The High Court · 2025

Ms. G. Sindhu Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Midde Arun Kumar, Sil : FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT '/ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.23 of 2024 IUDGMENTz This Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.11.2024, passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, in MA.No.56 of 2024, whereby the original speaking order vide Lr.No.645/21 A/TPS/W1 rlCl2lKZlGLIMCl2j24-t, dated 23.03.2024, passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.12, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, revoking the building permission granted to the appellant, was confirmed.

2. In nut-shell the facts of the case, as putforth by the appellant, are that he is the owner and possessor of the building bearing Door No.l l-4- 645121A, situated at A.C. Guards, Asifnagar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property'); that originally, the land in Sy.No.162 belongs to one Zohara Begum ancl she gifted a piece of land admeasuring 500 sq. yards to Shaik Khaja, who is the grandfather of the appellant herein, through a registered gift deed dated 5 Aban 1345 Fasli; that a shop was existing in the said Survey Number; that appellant's grandfather i.e., Shaik Khaja has gifted 500 sq. yards of land along with the shop constructed in an extent of 25 sq yards, vide H.No.l I -4-64512 to ) I,IYA. J C:|ISA.No.2.l of 2021 '- -(: \ Shaik Mahboob, who is father of the appellant, rhrour.l 12th Aban 195 I Fasli; that the father of rhe appr:J a gitl dced dated ant had been in possession and enjoyment of the same; and that, aft r his demise, the appellant along with his mother and brothers has beer, .n possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute owners. 2.1. While so, the Tahsildar, Golconda, issued irotices on 16.7. l984and

05.12. 1988 demanding payment of NALA tax for thr: ','acant land; that the TSLR issued by the Office of the Deputy Direcr ,r o1- Sun.e), and Land Records discloses the name of the appellant's gra I I lathel as well as the name of Zohara Begum; that when one Mohd. l 4unarvar Ahmed Sohail and others tried to grab 475 sq. yards of vacant lr nd, the appellant and his brother filed LGC.No.4Ol2OOg against the saicl p :rsons before the Special Court under Land Gabbing (prohibition) I ct (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the Speciat Court,,) to decl: -c i.hem as 'land grabbers'; that in the said case, the appellant contende( .hat that the1, are continuing tailoring business in the said shop; thr the municipal authorities have allotted H.No.11-4-645/2 to the said :;l op; and that the appellant also filed Exs.Al to ,{9 evidencing his possess on and title over the said land, however, the Special Court, without considering the evidence placed on record, has dismissed the said LGC r nd aggrier,.ed by / ./ I -J LNA, J CMSA.No.23 of 2021 the said order, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.26607 of 2012 before this Court and the same is pending.

2.2. While the things stood thus, the Tahsildar issued proceedings under Section 6 of Land Encroachment Act dated 08.12.2017 on the pretext that the land in T.S. No.25, Block-E, Ward-38 of Mallepalty Village, Asifnagar is recorded as "ABADI" in Col No. l0 and as "G- PWD" in Col. No.22 to an extent of 446 sc1. yards and questioning the same, the appellant's brother has fited Writ Petition No.420 12 ol 2017 before this Court, wherein interim stay was granted and the said Writ Petition is pending consideration.

2.3. It was further averred that the appellant apptied lor permission for construction of G + one upper floor on Plot/H.No. I l -4-645121A; that respondent No.1 granted permission, vide Lr.No.l93724|GL|MC/ 1472312022 dated 22.08.2022; and that accordingly, the appetlant made construction adhering to the conditions stipulated in the permission'

