The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN UTRJT PETITIO N No.1665O oF 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri Jelli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Ravindar, iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. 1st petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot bearing No.19 admeasuring 874 square yards in Survey No.7 Part, Ward No. 11, Block No.13, situated at Green Hills Colony (New Green Hills Colony), Saroornagar Village and Revenue Mandal, under GHMC L.B.Nagar Circle, on the strength of a registered SaIe Deed bearing Document No.3992 of 2018 dated 21.07.2018. He has obtained building permit order dated 13.11.2O18 for construction of Stilt + 5 Floors over the subject property. 1st petitioner has entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing Document No.370 of 2Ol9 dated 22.OL.2019 with 2nd petitioner. According to the petitioners, they have completed the construction strictly in accordance with ttre said building permit order dated 13' 1I'2OL8' , , 2

3. On ,-he complaint lodged by Green Hiils R :sidential Association, 3.,1 respondent has issued show cause nolice dated l7.IO.2Ol9 to the petitioners herein alleging that t rey have obtained the aforesaid building permit orcler by way of misrepresentat r>n/ suppression of facts. petitionet .s have submitted rep1l..

4. Penrsal of record would reveal that 3.a respor dent has issued notice cLated 07.08.2O19 to the petitioners hereir stating that they have (,ncroached into land belongs to Khi11a M aisamma Temple. Thel tried to interfere with the possessior r of the petitioners over the subject propert5r and construction being carried out by the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid building permit order. 'lherefore, petitioners have hled four writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos. 7i aa7, 25849, 26759 and 26797 of 2Ol9 t > declare letter datecl 07.t13.2919 addressed by 3.d respondent to pt,titioners as illegal; to der:lare notice dated 17.LO.2Otg issued br Deputy City Planner, L. i;. Nagar Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad, as illep al; to set aside letter dat< <l 22.1I.2019 disposing of reply datecl 1B 11.2O1g by 3'd respon.de rt and to set aside notice dated 1g. 1 1.2O 19 issued under $ection ,l50 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Cor poration Act, 1955 (for slrcrt'GHMC Act,), respectively. Vide comm:n order dated 15.03.2O2 I , this Court set aside order dated 18/ 19 11.2O19 t 3 passed by Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad, 2"d respondent herein, and remanded the matter back to the official respondents to pass orders afresh duly taking into consideration the reply dated 18.11.2O19 subrnitted by petitioners' Before passing orders, the authorities sha11 put all the parties on notice and afford them an opportunity of hearing. Petitioners, if they are so advised, are also permitted to file additional documents or bring to the notice of the authorities subsequent events which rnay weigh with the authorities. GHMC is free to take the representation made by Green Hi1ls Residential Association stating that they would like to withdraw the original complaint made to GHMC on the basis of which shos' cause notice was issued and consequential orders were passed which are impugned in the aforesaid writ petitions.

5. Perusa-l of record also would reveal that thereafter 3'd respondent has issued a show cause notice alleging that petitioners have obtained building permit order by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. 3'd respondent has also issued order dated 17.O2.2023 cancelling the subject building permit order. Challenging the said order, petitioners have hled a writ petition r,,tde W.P.No. 5696 of 2023. Vide otder dated 2a.O2.2O23, this Court set aside the said order on the ground that 4

3.d respondent has no jurisdiction to calcel/revoke thr building permit order issucd in favour of the petitioners and it is the Commissroner r',ho has porver. Therefore, this Court di; ected 2"d respondent to,:ramine the relevant record relating to thr: building permit order cated 13.11.2018 granted in favour of pt:titioners, before taking rny decision to revoke the building perrrit, issue notice to the p:titioners as r.r,e1l as all the stake holders and after affording them an opportuni[r of personal hearing, on ccnsidering thc entire docurnents and also report of Zonal Comrniss oner and pass appropriat,: orders in accordance u,ith 1aw.

