High Court · 2025

Petition under Artrcle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Order or Direction more particulady in the nature of Writ of Mandamus.- a. To declare the action of 3'd Respondents, who revoked the 2OO- 67 Sq.yards, residential building permission No.43441 7/GH MCl1585112024. dated 18-09-2024, TG-bPASS vtde Lr.No.43441 7/GHMC/1 5851/2024, dated 04-11-2024, on a reason that land in Sy' Nos. 513/1, 514t1 and 526t1 is wakf board land' despite of old G'P Permission dated 25-04-1998 and orders in wP No.4622 of 2024, dr.22-02-2o24 in respect of old residential house No.24-3l39, on plot No.12 in Sy. 513/1 , 51411 and 526t1, adm.200.67 sq. yards situated at vishnupuri colony Extension, Markajgiri (Village and Mandal), is being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and infringement of constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 3004 of the Constitution. b. Consequently, set aside the 3rd Respondent proceedings vide Lr.No.434417tcHMcl1sB51l2o24, dated 04-11-2024 and direct the respondents not to interfere in proposed construction as per the sanctioned permission in the interest of justice. c. And pass lA NO: 1 OF 202s Petition under Section r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation and any further proceedings of 3rd Respondent vide Lr.No.434417lGHMCl15851/2024, dated o4-11-2024 in the rnterest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt SUDARSHAN MALUGARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 and 3: SRt G. MADHUSUDAN REDDY, SC Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRt FARHAN AZAM KHAN, SC FOR WAKF BOARD The Court made the following: ORDER l I I i i I i t t t I t' i I i i' I I I I i I : a r1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2974 of 2O25 ORDER: Heard Sri Sudarshan Malugari, leamed cowrsel for the petitioners and Sri G. Madhusudan Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos .2 and 3. Perused the record.

2. Petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of House bearing No.24-3l39 (old Nos.24-314312 arld 24- 164110/12), on PlotNo.12, in Sy.Nos.5l3/l,5l4ll arrd526/1, situated at Vishnupuri Extension, Malkajgiri Circle 28, Secwrderabad Zone, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The said houses were constructed on obtaining buitding permit order from Municipality dated 25.04.1998. With an intention to construct new house while dismantling the old houses, they have obtained permission from GHMC vlde building permit order dated 18.09.2024 lor construction of Ground Floor + I upper floor. According to the petitioners, they are proceeding with the construction shictly in accordance with the said building permit order. Even then, respondent No.3 has issued show cause notice dated 1E.10.2024 staling that as per the remarks of the TPS and on verification of the documents, it is found that the proposed site in Sy.Nos.5l3/1, 5l4ll and 52611 falls I .-ir!i!l.!L,:.=:--i- .- .,,.- 2 a.\ in Waqf board land and the applicant has not submifted the clearance certificate from the competent authority and granted 7 days time to the petitioner to submit explanation. However, the petitioners have not submitted any explanation. Respondent No.3 has revoked the said building permit order vide revocation letter dated 04.11.2024. Challenging the said revocation lefter, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners has contended that the subject property does not belong to Waqf board, it is a private patta land. In proof of the same, he has filed copies of the sale deed, order dated

22.02.2024 passed by this Courr in W.p.No.4622 of 2024, building permit order dated 25.04.1998, etc. He further contended that respondent No.3 has no power to issue revocation order. It is the Commissioner, GHMC, who is having power to revoke the building permit order.

4. Section 7 of the Telangana State Building permission Approval and Self Certification Sysrem ('lS-bpASS ) Act, 2020 deals with 'approval of building permissions' and the same is relevant which is extracted as under: - 3 "7. (r)... ... (2)...... (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (E) (e) (10 (l I .. )... ) The permission issued under deemed clause can be revoked by the commissioner within 2l days from the date of deemed approval if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by mis-representation of the facts or false statements, and./or against the buitding rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions."

5. Section 450 in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Ac! 1955 deals with Power of Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by applicant and the sarre 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 sattsfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresenlation or -fraululent slutement contained in the ntice given or information furnished under section 428 or 433 or in the further information if anv, furnished, he may concel such permissiort and any work done thereunder shall be deemed to have been done without his permission. " I i I I I 3 f ! E I { II I E f^t' 4

6. Rute 12 (vit) of lhe Telangana Stute Building permbsion Approval ond Self Certifrcation System (TS_bpASS) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as .the Rules, 2020) says that the permission issued under deemed clause can be revoked by the Competent Authority within 2l days from the date of deemed approval withour any notice, if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by misrepresentation of the facts or false statements, and / or against the building rules, regulations and Master plan Iand use provisions. 7 Rule 2 (vi) of the Rules, 2020 deals wirh it means the Commissioner, Greater 'Competent Authoriq), Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

8. Placing reliance on the proceedings No.8iGHM crfpsftro/2[i7- 20 I 0 dated 12-OS.20\O of the Commissioner. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, Sri G. Madhusudan Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, would submit that the power of revocation of building permit order was not delegated to the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, respondent No.3 has no power or authority to issue revocation order. The Commissioner. GHMC is the competent authority to pass revocation orders. I 5 .t I I I I I I I i I I i ! I I I I I I 5

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned revocation order dated 04.11.2024 of respondent No.3 is set aside and the maffer is remanded back to respondent No.2 with a direction to pass orders if any afresh by putting the petitioners, respondent No.4 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the petitioners shall proceed with the construction strictly in accordance with the building permit order dated, 18.09.2024, failing whicta liberty is granted to take action against the petitioners strictly in accordance with procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. There shall be no order as , to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.S. MALLIKARJ UNA RAO ISTANT REGTSTRAR A SECTION OFFICER To,

5. 6

7. L TJ GJP Two CD CoPies w _'.-.-.+t-j6--!*'': l':s':::r'' HIGH COURT DATED:18 tO2t2O2S j I 1 ) i I I I I I ORDER WP.No.2974 of 2025 c o t o * UJ01 L 2025 T- .Ci ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {t )-4 u)