l\Iohd Bin Salam v. The State of Telangana, throu

Petition under Article 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 any writ, order or direction move in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in returning the building permission file No. 013871/cHMCl6810lKHB1l2023-Bp Vide Note Sheet Report 2610412025 and to set aside the said note sheet report dated 2610412025 and to direct respondent No. 2 and 3 to immediately release the final permit of the building permission in file No. 013871/GHMCI6B1OIKHB1l2O23-Bp and consequently direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to refrain from interfering in the subject property without following the due procedure of law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Note Sheet Report dated 2610412025 issued by the office of the respondent No. 3 and direct the respondent 2 and 3 to immediately release the final permit of building permission No. 013871/GHMC/6810/KH81l2O23-Bp to enable the petitioner herein to start the construction of the buitding as per the time frame mention in the building permission and consequently direct respondent No. 2 and 3 to refrain from interfering in the subject property without following the due procedure of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.MAYUR REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. FOR SRI MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHAB Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: cP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI MIDDE ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC t The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.l2l77 AND 22507 0F 2025 COMMON Ozu)ER Since common issue is involved in both the matters, with the consent of both sides, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P. No.l2l77 of 2025 was filed by Mr. Mohd. Bin Salam - petitioner challenging the building permission issued in favour of Mrs. Hafsa Abdut Hai respondent No.3 ln File No.013871 /GHMC/6810IKIIBLI2O23-BP dated 13.04-2025 in respect of the property bearing Municipal No.6-3-1090/A/1/A in Survey No'28 situated at Somaj iguda, Hyderabad.

3. W.P. No.22507 of 2025 was filed by Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai - petitioner challenging the action of respondent No.3 - Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) in returning the buitding permission in File No.0l387l/GHMC /6810/KHBl/2023-BP vide note sheet report dated26.04.2025, arrd to further direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to immediately release the i i ,l ) { 2 final building permission to the petitioner in respect of the subject proPerty.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred by their names

5. The case of Mr. Mohd. Bin Salam (petitioner in W.P No. 12177 of 2025) is that respondent No.4 (Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust) is a charitable trust which is established for the welfare of general public. Mrs. Subhani Begum Wo. Mr. Mutaz Ali purchased the property bearing H.No-6-3-1090/4/1 admeasuring 3099.10 square yards situated at Somajiguda, Hyderabad. She created two (2) trusts i.e., (1) Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust, (2) Mumtaz Subhani Religious Trust, by way of unregistered trust deed dated 10.01.1997 and later they were registered through deed of confirmation dated 19.04.2001 . Thereafter, by registered gift settlement deed dated 2l-12.2004, Mrs. Subhani Begum gifted a portion of above property admeasuring 292 square yards in favour of Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust, which is subject matter of O.S. No.987 of 2017 ' J

6. It is stated that Mrs. Subhani Begum entered into development agreement general power of attomey (DAGPA) with N4/s. Siri Sampada Constructions in respect of another portion of land admeasuring 858.20 square yards for construction of multi-storeyed residential complex. In fuilherance of the DAGPA, five (5) flats bearing Nos.101, 202,302,402 and 502 fell into the share of Mrs. Subhani Begum. Later Mrs. Subhani Begum executed gift deeds in respect ofthe above flats that fell to her share in favour of Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust i.e., Flat Nos. 102, 202, 302 through gift deed dated 20.12.2004, Flat Nos.402 and 502 through Cift deed dated 20.12.2004. The aforesaid gift deeds which were executed in favour of the trust was accepted by Mrs. Subhani Begum, Mr. Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan and Mr. Syed Hameeduddin Quadri, who were trustees. Later, Mr. Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan and Mr. Syed Hameeduddin Quadri were removed as trustees during the tifetime of Mrs. Subhani Begum due to misappropriation of funds. Mrs. Subhani Begum died on 12.07.2012 without anf issues and did not leave any property as Matruka. During her lifetime she ,l I \:='1t\! ..t \ - 4 distributed her properties to Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust and Mumtaz Subhani Religious Trust. 7 It is stated that while things stood thus on 01'10'2015 Mr. Mohd. Bin Salam found that construction activity is taken up in the subject property. When he approached the trustee and questioned him about the construction, he was informed that some illegal transaction has taken place between Dr' Riyazunnisa and Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai, where in the former has executed a registered gift deed in favour of Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai' He applied for certified copy of gift deed executed by Dr' Riyazunnisa in favour of Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai, and he was shocked to leam that the said gift deed was executed by General Powerlof Attomey (GPA) holder of Dr. Riyazunnisa in favour of Mrs' Hafsa Abdul Hai, and Dr. Riyazunnisa is claiming the subject property under oral gift allegedly took place in the month of August 2004 i'e'' prior to creation of trust. It is stated that Mr' Mohd' Bin Salam is closely acquainted with Mrs. Subhani Begum personally and there was no such gift deed made in favour of Dr' Riyazunnisa' It was brought to the notice of Mr. Mohd' Bin Salam that Dr' Riyazunnisa 5 never executed any GPA in favour of Mr. Syed Abdul Jabbar, and the GPA is a forged and fabricated document. It is contended that the properties of Smt. Subhani Begum which are suit schedule properties of O.S. No.987 of 2017 are being mismanaged and Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai obtained building permission in File No.O13871/GHMC/6810/KHBll2023-BP dated 13.04.2025 in respect of the property bearing Municipat No.6-3-1090/A/1/A in Survey No.28 situated at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, which belongs to public charitable trust, by playing fraud and to grab the same. There is creation of false GPA on the basis of false oral gift Further, Dr. fuyazunnisa herself stated that she never executed GPA to enable her alleged GPA holder to transfer the subject property in favour of Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai, who suppressed all these facts and obtained building permission.

