The High Court · 2025

The Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal corporatio r, Rep by rts commissloner' irnx suno Road, Hyderabad' Smt M.Kameswarr, FlatNo 201 ' 2nd Floor' H No'16-2-751/16' Eternal Kailas' X;;ii,i;-, -s-Bli smt c Vishweshwar H 19 :3KJ:'Jj Chandranagar, BalaPur Uro ^i:l?l3fl',hTil5ul: Srnt Y S Jaqadrshwari Flat No 403 A' H No 162146/34/33/A34/'114' Sri iiir'rl#, ;il;;;no r'rus" i;l";r' uirarpet Hvderabad - 36 Smt.K Gayathri, R/o.K K Sons Residency Padmashali Street' Venkatagiri' r.r"iror" oi3tri"t, Andhra Pradesh firl/s Oranqe Avenues, A registered Partnershio Firm wrlh Reo No 2901 Of )iii sl'i,izi r'i i t- ]p p'iT * i*Affi S: *;m*"t Rl:? : ;"'.'#3 3i1",, fu #;ixEff lq":!'ti:'$i*:,'l,uH:,ii5"'#lfl ii'a:e,i?:t' i;t'h;;i Eiiooi r.r"ga Hvderabad 500 035 Respondent No 6 is impleaded as per Court Order' dl'04 11'2024 inlANo5 of 2023, ...RESPONDENTS IA NO: oF 2a2s 1 Petit t:tt r r'jer Secfion 151.cPC praying that in the ;i,cu,stances stated in the aflidavit i' ' ir support or tne peiitio'n, ir," Hrgn c() rrr r ray be preased to suspend tlr-, ,, : ceedrnos ot ttre '1si [jr"rO"ri 2014tHotBo, t,; o oa zifzs penoins d;p;;f;;,;;";:lrl,;:l: No.5e560/25l08/ ;#til H;li;, fE:liT,, sRr vEDuLA sRrNrv^ s RE PRES ET,TING FoR sRr. FSH"ff I i"[,t|fi, I :B'ff erFilT:: 1, Ms. r. KANvAKUM,\R r REn RESENTNG ,ACHWA (Sc FOR GHMC) 3E F[:1 l"^i,fl 1,".' S; i gli11,X.,il Counsel for the Il aspondent No.6: :- ^i{i,i v R A v, N D E R R A ( ) s R. c o u NS E L rii,i WRIT APPEAL NO:5 25 0F 2025 Writ Appeal rrn:e j ause 15 of the Letters patent 01-04-2025 pilr ;r J in W p No 16141 ot 2O23and pass on tn€, Between: J. eferre,l aJlains fil? ( t the order dated f the High Court. g.15flfi Iii.i:ilfi ;,nd;fi ,i:"',l.,r'.Tss,r":{}:t[:i:iti::;*"],,,sJi Rantra Reddv Disln-bi SffJi'r"J'l:,f : ''"Y,Tglg c;iJ;y:i"i;l; ,; !3?"#i,",,?:.,?,iru:Jll}30',",ji't.i; 'i11,,[,!i"83] partner'sii xl".,,i SPgl 19,i3 AND ...APPELLANT tfifa*"filSnarataur A;ed about 48 !ea.s, R/o H No licipal corporation, Represented bv rts ,)ommissioner, ' T65-U1,'ffilil*t'eot 2. Greater Hy,lt.r 1616 ,r, tank Bur rd, t lycerabad 3. Smt. M 1.,:rnr:: hwan. Fl EternarK; ir,, ii"Ji li,j"!N8e?ik effi:!j!:f#:LJl"1,1 16 2751/16, 4. Smt C. Vi;lrw,:,;,rwari H No 6302/3/10, Anlanadn Res,der c I.F at No. 302. unandrana_-r tialapur Cross Roads, f,l"",.pbj,.H"i,frrstrrct b )0 197 ' iitiJ,: i iai''"'.X-^il! slt Jsd.,i, j; [i J,"d5::lg ]i i 13 t A : 4/, / A, s ri , prdmasharr i3ltT"3,*l::X rXl?[ E,,..rJr"nResidency, Str.eet, \,enkarsiri, FREr:;PONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition the High Court may be please^{^to ;r;p;;; Proceedings bearing t'lo SgsOoizSl}St2ol4t{olS}B dated 20'062023 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: Ms' PRATUSHA BOPPANA Counsel for the Respondent No'1: --- Counsel for the Respondent No-2: MS' T' KANYAKUMARI REPRESENTINF ion snr sRtNtvAS RAo PAcHwA (sc FoR GHMc) Counsel for the Respondent Nos'3 to 6: SRI V' RAVINDER RAO SR' COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI SATHVIK MAKUNURU The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT -, THE HC'N'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSI'ICE SIIJOY PAUL AND T]IE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA Y/\RA {IUT APPEAL Nos.S12 AND 525 'Ot'20i!5 COM:MOII JUDGMENT (Pe:r t{on'ble Smt. Justicc Il rri,l r S r Vcdula Srinivas, lcarnccl iier r r. Counscl rcproi( I ing Ms. Vedula Cl'rilralekha, learnr.,i c,r,Ln. (,1 1ir tltc aplr':ll: n W.A.No.512 of 2O25, Srr V [.ir:r irrr]r r Rao, Ieanrt:cl i cnior Counsel rcpresenling Sri Satlrr,i< N{ rl<rLrruru, lcar-rrr::l i I Llnsel lor respondcnt Nos.2 to 5 iLL !.,, /r ]jo.lj L2 ol 2021j .t,, firr respondent Nos.3 to 6 in W.A.\o.r.,5 r.,i 2025, Ms. I)Lzr s,h:r Boppanna, learned counsel [or. LIrr rp rirllarrt in W.A.lr,r : l,-t ol 2025 and Ms_T. Kanyakurnari le.:rrre< ,:oLrnsel rcpR)s,r t rre Sri St.inivasa [?ao pachwa, l,_,;rr-r i Sitrnding Cour:,: I )- (-]HMC in both thc appcals. W.A. Ncr. fi 12 of 2025 '2. r'] lrira-Court appe:rl pr.cferrccl b1,, tl.r. iL li). L ltrtl/\,,.rit petil iotl( W-P I'.r:. tr-ssailing the order of Lhe learnecl .,singlr. ,lrrdge rn ) 11 of 2023 d:rted 2l .O4.2O2 j l I r.r, rt_r_r. the impurl , r dism s..i : petiti rl i I-e tt e r I , le\rocation order detcd 20 _06.2023 is r r;rrl'i -rnerl by r,hc writ petition. The u,rit petittor)rr ii.rl the u,rit cieclare lhc proceedings of respon<l:nt No. 1 in r;qr56O/25l08 l20I4 lHO /8O8, ctar,.cl,-t),)(,.2(.)23 !r- IIAC(SP,J) & RY,J I0.A.No 512 and 525 of 2025 ) whereby the building permission dated 2l'O4 2020 in permtt No.53601/HO IDZICir'3I2016 in llle No s956o/2sl08I2Or4 I cancelled and to declarr: ttre same as illegal and HO ts arbitrary. W.A.N o.525 of 2025

