Thota Tirupathi v. PETITTONER

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 a Writ, order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declare the action of the respondent No. 2 in issuing lmpugned Order Notice No. G1/1O/TPSllt2124 dated 04t1212024 in revoking the building permit No. 340339/KARI/241012023 dale. 1911212023 in respect of House Plot No. 153 in Sy.No. 145 to an exient of 200.93 Sq.Yards situatecl at Wallampahad, Karimnagar district is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, unlust, non application of mind and violation of Article 14 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the lmpugned Order Notice No. G1/10/TPSlll2024 dated 04t12t2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances qtated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.z not to interfere with the construction activity of the pptitionef in Hou99 Plot No. 163 in Sy.No. 145 to an extent of 200 93 Sq.YFrCs sitUated at Wallampahad, Karimnagar district by Suspending the lmpugned Order Nqtice No, G1/10/TPS|l/2024 dated 0411212024 Pending disposal of the above Writ pptition. Counsgl for tfe Petltioner: SRI CH.RAVINDER Cpunsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAU pEY Counsel for tfe Respondent No.z: SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO,'SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI G.BHASKAR REDDY MPCL W.P.NO:351 OF 24 Fetween: Thota Tirupathi, S/o Thota Lingaiah, Aged about 50 1€ars, occ.Agricufiurg, R/o H.No 4-46, Venkatraopally village Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar distrid. AND ...PETITIONER

1. Tfe State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipql Administration and Urban Development, Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. fhe Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar rep. py its Commissioner 3. KArra Ganapathi Reddy, S/o Sai Reddy and age Not knovr{n to the pelltioner Karimnggar, Karimnagar district R/o. H.No.104-40/1 , Vavilalapally village Karimnagar district. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumgtances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declare the action of the respondent No. 2 in issuing lmpugned Order l-rlotice NO,G1l1 1lTPSlll2024 daled 411212024 in revoking the building permit No. 3366'1 1/KARI/230012023 date. 1911212023 in respect of House Plot No. 201 in Sy.No. 145 to an extent of 200.93 Sq.Yards situated at Wallampahad, Karimnagar district is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, unjust, non application of mind and violation of Article 14 and 3004 of the constitution of lndia and consequenily set aside the lmpugned order Notice No.G1/'1 1lTPSlU2024 daled 4112t2024 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir,:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tfle High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 not 1o interfere with the construction activity of the petitioner in House Plot No 201 in Sy.Np. 145 to an extent of 200.93 Sq Yards situated at Wallampahad, Karimnagar district by suspending the lmpugned Qrder Notice NO.G1/1 1fiPslll21z4 dated 411212024 Pending disposal of the .above Writ petition. Cqunsel for tfe Pelitioner: SRI CH.RAVINDER Counsg! for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEY Counse! for the Respondent No.2: SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO' SC FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI G.BHASKAR REDDY MPCL The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER a-) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 35096 35 105 and 35115 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: . Heard Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel' for Karimnagar Municipal Corporation appearing for 2"d respondent and Sri G. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 3'd respondent.

2. Petitioner has purchased open plots bearing No.202, 153 and 201, to an extent of 200 Sq.yards each, in Survey No. 145, situated at Wallampahad, Karimnagar District, under three registered Sale Deeds bearing document No.7949, 7951 and 7948 of 2023 dated 14.06.2023 respecrively. On rhe strength of the same, he has obtained building permit orders dated

20.11.2023 for consrruction of Cround Floor + I Upper Floor, and also instant approvals dated 19.12.2023 for commencement of work in the said plots. According to the petitioner, he is proceeding with the construction strictly in accordance with the said building permit orders dated 2 RI- J W P Nos.3509(. 15105 & 351 l5 of 2021

20.11.2023 and instant approvals dated 19.122023- He has laid slabs.

