The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI PASHAM MOHTT, SC FOR GWMC Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI S.SURENDER REDI)./, REp. FOR SRI K.UDAY KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER a IN TIIE HIGH COURT FOR TI IE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1486l OF 2024 Between: DATE: 27.11.2025 Bolla Yugandhar & another .. Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Developrnent Deparlment, T.S. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 4 others ORDER: Respondents l.l. Petitioners claim to have jointly purchased an extent ol

1331.33 square yards of land in Survey No. 122lB situated at Vikas Nagar, Waddepally Revenue Village, Hanamkonda Mandal and District, under the registered sale deed bearing document No.8967 of 20ll dated 14.11.201i from its previous owner Mr. Athirajula Chandar, son of Late Mr. Narsaiah Pagc 2 of ll BYR.J \\'l' \o.I,186l o12024

1.2. The vendor of the petitioners was own\)r of an extent of Ac.0- I 9 guntas of land in Surwey No. l22lFl ,tf Waddepall.v Revenue Village, Hanamkonda Mandal and I)istrict. w,hich is evident fion'r the pahanies. The land of the peli ,i,rners is har"ing road on south. east and west, and on the nofthern side there is a house bearing No.2-9-234

1.3. It is stated that a suit in O.S. No.699 cf 202i was tlled by the petitioners in the Courl of Principal Jul ior Civil Judge, I lanamkonda, against respondent No.5 herein ar-r I trvo others lbr pcrpetual injunction in respect of the land adrreasuring 666.66 square yards in Survey No.122lB situated at Wa<[cepally Vitlage, Hanamkonda Mandal and District, rvhicl is pending 1'he petitioners filed another suit in O.S. No.282 o 11012 before the leamed Principal Junior Civil Judge, Waranga, aqainst onc Panthula Muralidhar Rao Kotte Kishan Rao and Pothuganti Narayana Reddy lor perpetual injunction in respcct of the land admeasuring 1333.33 square yards in Survey No. 2:2,48 situated at Waddepally Revenue Village, Hanamkonda ManCal and District, which is also pending for adjudication. This suit v,as transfered to II I J I I I I I I I I I I I t t i I i ; ! ; i i , l i i I I i E i ! ! l'agrSotll BVR,J wP No.l486l of2024 i I the Court of the leamed I Additional Junior Civil Judge, I{anamkonda and renumbered as O.S. No. 1990 of 2022. l'he petitioners comprornised the r-natter rvith del-endant Nos. I and 2 viz.,Mr. P. Muralidhar Rao and K. Kishan Rao. In tenns ol the compromise, the land admcasuring 666.66 square yards out of the Iand admeasuring 1333.33 square yards ivere settled in f'avour of dcfendant Nos.l and 2. However, suit has been continuing as against defendant No.3 Mr. Pothuganti Naral,ana Reddy

1.4. It is stated that the petitioncrs again filed O.S. No. 126 I of 2021 against one Mr. Kandukuri l-axminarayana, Ponnala Srikanth and Kumbham Tirupathi Reddy in respect of the land admeasuring 666.66 square yards in Survel, 116. I22lB in Surwey No. 122lB situated at Vikas Nagar, Waddepally Revenue Village, Hanamkonda Mandal and District. The said suit was transferred to the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda and renumbered as O.S. No.l368 of 2022. This suit is also pending for adjudication. While the suit was pending, defendant Nos.l and 2 - Mr. Kandukuri Laxminarayana and Ponnala Srikanth have sold an extent of 226 square yards in lavour of one P&gc{ofll BvR,.I \\ l' \o.14861 of 202.{ -"\: N4s. M. SarJa.ia, undcr the salc deed dated 01.10.2().11, ivho in tum sold the sarlc in lavour of respondent No.5 und:r the sale deed datcd 24.0j.1021. Accordingly, delendant No.3 - Mr. Kumbanr Iirupathi Rccldy has sold an extent ol I I I square yrrds in favour ol del'endant No.2 Ponnala Srikanth under the .;a le ileed dated

04.10.202 I . Irurther, defendant Nos.l and 2 llr. Kandukuri l-axminarai,anl and Mr. Ponnala Srikanth have s lld an extent ol'

107.33 sqrrarc 1'ards in lavour of one Mr. Maddik,rrrta Nithin Te.ia under the lcgistered sale deed dated 3l.l2.2O) L I hus, Lhc del-endants in ( ).S. No. 1368 of 2022 have been crea.ing third party intclcst undcl various sale deeds during pendencv r '1'the suit

1.5. lt is stated that respondent No.5 does no havc any title in respect o1' the house site admeasuring 188.9.; sqtlare meters oquivalcnt to ?26 scluare yards in Survey Nos.1ll, t23 and 125 (New) Vikas Nagar, Waddepally Revenue Village, llanamkonda Mandla arrd District, purchased under the sirl,: deed dated