2.4. Subsequently, respondent No.l issued show cause notice dated

20.11.2023 to the appellant stating that he has made construction without Ieaving mandatory setbacks and erected RCC columns tbr construction of second floor illegally and unauthorizedly and further, directed him to submit reply within seven days. The appellant submitted reply to the 4 .-r:*-r L-\A. .t CMSA.No.2-t of 2024 show cause notice on 25 .r r .2023 stating that he had n i de construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that pillars or, :r the slab of first floor are raised only for setting up a roof garden, b,r not with any iU intention and not to deviate from the approved plarr. that he was not making any construction of second floor nor constrr:ted the building without leaving mandatory setbacks, and he along ,r ith his family is residing in the said building and requested to drop the pr tceedings. 2.5. 'rhat as per the remarks of the Tahsildar, Asifir Lgar. r{yderabad, respondent No. I issued a notice dated 07.02.2024 staritti that the subject propefty falls u,der TS.No.25, Brock-E, ward-3g of 14 ruepally viilage and as per TSLR, it is recorded as "ABADI', in (t ,l.No. l0 and as "GpwD" in col.No.20 and directed the appellant to sut.,ir repry within I seven days. The appellant submitted explanation to tlLr said noticc on 13.02.2024 stating that earlier, aggrieved by the r.r rice issued by Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Land Act, dated 08.12.2017, they prefened writ petirion No.42c12L( r7 befbre this courl and interim stay of all further proceedings was gr .nted, however, .Encroachrr:nt respondent No.l without considering the same, revokerl the permission granted to him on 22.08.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the apr: :ilant preferred appeal, vide MA.No.56 of 2024, which was dismissed : r trre appellare I 5 LNA, J CMSA.No.2J of2021 Court vide impugned order, dated 22.11.2024, with the following observations: " 15. As per Section 450 of GHMC Act, 1955, the Commissioner hos power to cancel the permissictn sanctioned to any building if the permission is obtained by misrepresenting the material facts. In the present case there is a dispute regarding revocation of the sanction plan on the ground of misrepresentation of the fact and as per the letter received from the Collector, Hyderabad and as per the report of the Tahsildor, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad that the appellant has made illegal and unauthorized constructions on the saicl proper1) v,hich folls in TS No.25, Block-E, Ward-38 oJ Mallepally village and as per TSLR Col. No.10 it is recorded as "ABADI" in Col- No.20 it is recorded as "GPWD. Though the contention of the appellant that immedialely afler issuance of the work commencement certiJ'icate, the appellant have already mode construction on the said properly. On perusal of the record it clearly establishes that there is a dispute regarding the fact that the appellant has encroached the Public Lane and made illegal constructions ond that o Public lnterest Litigation case is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and further this court cannol decide the litle and ownership over the schedule properD).

16. Considering the above said circumstances and considering the entire material placed on record, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned speoking order passed by the respondent Nos.I and 2. Hence, for the said reasons the appeal 6 LNA, J CLISA.No.23 oI2024 i I I i I falls to the ground and there are no merits in I e appeal Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. "

3. Heard Sri K.Chidambararn, learned senior cou I ;el appearing for Ms. G.Sindhu, learned counsel-on-record for the aplr llant, Sri Midde Arun Kumar, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC, an,l Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel lor respondent No.3

4. Leamed counsel lor the appellant submitted hat tl.rere is no misrepresentation or suppression of facts by the appellrt Lt while applying for permission for construction of residential buildinr; that respondcnt No.l had granted pemrission dated 22.08.2022 for ccr struction of G + one upper floor. He further submitted that respond: rt No.2 revoked building permission based on the remarks of the Tahs ldar, which '"vas made without any enquiry and without providing u opporlunity of hearing to the appellant. He further submitted that ,lere is a dispute regarding identity of the property; that the appe[1 rnt ls claiming ownership over the said land on the basis of the Gifl leed and he has been in possession thereof, however, the trial Court wit rout advefting to the same and withor"rt considering the various content r ns raised by the appellant and the rnaterial placed in proofofhis title ar r possession over the subject propefty and also pendency of the Writ P,: itions, viz., Writ .a 7 LNA, J CMSA.No.X of 2021 Petition Nos.26607 of 2Ol2 and 42012 of 2017, filed in respect of the subject property, has erroneously confirmed the order passed by respondent No. I revoking the building permission granted to the appellant and hence, the leamed counsel prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Leamed counsel for appellant, to buttress his submissions' relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill unrl Ors Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi antl Orst , w,helein it is held as hereunder:- " 8 .... Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a slatulory ttuthority cannot be conslructed in the light oJ explanatiorts subsequently given by lhe fficer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he inlended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to hove pttblic effect and ore intended to efect the acting und conduct of those to whom lhey ore addressed and musl be con.strucled objectively with referencb to the language used in the order itself. "