3. This appeal is preferred by respor-rrlent No-6-Ms-Orange Avenues assailing thc order ol thc lcarned Singlc Judge in W.P.No.16141 ot 2023 dated 2 | 04'2025. Respondent No 6 entered inLo a Memorandum ol Unclerstanding dated for construction of lO.O2.2Ol4 with the writ pcLrlloner 4 floors o[ multi storied ground + uPPer 2 cellars + commercialComplexiniandadmeirsuring2T14squareyards whichisaporLiol.lin.B,schedulepropertyaspcrsketchmap of Writ Appcal materi:rl papcrs The wrlt fhe developer had share ol 6O% and 4OVo in page No.87 petitioner and respectivelY in rhe built uP area The parties hereinafter referrecl to as they are arraYed 4 in the writ Petitlon The writ petitioner claims to be thc owner of land to an 5. extent of 4461 square yards u'hich is bequeathed by his -r J r t. \( -r(t P.J) & RY.J \Y.4.\o.rt: an I i25 of 202-; "h r: u.rit :;ecking I cparzrtc will deed dated 29. I 2. I ():r() application dared 25.Oi .2:; j . fathc r- l r:lrgh petitiorrt liled pcrntrs j ,I l )r construction of a buikling. L_r.r:l ltr &trc: the appli,::rl,r ),r \\...1s processed by rcspondent Nc.l. il ,1 ;j516.p 1y[ \\,ri[ i)(-i i c rrr:r filed a suit in O_S_No.3O j (.1 ,.2L1 r (rlcl O.S.No I r of 2016) seeking partition arll posst:;:;ii , rf .A, to .D, schedule properties. llc.s;ror rle nt No.6 t,ho irt I )cr.eloper got impleaded into the strt . I he c ivil Colrrl !.., .L .. injllnction in favour of tl.rc sis;.er ol t rr: r,,,rit pctitio.r I rsr r:tining the writ petrtioncr from :rliIt ir r ng r hc sult s l.e lrr r: properties and from changin;J ttre p t-l,sir:al fealurr ..,:,d properties. Thc said appli,.; .r , r: \\.r.1.1. dispostr,: ,' ,tide common judgment datecl t I 20 17 . Aggrievl.,- ., .he same, the writ petitioner,s n.(rt_.. llk:cl C.M.A.ilo. , oi 20 1g, respondent No.6 liled C_M.r\. rro 36 of 2018 arrc r ,, I)onclent No.2 filed C.M.A.No.g1 of .Ot.J. I uring pendcnr:r I Lhe CMAs, the family members rr: Lr tc ci ari undersl,. r f 1. On the basis of said underslitrLrit.rq tlris Court ri,,, , ) nnton judgment dated 31.10.20 1;i cli;ir:rsc,:l of thc CMl.. \, rf (lirections as follows: 1 ulLrnction granted by the lorver Col(rt in r,tsp(ji I r,i l)a , 'Fl' schedule property is confined to ,8, nr;r k,.rt I,rr': ,u in the sketch prepared b-y the Sun,eyor.rrtrl rLri 4 I{ACJ(SP,J) & RY,J W.A.No.512 arrd 525 of 2025 - along with the Advocate Commissroner's report in I-A.No.1150 of 2016. 2) The injunction is also confined to 60% of the constructed area to be allotted to delendant Nos. 1 and 2 over'A'marked portion of plaint B'schedule property' 3) Withrn two weeks, defendant Nos t ' 2 and 1 I shall register the Mcmorandum of Understanding' dated 1o.02.201 4. 4) Dcfendant Nos l and 2 shall select 6O% oi the conslrucled atea talling to lh.ir slrcrcs [acing Vijayawada and Nagarjunasagar I{ighwal s 5) Dcfendant Nos 1 and 2 shall not alicnatc or fur-ther encumber the 'A' schedule property u'hich is already under mortgage to Vija-va Bank, M;rlakper Branch' Hvderabad, Pending the sr'r'it'