8. It is stated that the property allegedly covered under the gift deed is Door No.6-3-l090lNl, whereas, building permission was obtained by giving Door No.6-3-1090/4/l/A, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, which is yet another fraud played by Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai with the GHMC authorities. F 6 9 The order dated 23.04.2025 was passed by this Court in W.p. No.l2l77 of 2025 directing Mr. Mohd' Bin Salam to approach respondent No.2 - the Commissioner, GHMC, by submitting representation seeking cancellation of building permission dated 13-04.2025 obtained by Mrs' Hafsa Abdul Hai' On receipt of such representation, respondent No'2 was directed to take appropriate action by issuing notice to all the parties' Further, respondent No.2 was also directed to issue necessary orders to Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai to stop the construction activity undertaken by her and Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust, in case, he was ma facie satisfied that building permission. dated 13'04'2025 i was obtained by suppressing the pendency of the suit in O.S. No.987 of 2017 before the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'trial Court')

10. Pursuant to the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 12177 of 2025, building permission granted in favour of Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai was retumed vide note sheet report dated

26.04.2025, and challenging the same W.P. No.22507 of 2025 was filed. I 7 t3;.g+ 7

11. The case of Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai (petitioner in W.P. No.22507 of 2025) is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing H.No.6-3-l090lNllA admeasuring 885 sQuare yards in Survey No.28, Somaj iguda, Hyderabad, having acquired the same by registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.655 of 2014 dated 31.01.2014 from one Dr Riyazunnisa, who acquired the property from Mrs. Subhani Begum by virtue of oral gift. Later, Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai entered into registered DAGPA bearing document No.2l01 of 2015 dated

24.09.2015 with one Mr. R.K. Agarwal for construction of multi storied commercial complex and filed application for building permission with GHMC authorities through her developer on

27.11.2015. She was communicated vide Lr.No.52552127/lll 20l5lHO dated 26.07.2016 to pay an amount of Rs.59,30,190/- (Rupees fifty-nine lakhs thirty thousand one hundred and ninety only). In part compliance of the same, she made part payment of the building fees to the GHMC. As entire building fees was not paid, the building permission was kept in abeyance. Late in 2024 when Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai mobilised funds, she made application for renewal of building permission and she was directed to pay 8 Rs.65,80,448/- (Rupees sixty-five lakhs eighty thousand four hundred and forty-eight only) for renewal of building permission which was already granted to her. Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai made payment on 15.04.2025, and also executed mortgage deed bearing document No.1299 of 2025 dated 23.04.2025 in favour of the GHMC authorities and complied with all the procedures under the provisions of law.

12. It is stated that despite paying Rs. 1,25,10,6401- (Rupees one crore twenty-five lakhs ten thousand six hundred and forty only) towards, Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai was shocked to receive note sheet report dated 26.04.2025 from the ofhce of the GHMC stating that the file was retumed as one Mr. Mohd. Bin Salam has filed W.P. No. 12177 of 2025 challenging the building permission granted in her favour

13. Mr. Mohammed Adnan, leamed counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 12171 of 2025, submitted that building permission was obtained by Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai by suppressing the pendency of the suit, and she does not have any title to the subject property' 9 Further, without proper verification, building permission was granted in her favour.

14. Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, leamed senior counsel, appearing for Mr. M.A. Wahab, leamed counsel for the petitioner, W.P. No.22507 of 2025 submitred that the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No.12177 of 2025 was not complied with in letter and spirit. This Court has merely directed the Commissioner GHMC, to consider the representation of Mr. Mohd. B in Salam seeking cancellation of building permission and to conduct enquiry, however, no such enquiry was conducted. As seen from the impugned note sheet dated 26.04.2025, it was only stated that the matter is sub-judice, hence the filg cannot be processed, and the file is retumed. I 5. Heard Mr. Mohammed Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.l2l77 of 2025, Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, leamed senior counsel, appearing for Mr. M.A. Wahab, leamed counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.22507 of 2025, and Mr. Midde Arun Kumar, leamed standing counsel for the GHMC. l0

16. The suit in O.S. No.987 of 2017 was filed before the trial Court by Mr. Mohd Bin Salam and Mr. Mohd. Omer Ali Arshad against Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust, Dr. Riyazunnisa and others. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 therein are Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai and Mr. R.K. Agarwal, (who is developer) respectively. The suit is hled to declare the suit schedule properties as trust propefties, to create a scheme for the administration of trust and to remove defendant Nos.2 to 6 therein from the office of defendant No.l trust, to appoint new trustees for defendant No.l trust, to direct defendant Nos.8 tol5 therein to handover their respective portion of suit schedule properties belonging to defendant No.1 trust to the newly appointed trustees, to direct defendant Nos.S to 10 therein to pay mesne ptofit @ Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one takh only) respect of the suit schedule 'A' property, and to direct defendant Nos.10 to 15 to pay mesne profit @ Rs.35,000/- per month in respect ofthe suit schedule 'B' to 'F' properties.