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. I and 2 submitted that the appellant has obtained building permission by false statements and misrepresentation of the facts. Leamed counsel further submitted that one Yousuf has filed a complaint petition against the 'MANU/SC/0209 / t977 (.- 8 LNA, J ('MSA.No.2.l of 2024 construction made by the appellant herein and oth'-' s on 05 '06 '2023 stating that thc sarre are unauthorized and are made :ncroaching road portion and further, hc also approached this Court bv vay of filing Writ Petition No.1761612023 against rhe respondents-Corpcr rtion and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 07.07.2023, directing ' re respondents to consider the cornplaint dated 05.06.2023 of the pet tioner the|ein in accordance with lau, and pass appropriate orders withi L a period o1- l'our weeks from the datc of rcceipt of copy of the order' ry putting all the concerned parties on notice and giving a lair opportun't ' of hearing to all the concemed parties and communicate the same to the retitioner therein. Learned Standing Counsel further submittt I that the said

6.I . complainant, alleging disobedience of the order passt:, ip Writ Petition No. 17616 ol 2023.lilcd Conternpt Case No'2372 o- 2023 against the respondent olficials fbr not initiating action againsr the unauthorized consttuctiou lnade b1' the appellant and others; tl'z ' the respondent officials have once again inspected the subject proper y and found that the owner has laid RCC slabs for construction of grolr' d plus one upper floor and further, erected RCC columns for constnLr tion of 2nd floor illegally and utrauthorizedly in the subject property i rd accordingly, a show cause notice on 20.l I .2023 u'as served on the ap I :llant' -6-'- 9 LNA, J CMSA.N,.23 of 2024

6.2. Leamed Standing Counsel further submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation issued show cause notice dated 07 .02-2024 tndet Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the GHMC Act'), pursuant to the letter addressed by the Collector, Hyderabad, duly enclosing the remarks of the Tahsildar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, to the effect that the subject propefty falls in TS No.25, Block-E, Ward-38 of Mallepally Viltage and as per TSLR, in Cot. No. l0 it is recorded as "ABADI" and in Col. No.20, it is recorded as "GPWD". He fufther submitted that as the reply dated 23.02.2024 submitted by the appellant was found to be not satisfactory, the building permission granted earlier, v ide No.l937 24 I GL{NIC I I 47 23 12022 dated 02.08.2022 was revoked by respondent No.2. He finally submitted that revocation order was passed by respondent No.2, based on the remarks of the Tahsidtar, which was confirmed by the trial Court vide impugned order, by duly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case from a proper perspective and as such, this Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7 . Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the appellant obtained the municipal sanction plan by creating fabricated documents of title. He furlher submitted that since the appellant and some others have \\ 1\ l0 '- t-'f*- \: LNA, J C\ISA-No.23 of 2024 encroached the public lane and started constructions ilegally by raising pillars and were fufther trying to get regularize the Jr blic road on their names, by creating fictitious documents, respond: tt No.3 made a complaint to the collector, the RDo, Hyderabad, the r HMC Authorities and the Tahsildar, Asifnagar Mandal, on 05.06.2021 to demolish the illegal constructions and thereafter, alleging inaction , ,n the part of the officials concemed, he has filed writ petition No.176 r 6 ol 2023, which was disposed of with cerlain directions to the GHMC at rhorities. 8. Further, allegirg disobedience of the orders p z ssed in the writ Petition, responde,t No.3 filed cc.No.2372 of 2023 r rd later, pursuant to his representation, dated 05.06.2023, the GHMC Ar thorities revoked the municipal permission granted to the appellant, but r iled to take steps for demolition of the illegal construction raised by app :llant. He further submitted that since the appellant has taken pe r nission on the Govemment land fraudulently, respondent No.2 has .1 htly revoked the building permission granted to the appellant, but failerl to take steps for demolition of the illegal construction raised by ap rellant. Leamed counsel further submitted that the triat cour1, after careri I examination of the entire case, observed that there is a dispute regardir 3 title in respect of the subject property that the appellant encroached thr public lane and )) ;/ LNA' J CMS^-No.23 of 2021 made illegat constructions and that a Public Interest Litigation is also pending before this Court and accordingly' rightly declined to set aside the revocation order passed by respondent No'2' He further submitted that the appellant faited to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order wamanting interference by this Court and hence' prayed to dismiss the aPPeal' g. Apropos the above facts and circumstances of the case and the subrnissions rnade by thc learned counsel appearing for both the pa(ies' the following points raise for consideration: - ( l) Whether the appellont obtained building permission dated 22.08'2022 from the GHMC by misrepresenlation or suPPression offacts? Q) Whether the impugnetl order passed by rhe lrial Courl is sustainable? Q) To what reliel? Issue No.1:-