6. In r:,rmpliance wittr the said order, uide orrler dated

20.06.2023, 2,r respondent has cancelled the buildir g permit order dated 13 . 1 1 .20 18 obtajned by the petitioners. Cl .allenging the said order, Jretitioners hled the present writ petition 7 . Penrsal of the impugned order dated 20.06.2C 23 would reveal that irr compliance q.ith order dated 28.O2 2023 in W.P.No.5696 <i 2023, 2"d respondent has issued th<' hearing notice, conductd hearing and passed orders in terms <,f Section 45O of the GH\IC Act cancelling the building permit or ler dated

13.11.2018 obl rLined by petitioners. Perusal of the said order also would reveal l hat the 2"d respondent has put the pr ,titioners, t/ 5 Green Hills Residential Association on notice ald afforded them an opportunity. They have appeared before the 2'a respondent in the hearing and submitted their u'ritten subrnissions. 2"d respondent has considered the said written submissions and contentions of the parties and issued order dated 20.06.2023 holding that as per the certihed copy furnished by HMDA, the subject site is earmarked as open space. The ownership of open space is vested with the iocal bodies on1y. The permission obtained on the subject site by misrepresenting the actual facts (showing layout open space as residential plot). Hence, the permission issued in favour of the petitioners dated 13.11.2O18 is ceLncelled.

8. Referring to information furnished by Pubiic Information Ofhcer of HMDA dated 22.IO.2019 , Sri Jelii Kalakaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that HMDA informed the 2'd petitioner that layout File bearing No.33821P7 ISD/HUDA/94 in Survey No.7D of Saroornagar Village and Mandal is not available. Even then, 2"d respondent placed reliance on the certihed copy furnished by HMDA with regard to subject property and held that subject property earmarked as open space as per the certified copy furnished by HMDA. Therefore, the finding of 2'd respondent is 6 contrary to th,: aforesaid information. He would furth :r submit that HMDA he r; superimposed the layout and furnishe I copy of the same to tlr-- Green Hiils Residential Association ar d also to GHMC. The szrne rs illegal

9. As iliscussed supra, in compliance with or,ler dated

28.02.2023 in tM.P.No.5696 of 2023, 2"d respondent has put the petitioners, Grr:r:n HiIIs Residential Association Members on notice and afforded trem an opportunity. He has also consi lered the written submisrs;ions submitted by both of them. Ther:fore, the impugned order is not in violation of principles of natural justice.

10. If tlLc petitioners are aggrieved by the impugr ed order, they have to eLpproach District Level Commiltee in terms of Section 18 of the Telangana State Building Perrnission Approval and Self Certifi:ation System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2O2O. Se c.ion 18 of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval rnd Self Certifrcation Sl,'stem (TS-bPASS) AcL, 2O2O is relevalt and the same is extract,:C below: "18. Review of District level cases- Notwithsranding anytl i1g contained in any State law, for the time being in for:,:,- (1) The District Committee may, either suo-motu or on r)n application, exarnine arry order passed by any compr'-ent authority, rejecting any clearalce or apprcving it with modification, and if the District 1 7 Committee considers that there are valid grounds for a change in such decision, it sha.ll forward such case [o the State Committe e with re marks a'I]d rele vant documents for a decision; (2) The State Committee shall examine all cases referred to it by the District Committee and pass appropriate orders; (3) The decision tal<en by the State Committee shall be binding on Ihe Disrrict Cornmillee and the respective Competent Authorities."

11. There are several factual aspects including the genuinity of certified copy of the layout said to have been issued by HMDA and the aforesaid information furnished by Public Information Officer of HMDA dated 22.10.2019 saying that layout File bearing No.33821P7 /SD/HUDA/94 in Survey No.7D of Saroornagar Village and Mandal is not availabie. Whether the subject property is open space belongs to Khilla Maisamma Temple or not is also a factual aspect. According to the Green Hills Residential Association, the subject property belongs to Khilla Maisamma Temple and in ttre layout, the said fact is mentioned. Even then, petitioners obtained the said building permit order dated 13.11.2018 by way of misrepresentation/ suppression of facts. According to the petitioner, the subject property belongs to them and 1st petitioner has purchased the aforesaid property basing on the aforesaid registered Sale Deed. lst petitioner has executed a registered Development Agreement- 'i 8 cum-General Fower of Attorney bearing Document No.37O of 2Ol9 d,ated 22.07.2Cr 19. The same are factual aspects which .this Court cannot consider in the present writ petition hled under Article 226 of the Consl it u t ion of I ndia.