6. While things stoocl thus, respotrdent No l granted building permission order dated 21 04 '2O2O lor construction ol 2 stilt, grouncl + 4 upper floors PursuanL to said building permit order, the writ petitioner commenced constnl(ltion and completed the constructiot]' Further' somc p( 'rtions are lct out and lessees are running commercial establlshmcnts'

7. At this juncture, respondent No 2 todgcd a complaint with respondent No.1 alleging that the writ petitioner resorted to suppression and misrepresentation of facts in the process of obtaining the building pe rmit orcler' More perlicularly' it is emphasized that the writ petitioner did not disclose pendency ofcivilsuitandLheagreementreachedwlriledisposingthe , ) I A( .tL Sp..r)&tty..t \\' ,\.N( .5ll ; nd 525 ot 2025 Cful 4.-. ;rtrther. it is alJsgsd that while disl:ror; n11 lhe CMA., the '-j r .t:on g.a.ted by the civil court *,:rs ( ()olrned [o .o,, scl*rlu i .r"operL-y u'hich is abutting roacl sirrt.. .r.hc writ peti ,r, :,rrrrenderecl part of the lancl rn .i, schedule pro['(]r'r . o rcstrtondent No.1 for the pur.po:t r i getting buiLirr r ).rrnission in ,A,sc:tredule properly. 8 shou -: I ,, )i rr reL_-eipI of said r:omplaint, responrlcl \o ] issuecl ri' notice dated 1O.03.2022 proposL tg ;r c,tnccl the buiic r ; r rrnil Cl-rallenging the same, tht, v,,rL I,etirioner lilcd trt , (1. l9fi8 I of 2022. Said writ petitir r) rr_z. s lisposed of u'irl i , irt'crion to respondent No.r to consi:rcr t -,e burrcling pernrit i ;r rLir::rtion by issuing notice to alr the ;t:rk:horders :rncl : ' : .,;r, side ring their objections. In contpii:t tc(. rf said ordct- : r-r spoi.rdent No.1 after issuing ni Lic:, :,o all Lhe parLic:' i.r girring an opportunity for hear-ir1: t. :Lll Lhc partir:s r.rJ ,:onsidering the written argum(lltts -,1 all the p:rrti.: : s(,'d the impugncd order datr:tl 2..).(,6.2023 canccliirir Ire builcling perntit order dated 21.()4.]()2( .which becalnc i r suttjecl lnatler of the writ petition,