17. Mr. Mohammed Adnan, leamed counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.12177 of 2025 relied upon the judgments of this Court in a II W.A. No. 162 of 2021 d,ated,24.08.2021 and in W.P. No. 16456 of 2021 dated 17 .01.2022. t8. It is seen from the impugned note sheet dated26.04.2025 in W.P. No.22507 of 2025 that respondent No.3 therein has not conducted any enquiry. By only referring to pendency of W.P. No. 12177 of 2025 and noting that matter is sub-judice, the flle was retumed. It was incumbent upon respondent No.3 therein to conduct enquiry as required under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (for short 'GHMC Act'), whenever application is filed seeking cancellation of building permission. The building permission can be cancelled under the saici provision when there is misrepresentatiqp and fraud. It is contended by Mr. Mohammed Adnan, leamed that by "ornr"l, supprcssion of pendency of the suit and misrepresentation building permission was obtained by Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai by the permit dated 13.04.2025. Moreover, the applicant does not have any title However, Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, leamed senior counsel, contended that title dispute cannot be decided by the GHMC authorities They are only conceme d, with the prima facie title. t2

19. The leamed Single Judge in W.P. No. 16456 of 2021 placed reliance on the judgment of the leamed Division Bench in W.A. No.162 of 2021 dated24.08.2021. W.P. No.16456 of 2021 was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 17.01.2022 setting aside the impugned order dated 10.05.2021 therein, whereby the revised building permission of the petitioners therein was kept in abeyance. The petitioners therein were given liberty to file fresh building permission applications by disclosing the pending litigation. In the judgment dated 24.08.2021 in W.A. No. 162 of 2021, the learned Division Bench taking note of the pendency of the claim petition in E.A. No.81 of 2008 in E.P. No.37 of 2008 in O.S. No.1402 of 1996 on the file of learned V Senior Civit Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has directed the trial Court to decide E.A. No.81 of 2008 within three (3) months after hearing both sides. Pending disposal of E.A. No.81 of 2008 building permission dated 14.12.2018 was kept in abeyance. In the present case, the building permission of Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai was retumed on the ground of pendency of W.P. No.12177 of 2025 and as the said matter was sub judice. In any case, the building permission of l3 Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai is not in-force. Thus, the contention of Mr. Moharnmed Adnan, leamed counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 12177 of 2025, that the building permission of Mrs. Hafsa Abdul Hai has to be cancelled for suppression of pendency of O.S. No.987 of 2017. does not arise for consideration

20. [n the opinion of this Court, mere pendency of the suit cannot be a ground to cancel the building permission The Municipal authorities should veriff the title. If prima facie title is provided then building permission can be granted. It is settled law that grant of building permission will not confer any ownership or additional rights. The building has not been constructed in the subject property and moreover, lo order has been passed in the suit in O.S. No.987 of 2017. 21 . ln view of the above, Mr. Mohd. Bin Salam - petitioner in W.P. No. 12177 of 2025 is directed to file appropriate application in O.S. No.987 of 2017 seeking injunction or direction to not to raise any construction in the subject property, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order On such application being filed the trial Court shall pass orders, in t4 accordance with law, by giving opportunity of hearing to all parties, within a period of four (4) weeks thereof-. The contesting parties are at liberty to approach the GHMC authorities seeking cancellatiorl/revival of the building permission as the case may be, in File No.01387UGHMC16810/KHBI/2023- respect of the property bearing Municipal BP in No.6-l- 1090/4/1/A 1n Survey No.28 situated at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, subject to the result of application that may be filed before the trial Court.

22. With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, in these writ petitions shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII /- V. HARI PRASAD PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Jhe Principal Secretary, MA and UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana, State of Telangana. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, having office at Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, Telangana The.A_dditional Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, lank Bund Road, Hyderabad, Telangana One CC to SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI IMOHAMTUED ABDUL WAHAB, Advocate tOpUCl one CC to SRt MTDDE ARUN KUMAR, sc FoR GHMC topucl -*-^:---*-l-.*'**is'.*^^^-- To, 2 !_) 4

7. B. .Two CCs to Gp FOR MCpt_ Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] ^DMN

9. Two CD Copies BSR PVL W- \ URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of ! HIGH COURT DATED:0110812025 CC TODAY t-i a )'.:(' N6 1i1 i.-s I COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.l2177 and 22507 of 2025 DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS Iqto