24.05.2021 liom Mittapally Sailaja who purchasec lhe same under the sale decd bearing document No.687 of 1995. Flespondent No.5 applied lor permission for construction of buildirrg,. Respondent 1' a) I t i I i t t i I i I 1 I i i I : 1 Pagr5ofll BVR..l \} P :io.t{E6l o1 202{ No.2 - Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (for shorl 'Corporation') granted building permission to respondent No.5 vide Order No.297596lGWMCi 35 1912023 dated 0l .06.2021 undcr TS-bPASS for construction of stilt + three upper floors. Rcspondent No.5 proceeded with the construction of building

1.6. The petitioncrs subrnittcd representation datccl

10.07.2023 to Corporation for cancellation o1- thc building pcmrission granted to respondent No.5. It is stated that the Corporation without considering the objections subrnitted b-v the petitioners rejected the same and issued intirnation in I{OC No. Il - 2 6 7 2 I 4 I GWMC ITP I Cir.Il I 2023 dated 28.07 .2023

1.7. It is stated that the petitioners' submitted anorher representation dated 29.04.2024 to respondent No.4 - City Planncr of the Corporation. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 addrcssed lctter in R.O.C. No.HOlTPl5577ll0l2024 dated, 02.05.2024 to the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, I{anamkonda, with a request to conduct survey in respect of the land admeasuring

666.66 square yards tn Survey No. 122lB, Vikas Nagar, Prge 6 of ll Il\ R..l \\'P \o.l{E6l of:02{ \\radclepall)' Rcvenue Viltage, I{anamkonda Man<lal and District' -fhc Assistant Director, District Survey and I and Records, l lanarnkonrla. contluctcd survey and irxed boundar ic s in respect ol- thc land in Sun,e)' No.l22 and prepared a locatiotr skctch whioh shorvs that respondcnt No.5 is rnaking t:cnstruction in Survcl, No. 122 fbr tvhich he rvas not granted btriltling permission' 'lhus, the pctitioncrs subrnittcd anothcr reprc'sr:ntation dated 0l .05.202-1 to the Corporatiorl enclosing the strrr ey' r'epor1 dated

15.05.2011 lSurvcy I{cport dated 15.05.2024 is lirie-to the datc ol rcprescntation dated 01.05.2024) issued by the Ass;stant Dircctor, District Sutvev and Lal-rd Records, with a r equest to take appropriate action against the construction ()arried out by rcspondent No.5. Alier hearing the petitioners and rcspondent No.5, thc Corporation has passed the i ntimation in ROC No l:-267}l4lGWMCITPlCir.Ill2O23-24 drrt:d 05.06.2024 stating that it has no power to review its order.

2. Ilcard Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, leamed counsel for the petitionersl Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned couns :1, appearing for Mr. K. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for resltondent No.5; PageTotll BvR,.I It'P \o.l1t6l ot 102.1 Mr. Pasham Mohit, learned Standing Counsel lor GWMC Warangal - respondent Nos.2 to 4; and perused the material on record

3. Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, leamed counscl for the petitioners, subrnitted that the Corporation has erroneously rejected tlie petitioners' representation dated 01.05.2024 by the impugned order datcd 05.06.2024. The Corporation has not considered the t-actual aspect that respondent No.5 is constructing the building in the land covered by Survcy No. 122 fbr which he was not granted building pcn-r-rission. The survey report ol the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Hanamkonda, was also not considered. The survey report clearly shows that respondent No.5 is constructing the building in the land in Survey No.l22, whereas thc land admeasuring 226 square yards, purchased by him, ts ln Survey Nos. 121, 123 and 125(n32) of Vikas Nagar, Waddepally Revenue Village, Hanamkonda Mandal and District, under the sale deed bearing document No.l1550 of 2023 dated 24.05.2023 lrorn Mittapatli Sailaja. Thus, respondent No.5 does not have any right, title and interest in the land in Survev No.122lB. l'rer8ofll IlvR.,t \\ P No.1186l or 202r

4. lvIr. S. Surender Reddy, Iearned coturriel appearing lor l'' rcspondent No.5, submitted that the sun/ey repor' r'elied on by the petitioners tlocs rrot have any sanctity. Civil srrits are admittcdly pending betrr c'cn the parries. Whcn earlier rc ll esentation \vas rcjected, the qucstion of thc Corporation rc\ ir:wing its own rejection ordcr does not arise. fhe petitioners n collusion with rcspondent No.4 creatcd a story ofconducting survey. No srrrvcl' q,as conductetl. 'l'he alleged survey was conductctl rehind the back of respondent No.5 ivithout any notice to him

