaid citations would contend that there is no suppression of fact by the writ petitioner, more particularly, material suppression. There is delay on the part of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in submitting representation. Without considering the same, 1st respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 20.06.2023 cancelling the building permit order dated 21.04.2020 of the petitioner.
KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 22
33. The petitioner has submitted undertaking dated 28.02.2020 in favour of 1st respondent for handing over the above said injuncted portion for road widening while obtaining the building permission dragging the GHMC into their internal disputes and obtained setback relaxation which is contrary to the said directions issued by the Division Bench.
34. As rightly contended by the 1st respondent that if the petitioner loses his title in the partition suit, 1st respondent also loses his title on the land which was handed over to GHMC and respondents 2 to 5 will definitely claim equities from the 1st respondent corporation. Therefore, the said suppression by the 1st petitioner is material suppression and it is contrary to the directives of the Division Bench of this Court issued in common judgment dated 31.10.2018 in CMA No. 35 of 2018 and batch. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that it is not material misrepresentation. In fact, it is not only material misrepresentation and it is willful and deliberate misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner herein.
35. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra, the petitioner herein has submitted an application dated 25.08.2014 to KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 23 the 1st respondent seeking building permit and obtained the said building permit order dated 21.04.2020 by which date, the 2nd respondent has filed the aforesaid suit. Trial Court has passed common judgment dated 15.11.2017 and Division Bench of this Court passed common judgment dated 31.10.2018. The said order of the Division Bench is on consideration of the understanding reached between the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 to 5 and others. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that there is no material suppression of facts.
36. With regard to delay, the contention of Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there is delay in submitting the representation by respondent Nos.2 to 5 to 1st respondent, it is relevant to note that petitioner has obtained building permit order dated 21.04.2020 by executing undertaking dated 28.02.2020. On coming to know about the same, 2nd respondent has submitted representation dated 20.12.2021, respondents 3 to 5 have submitted representation dated 07.01.2022. The said Vijay Kumar Deuskar and others represented by GPA holder through authorized representative has also submitted KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 24 representation dated 22.12.2021. On receipt of the same, 1st respondent has issued show cause notice dated 10.03.2022.
37. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner placing reliance on the principle laid down in Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (supra) would submit that the alleged misrepresentation by the petitioner is not material misrepresentation which renders cancellation of the building permit order obtained by petitioner. But in the said case, Division Bench of this Court held that material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for determination of the lis between the parties, the Court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. The suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the Court, whatever view the Court may have taken.
KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 25
38. It further held that it is only non-disclosure of a material and relevant facts which may justify this Court exercising restraint, and in refraining from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to examine the matter on its merits. In the said case, the allegation was with regard to suppression of filing of a petition to reopen the matter for hearing on the maintainability of securitization application (SA) on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction before the DRT. On examination of the said facts, Division Bench held that the said suppression is not a material suppression.
39. In the present case, the suppression is with regard to orders passed in the suit and directives passed by Division Bench in the aforesaid appeals and also handing over of possession of property in favour of 1st respondent corporation contrary to the orders passed by Division Bench in the said appeals. The said suppression/misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner herein is material misrepresentation/suppression of facts and it is willful.
40. In Dr. M. Satchindananda Rao (supra), relied upon by Mr. Vedula Srinivas, this Court held that 1st respondent being the KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 26 concerned authority before granting permission should only see if prima facie title exists, he cannot express any opinion on the title of the property. 1st respondent cannot decide inter se dispute of the title, complicated questions of facts like title and validity of documents which will be decided by a jurisdictional/competent civil Court. Mere pendency of a civil suit or disputes regarding title will not impede the concerned authority from granting building permission, if it is satisfied that prima facie title exists. In the present case, there is willful, material suppression and misrepresentation of the facts by the petitioner herein.
41. Placing reliance on the common order dated 31.08.2018 in CMA Nos.35, 36 and 81 of 2018, Sri Vedula Srinivas would submit that there is delay in lodging the complaint by the petitioner and therefore, 1st respondent should not have invoked his powers under Section 450 of GHMC Act. In the said case, there was delay of 2 ½ years in lodging the complaint from the date of obtaining permission and complainant therein did not give any valid explanation for the said delay. In the present case, the aforesaid suit, appeals were filed and Division Bench of this Court gave the KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 27 aforesaid directives. Petitioner herein suppressing the said directives and orders, obtained building permit order and he has also submitted undertaking dated 28.02.2020, handed over the property in violation of the said directives, availed setback relaxation in lieu of road affected area. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the respondents in submitting representation.
42. Sri Vedula Srinivas also placed reliance on the principle in Mirza Khusru Ali Baig and others vs. GHMC4 to contend that Section 450 of GHMC Act, empowers the Commissioner to cancel permission if he is satisfied that the building permission was granted by him in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished by applicant. Therefore, prior to cancellation of a building permission, it would be absolutely necessary for the Commissioner to be satisfied that the building permission was earlier granted by him as a consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice delivered for the applicant who sought for permission for erection of a building. As discussed supra, in the present case, petitioner has 4 2013 (3) ALT 505 KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 28 suppressed pendency of orders granted by the trial Court in the aforesaid suit, directives of Division Bench of this Court in appeals, submitted undertaking and handing over of possession of part of the subject property in violation of the said directives, availing of setbacks relaxation in lieu of road affected area. On satisfying the said facts only, 1st respondent has cancelled the building permit order obtained by the petitioner.
43. Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5, placed reliance on the principle laid down by in Smt. Lalitha Srikrish and others vs. State of Telangana 5 wherein this Court held that the applicant shall necessarily disclose all the facts and file all the relevant documents and it is for the 1st respondent, Commissioner GHMC, to consider the same and come to a conclusion with regard to prima facie title and possession of the applicant before granting building permit order. In the present case, petitioner willfully materially suppressed the aforesaid order of the trial Court and directives of Division Bench and submitted undertaking in violation of the said directives. On consideration of the same only, 1st respondent has 5 2022 (2) ALT 37 TS KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 29 cancelled the building permit order obtained by the petitioner. There is no error in the impugned order.
44. It is also apt to note that if the petitioner discloses about the pendency of the aforesaid suit, common judgment passed by the trial Court and directives of the Division Bench vide common judgment in C.M.A.No.35 of 2018 and batch, 1st respondent would have rejected the application submitted by the petitioner seeking building permit. He would have requested the petitioner to submit copies of the plaint, the aforesaid orders and would have heard the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and other interested parties. Thus, there is material `suppression and misrepresentation of the aforesaid facts by 1st respondent. Therefore, in view of the same, he cannot contend that there is delay on the part of the respondents 2 to 5 in submitting representation to 1st respondent.
45. It is also apt to note that 1st respondent cannot decide title disputes, more particularly, inter se disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 with regard to the title of the subject property. At the same time, 1st respondent has power to consider misrepresentation and suppression of facts by the petitioner while KL,J W.P.No.16141 of 2023 30 obtaining building permit order dated 21.04.2020. He has power to cancel the said building permit order as per Section 450 of the GHMC Act. In the present case, he has considered the aforesaid material, misrepresentation and suppression of facts by the petitioner, vide speaking order dated 20.06.2023, he has cancelled the said building permit order obtained by the petitioner. Impugned order is a reasoned and well founded order. The petitioner herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said order. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
46. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:21.04.2025.
vvr