9. Juclgc '[hc r rrltary. rssue canvassed before thr: lea.r nr:d Singlc r [,llre ssion of material facts by the .,r.ri ,et rtioner \- 6 TIACJ(SP.J) & RY.J W-ANo.512 and 525 of 2025 while obtaining the buitding permit ordcr dated 21.O4'2O2O According to the writ petitioncr, there is no suppression of facts, as the application was filcd in the year 20 14 and at that timc, no suits were pending and there were no restraining orders. CMAs were also liled subsequent lo grant of temporary injunction in favour of respondent No 2 in the civil suir and therefore there was no occasion to disclosc the pending litigation before respondent No' 1-

10. Per contra, the contention of contcsting respondent Nos,2 Lo 5 is that though the apptication is filcd in the year 2014, Lhe building permiL order itsell was issued on 21.O4.2O2O and by said date the suit was pending and CMAs wcre disposed of by a common order' For the purposc of obtaining building permit ordcr, the writ petitioner has given an undertaking dated 2a-O2-2O2O r't'ithout clisclosing ttrc pending litigation. AIso, the writ pctitioner surrcndr:red land Lo an extent of 1815 square yards in 'B' schcdulc prop|rlv in lavour of respondent No.1 free o[ cost for thc purpose o[ obla in ing the construction permission' petitioncr's stand about there being n() 11- Thc writ suppression of facts is considered by the learned Single Judgc 7 lt \ ( 'j( r;P..r) (t RY.J W.,\.No. i1 I ar d 525 ot 2O2i trp,,ll a detailecl reasoning dismissed tlte ;;,rI: holcling tir' \,rit petitioner indced resorted th€ srrl:l)rlssion of r 'i ltereby confirrned the revocati )n ( rcl jr ctatecl )O.O .