5. N,Ir. I)asham Mohit, learrrcd Standing (lorrrrsel lor GWMC - respondcnt Nos.2 and 3, submitted that the Corpc,ration does not have any julisdiction to decide civil disputes pcrtrling between the pctitioners and rcspondent No.5 relating to titl,: and boundary 1'he objection of the petitioners fbr cancellin6l the building perrnission granted to respondent No.5 by the llorporation was rejected for tl.re first time by the intimation dirt:d 28.07.2023 Again the petitioners filed another representation <b.ted 0l .05 .2024 after a [apse ol'ten ( I 0) months. The Corporation ,]zmnot review its own decision of rejection made earlier. On satisfring with the t I Psge 9 of tl ltvR.J U'P No.l4E6l of 202{ I prima facie title ol respondent No.5, the Corporation has granted building permission

6. This rvrit petition is tlled challenging thc irnpugned intimation dated 05.06.2024 and the intimation dated 28.07.2023 passed by the Corporation rcjecting the objections submitted by the petitioners for cancellarion of building permission granted to respondcnt No.5 dated 01 .06.2023. As seen fror.n the secor.rd intirnation letler dated 05.06.2024, building per.mission rvas grarrted to respondent No.5 in respect of the land admeasuring 226 square yards in Survey Nos. I2l, 122, 123 and 125 of Vikas Nagar, Waddepally, Kazipet, l.lanamkonda Mandal and District, as the Corporation was prima ;facie satisf-red with his title. It was noted by the Corporation that lhere is no case pending and no restraint orders are passed against it not to issue permission to respondent No.5 and there is no rn isrepresentation of facts and fraudulent methods adopted by respondent No.5 in obtaining building pemission. Further, it was observed by the Corporation that the objection petitioners ought to have obtained appropriate orders from the competent civil Court in support of their claim over the i Page l0 of I I BIRJ 1l'l'\o.l,186l ot202J subject propcrry. In thc intimarion dated 0-5.r){r.26r0. ,, *r. pointed out that sirnilar representation ntadc rrarlicr by the petitioners r'r'as rc.jecrccr b1' the intirnarion datc(r 1g.07.2023 and suppressing the salrc, the petitioners filed anoth. r. r.epl.esentation on the same set of ailcgations afler a lapse ol r, rr ( I0) months. on reading ol both the intirnation letters, [his ('.uft is of the opinion that therc is no illegality or irregularity ct,nrmitted by the Corporation in passinu thc inrptrgned order. If an , civil suits are pending and injunctions orders are passed or suit is irralli,disposed ot, the.iudgme,t is brncling on the Corporation. I is settled larv that building perrnissions granted by the Corpor a; ion rvill not conler any titlc. Thc corporation, on satisfvinLr itscrl rvith the Ttri.ma /itcie title of respondent No.5, granted buildirrrl pernrission to respondent No.5 .

7. According to the leamcd counsel lor tlrc petitioners, the Corporation ought to have considered the represt:ntation of the petitioners for cancelling building pennission of r.csp,:ndent No.5 as there is change of circumstances and a survey rel)ort along with sketch plan r.r,as filed. I{owever, it is not disputecl tv the leamed r I I I I PaEe ll ot ll B\ R.J wP No.l486l of 202,1 counsel fbr the petitioners that such survey was conducted without notice to respondcnt No.5. The Corporation is only concemed with prima.facic title. Serious disputcs of title cannot be decided by the Corporation. As statcd above, thc objections of the petitioners are duly considered and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioncrs and rcspondent No.5. There is no violation of principles of'natural justice. Thus. this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition g. -l-herefore, the u rit pctition is dismisscd, at the adrnission stage itscll. Ilorvevcr, it is rnade clear that as and when any favourablc orders or decree is passcd in favour of the petitioners, are at liberry to approach the Corporation for appropriate relief. No order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in tl.re writ pe tition stand closed- //TRUE COPY// SD/- C.DEEPtKA ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI A.PRAB HAKAR RAO, Advocate [O One CC to SRI K.UDAY KUMAR, Advo cate IOPUC one CC to SRIPASHAM MOHIT, SC FORGWMC TwoCCstoG P FOR MCpl noruru uR Tel angana at Hyderabad Two CD CoPies l tOPUC] BAN DEV, H igh Co urt for the State of I t To,

1. 2. 3. 4. 5 BSR N/ HIGH COURT DATED:2711112025 CC TODAY ,'1. 1R ?/ i\ !/1 I {:j'- ! l\. 'lfrx.."^.Ii ar..\ '( \\ [ 2[?i I]i >\: '1: ,, .l' ORDER WP.No.14861 of 2024 :-.. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 1 % "v) p.' t I I t I . l ! I I I I q