3. Whitc the ntatter stood thus, on the representations dated

25.06.2024 and 06.11.2024 subrnitted by 3'o respoudent, Deputy City Planner of respondent Corporation issued show cause notices dated 26.06.2024 stating that petitioner has obtained builcling permit orders by suppressing that there is a civil dispute in respect of the subject land. Seven (7) days' time was granted to petitioner to submit explanation. He has submitted explanation dated 03.07'2024. 2"d respondent has obtained legal opinion dated 02.12'2024 fronr the learned Star.rding C'trunsel for Municipal Corpr>ratiorl. On consideration o1- the same and pendency of suit vide O.S.No.280 of 2022 filed by Nathadi Raghotham Reddy and Jammidi @ Nathadi Jayashilpa and Kara Ganapathi Reddy against petitioner's vendors, narnely, Gade LaxmaLn & Kasturi Santhosh Kurnar Reddy, and Gaddam Swaml' Reddy, for perpetual injunction in respect of the subject larLcl, t'ide order dated 04.12.2024, 2"d respondent revoked the buitding pcrrnissior.rs and instant approvals dated 19.12-2023, on the - a) 2 IiL. J \l' P Nos 35096.351O5 & 351 l-; ot2O2,t ground of suppression of facts. Challenging the said orders, petitioner filed the present Writ petitions.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that 2nd respondent cannot pass impugned orders dated 04. 12.2024 by invoking Sections 114(t0) and 176(9) ot'the Telangana Municipalities Act,20l9 (for short'the Act'), as there is no suppression of facts by petitioner. He is not a party t<l the said suit i.e., O.S.No.280 of 2022, as mentioned in the impuSned orders. Even then, 2nd respondent has passed the impugned orders dated 04.12.2024 revoking the building perrnissions obtained by petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders are in violation of provisions of the Act and they are not on consideration of explanation dated 03.07.2024 submitted_by petrtloner. 5 Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent, on instructions, would submit that there are title disputes between petitioner and unofficial respondent with rcgard to the subject property. The matter is sub judice. The impugned orders dated 04.12.2024 are appealable orders. Therelbre, 4 KL- J w.P.Nos 350!,6 35105 & 35115 ot 202.1 r..I. \ \ petitioner ought to have pref-erred appeals in terms of Section 252(l\ of the Act instead of hling the present Writ Petitions.

6. In the lrght of the said submissions, it is relevant to note dorvn the lbllorving provisions of law: Scction I 74( l0) of the Act: " fhe permission issued under deetned clause can bc rcvokecl by the conrn'rissioner within 2l days fi'onr the date of deemed approval if it is lound that deerned approval has been obtained by nr is r-cpresentation of the facts or false statetnr:nts, and'or against the building rules, regulations and Maslct Plan land use provisions." Section I 76(9) of the Act: "-fhc Cornnrissioner tnay revoke the Buikling pcrnr ission whenever it is found that it was otrtarned by making false statement or rrr is representation of any Inaterial fact or violation ol rLLles, by duly following the procedures. as prescribeil."

1. Perusal of the record would reveal that petitioner IS claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subiect land on the strength of the aforesaid r,:gistered sale deeds and has obtained aforesaid building permit orders and instant aPProvlls - 5 (l_ .1 W.P Nos-35096. 35105 & 35 t l5 oa 2021

8. Perusal of counter filed by 3'd respondent would reveal that one Kuma Venkatesh f,rled a suit vide O.S.No.439 of 2012 against Edla @ Adla Shankaramma and two others for injunction. Vide order dated 08.03.2021, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Further, Sri Kasturi Santhosh Kumar Reddy, one of the vendors of the petitioner, l.rad filed a suit virle O.S.No.52 of 2022 against Nathadi Raghotham Reddy, Jammidi @ Nathadi Jayashilpa and Karra Ganapathi Reddy, 3'd respondent, for declaration oftitle and perpetual injunction. Likewise, Sri G. Laxman, another vendor of petitioner, had filed a suit vide O.S.No.53 of 2022 against the aforesaid three defendants for declaration of title and perpetual injunction There are no interim orders in the said suits. During pendency of aforesaid suits, Sri Kasturi Santhosh Kumar Reddy had executed registered sale deeds bearing document No.7949 and 1849 of 2023 dated 14.06.2023 and Sri Gade Laxman had executed registered sale deed bearing document No.7951 of 2023 dated 14.06.2023 in favour of petitioner in respect of the subject plots. It would further reveal that Sri Nathadi Raghotham Reddy and two others, including \"1 \ \ 6 KL J \l .P Nos 35( 9(i, 35 ] 05 & 35 I t 5 ot 2024 - 3'd respondent. filed O.S.No.280 of 2022 against the vendors oi petitioner and one Gaddam Swamy Reddy for perpetual injunction. -l-he said suit is pending. There are no interim orders in the said suit. Thus, lis pendens in terms of Section 52 of the Transl'er ol'Properly Act., 1882, operates. 'Ihe petitioner has lrled implead applications in O.S.Nos.52 and 53 of 2022 filed by his vendors. narncly, Gade Laxman and Kasturi Santosh Kuntar Reddy. Therefore, petitioner cannot contend that he has no knowledge about pendency of aforesaid 'suits. However. Ihcv have withdrawn the aforesaid suils.