12. L) ; i ri1 argumcnts for admissior-r of r,.rit illlt)€al, Iearnr' l:ri:tr Counsel lor the writ petitioner \\.or ld cotrtend that rr:sr,, rtdcnt No. l erroncously exercisecl aut.t()n y rrnder Scction i. 0 )t' thc Grearcr Hyderabad Municilral (ttrp,lration (GHM t-r i t L. rvhercin Lhe Commissioner r_" et,rr1,oyeri:cl to canr:c I I , pert.nissron on the grouncl ttt rratt:rial r,isrr:,'r',., r t,rtion b.y thc applicant_ Based o. tl e lactum of gir.ing ,. r rnrlertaking by suppressing the pe,:.rdi,rr1 c rvil suit u,hcrc:lri i r ritle ol the r.r,ri t pe[itioner over slrrje.r.t la td is in i rrl suppression about injunction orcl,:t. 1-rr :vltiiing 1 tl ) the 'B' sche dule propcrty which is s,u r_r_r .n clcrccl i l'l( i , ps 5p6nden t N o. 1 passed re' r(.i)rl , atcer to th( a l'itlt i- ::;:r qucsl t a ) Accorc :t-1 facts ,tl rl, The lt-'r ln lhcrc r.:L_s vghen tlL - , seeking, Il i r he Scnior Counsel for the writ pctit ()r er, t he ( i:r se do not attract Section 4SO of ,,hc -lFiMC Act. Scnior Counscl has choserl to elrpll. si::e (trat : t ivii suit, no in-junction order or OM,\:; 1t _.ncling it pctitioner filed thc application in thr: -r r:a . 2O 14 c Jrrg permission. Therefore, said i,tct ()rsi , annot I INCJ(SP,J) & RY.J W.A.No.512 and 525 of 2025 8 - be considered whrle granting permrsslon assailed the impugned revocation order' and therefore 13 Learned counsel for respondent No'I opposed the urit version and contended that respondent No-l petitioner's rightly exerciscd the power under Section 45O of thc GHMC Act as there is material misrepresentation and suppression of lacLs by thc writ pcti[ioner with respect to pending litigation' I t is :Lrgued that the writ petitioner may have submitte d the applicalion for grant of buitding permit in the year 2O l4 when there were no cases pending against Lhe writ peLitioner' \r,rit petitloner ls Ilowever,atthetimco[processingthebuildingpcrmissionin well aware of the the ye ar 2O2O, Lhe writ petitioner was pending suits u'hercin the title of the thr: contesting rcspondenL Nos 2 challenged by to 5- With lull knowledge about the operation ol the injunclion ordcrs passecl by the civil Court and :rffirmed by this Court in CMAs uide common order dated 3 1 10'20 I 8 with respect to 'B' schcdule proper[y' the writ petitioner ventured to give a false undertaking dated 28O?' 2O2O atd thcrcby obtaincd building permission' In case advcrse ordcrs arc passed against the writ petitioner in thc civil suit not only the'\title of the writ petitioner, but the titlc of respondent No' I 9 l-. ri .r(! P.l) & RY,J W-A Nc..l.l .rr.d 525 of 2025 also ,,,.) I . i)e in jeopardy. On all counts, re sjr)(,n(ient No.1 has ,:or.r, ir Ierccl the contention of all the l)ar it.s and has pass: ( r lr:iaiied reasoned order.

11. IJ r i rrl rcgard Lo thc rival con .en i( )r1ri, \vhile appf..i; i r !l Lhc urrit petilioner's casc about Ihltrrr being no civil :1 I I pending at the timc of filinq ht: buiJding con:i r r l, r c n pe rmit application in the year .lO I .1, r.,e are of the c orr ir L,'r,rcl opinion that therc is sultprcssioir of ntaterial facts ...,1 i r submitting the undertaking dalr:ri ,.g.),2..2O2O. tlad llre , ' it petitioner revealecl about the. l)cnceilc r of civil suits ;ln i thr: injunction ordcr prevailing \^/ith rrr:rp( ct to ,8, schcrluL I operty wl-rich is surrendcred to r-:sltond rnt No.1 for tlr rr I D()sc of road construcLion, respo:rde trt Nt.I may noI ltiru rmagin:rt u,ri1 0 . t order : rs

1.r-rrrrLed building permission. B.,, rL,, st-ct.ch of , r ;L st.rit hled lor p:rrtition u,hercir L]-r lit c of the rln,rr is challenged or supprcssiorr Oi rr unction r ccl b,v a oompetent civil Courl can lre c ols ruc<l as a mir.ror clo nct s r rr rnatcrial suppression. In the ciri:urlsta]tce s. we ( llrv reason to cntertain W.A.No.5l2 of 2025 :rnd therelo e r r nr ission is dcnicd. t0 HACJ(SP,J) & RY,J V.A.No.512 and 525 of 2025 -

15. [n vicw of the foregoing discussion, thc request o[ the appellant in W.A.No.525 of 2025 also cannot be acceded [o'

16. [n the rcsult, both the Writ Appeals a-re dismissed' No costs As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. EPUTY REGI ISMAIL STRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

2. 3 4 toPUCl One CC to SRI' VEDULA CHITRALEKHA At'vo One CC to SRI SATHVIK tvIAKUNURU Advocate One CC to tVIs PRATUSHA BOPPANA Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI SRINIVAS RAO PACHWA (SC FOR GHMC) [OPUC] Two CD CoPies toPUCl KKS \p- HIGH COUFIT DATED:30111412025 $\\ \r! .M o =.\ I COMMON ..'UDGMENT i.. " \) :-'-' WA.Nos 5111 and 525 of 2025 DISMISSINC THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS (r t .j. 3a @