72. It ir; settled law that this Court can considr:r certain factual aspectr; in a writ petition filed under Article 2 26 of the Constitution o' India, but certainly not the complicate l/serious disputecl queslions of fact. As discussed supra, in tht present case, there arc complicated/ serious disputed question; of fact, which this Court cannot consider in the present writ pet tion hled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. petitioner s have to approach Distri,:t Level Committee in terms of Section tg of the Telalgana Strrte Building Permission Approval e nd Self Certi{ication System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2O2O.

13. The impugned order is dated 2O.O6.2C23, the petitioners havc li1ed the present writ petition on 29.06 .2( 23 .

14. Vide order dated 03.07.2023, t]nis Court directed respondents no t to take any further action in term.i of the order dated 20 -06 -2023 and the same is :xtended impugned thereafter. CONS tnhti Acc:rding to the petitioners, they have comp eted the on in accordalce rvith the said building pemrit order 9 dated 13.11.2018. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks two weeks protection to enable the petitioners to approach District l,evel Committee in terms of Section 18 of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certifrcation System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2O2O.

15. It is relevant to note that on the representation dated O7.O7.2O79 submitted by Green Hills Residential Association, 2na respondent has passed impugned order dated 20.06.2023. Vide order dated 28.02.2023 in W.P.No.5696 of 2023, this Court directed the 2"a respondent to pass orders afresh by putting all the stake holders including petitioners, the said Green Hiils Residential Association on notice ald affording them an opportunity. Accordingl1,, 2"d respondent has put both of them on notice and afforded them an opportunity while passing impugned order dated 20.06.2023. Even then, petitioners did not made tJle said Green Hills Residential Association as party to the present writ petition.

16. In the light of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach Diskict Level Committee in terms of Section 18 of the Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act, t I \ 10 202O within tvr,r (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and ti1l then, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are direc,ed not to proceed further pursuant to speaking order dated 20 06.2023. However, it is rnade clear that if the petitioners fail Lo approach District Level O,rmmittee in terms of Section 18 of the 'I elangana State Building I)ermission Approva_l and Self Certificatio,-r System (TS-bPASS) Ac - 2O2O within the aforesaid time 1imir, tiberty is granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take steps agrinst the petitioners herc:n in accordance lr,ith iaw. Libe rty is als,r granted to petitioners t,) raise all the grounds and contentions u' tich they have raised in 1-he present writ petition before thc Dist -ict level Committee and t is for the said Committee to consider t.h I same. Miscellan:ous petitions pending, if any, shall stanC closed. There shall be nr order as to costs. SD/-A. SRINI"/ASA d ASSrsrANr REilb EDDY TRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECT ON OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 b 7 I'SK. BS The Principal Sc t:retary, Municipal Administration Urban Devel( 'pment oeoartment (lvll.tJD). Secretariit, Hyderabad, State of Telangar -a . ifr6 Commisiio,,3r, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation l anKbund' Hvderabad. ti,e 2onat Comtrissioner, LB Nagar Zone, GHMC Hyderabad One CC to SRI 'l.RAV|NDAR, Advocate [OPUC] i*" cc.i" cp i'on vcpt- ADMN & uRISAN D-EV, High court for the state of Telangana, a Hyderabad. [OUT] one Cc"to sRr riRiNlvASA RAo PAcHWA, sc FoR GHMC [cjPUC] Two CD Copies W HIGH COURI' DATED:0810412025 ORDER WP.No.16850 of 2023 '.,. ,'/'.tt' i 22 APn 20m \7..\i,. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS tr)