9. As per the counter file<J by 3'd respondent, petitioner has filed applications to irnplead himself as party rlefendant in O.S.Nos.52 and 53 ol 2022, but, no evidence incl,uding copies of the said LA.s and has been filed in proof of the same. Vide orders dated 12.12.2024 and 08.01.2025. leamed II Additional Junior Civil .ludgc, Karimnagar, dismissed the said suits as witlrdrawn i.e.. O.S.Nos.53 and 52 of 2022, respectively.

10. Slrow cause notlces dated 26.06.2024 were issued to petitioner on llre representations submitted by 3'd respondent / v 7 KL, J w P Nos.35096, 35105 & 351l5 ol202a that petitioner has obtained building permissions by way of misrepresentation of facts, more particularly, suppressing pendency of O.S.No.280 of 2022. Admittedly, petitioner is nor a party to the said suit. Petitioner has submitted explanation dated 03.07.2024 to 2nd respondent narrating the same. In the impugned orders dated 04.12.2024, there is a reference with regard to the legal opinion dated 02.12.2024 obtained by 2^d respondent. ll. As discussed supra, there are title disputes between petitioner and unofficial respondent with regard to the subject land. The matter is sub judice. However, legal opinion of learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent Corporation that petitioner has obtained buitding permit orders by misrepresentation and suppression of facts is factually incorrect. There is no misrepresentation of facts or false statement made by petitioner while obtaining building permissions. Without considering the said aspects, more particularly, explanation dated 03.07 .2024 submitted by petitioner to the show cause notice dated 26.06.2024, 2^,) re$frdent has passed the impugned orders dated 04.12.2024 ( B KL, J W P Nos.350,)6.:]5105 & 351Is or2024 \ revoking thc building pennit orders obtained by petitioner. The samc arc in violation of the procedure lairl down under Sections 171(10) and 176(9) of the Act. Against the said impugnecl orders, alternative rernedy of appeal is available to petitioner. But. as discussed supra, there is violation of the procedure laid down under the Act and therefrtlc the present Writ Petition is maintainable as held by the ,\pex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Rcgistrar of 'l'rade Marks, Mumbair. Thereforc, contention of lcamed Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent ttrat the present Writ Petitions are not maintainable due to availability of alternative remedy IS unsustainable and thc same cannot be accepted.

12. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders dated 04.12.2024 are set aside. However, pr:titioner shall proceed witli the constructiou strictly in accordance with the building permit orders datccl 20.11.2023, failing w'hich,liberly is granted to '''d respondent to take action against petitioner in accordance with thc procedure laid down under the Act. On obtaining orders in O.S.No.280 of 2022,, liberty is granted to ' (tqqs) s sc< r b / 9 KL, J W.P Nos.35096, 35105 & 351 l5 O! 2024 3'd respondent to approach 2nd respondent with a request to implement the same.

13. Accordingly, these three Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD UTY REGISTRA ECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariit Buildings, Hyderabad, State of -Telangana ihe Commiisioner Karimnagar, Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnaoar Karimnaqar district One CCio SRI CH.R-AVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] i*o CCtio GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telanoana. at Hvderabad. IOUTI one cc"to snt xnbnnu PRABHAKAR RAO, SC FOR MPCL [OPUCI One CC to SRI G.BHASKAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies 6 To 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 PSK. BS HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.35096,35105 AND 35115 of 2024 (, t1 EJ JA, Y o- '). 0i APit \ * Ct- ST,Al CH +, * i! ri' llL ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WTHOUT COSTS O"t,' .1