10. A bare perusal of the facts of the case' even as narrated by the appellant himself, goes to show that a couple of cases in respect of the subject property are pending' \'e''firstty' LGC filed by the appeltant and his brothers against one Mohd' Munawar Ahmed Sohail and others ended in dismissal by the Spccial Cour.t' against which' the appeltant filed \ 1 t2 I LNA, J ('MSA.No.2l of 2024 wP.No.26607 of 2012 belore this court and the sai r writ petition is pending consideration; and secondly, against the 1,r :rceedings o[ the Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Land Encroachnrent ,\ :t, the appellant,s brother filed wP.No.42012 of 2017 and tl.re saur,r is also pending consideration. I I . A person who applies for grant of building : :rmission has to mandatorily show his prima facie title and possession < r,er the property, by enclosing relevant docu,ents along with the applic,l ion. and state all the lacts related to the property, i.e., pendencl,olcases,itigations, if any, in relation to right/title/possession of the propelty, tr ) orders, if any, passed therein by the competent Courts, etc. On li r rishing all such details of the properly by the applicant, the GHI\4( authoritics, will scrutinize the same and on being satisfied with the veral ty thereof, grant permission for construction ol building.

12. In the case on hand, as stated supra, Writ petitic n Nos.26607 of 2012 and 42012 of 2017, which are filed in respei.r of the subject propefty are pending before this Court, which necess i rily rnea.s that there is a dispute rvith regard to title/possession over the: -rbject propefty. During the pendency of the said Writ Petitions, the app,: lant applied for grant of permission for construction of G + one upper flcr r on the subject Lt'iA, ,l CMSA-N,.X of 2024 property concealing the pendency of the cases before this Court. While granting building permission, prima facie title and possession over the Iand witl be considered bv the authorities concerned and the said authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title disputes, if any, over the said land. Non-disclosure or concealing the material facts or litigations, if any, before the Courts, while submitting application for building permission amounts to playing fraud on the authorities concerned, by suppression and misrepresentation of material facts.

13. It is relevant to refer to Section 450 of the GHMC Act, which reads as hereunder:- " lf at ony time after permission to proceed wilh any building or work has been given, the Cornmissioner is satisfied that such permission leas granled in consequence of any material misrepresenlat ion or fraudulent statement conlained in the notice given or information furnished under seclion 428 or 433 or in the further information if any, furnished, he may cancel snclt permission and any work done lherettnder shall be deemed lo have been done without his permission. "

14. In the present case, it is to be taken note that respondent No.3 filed complaint against the appellant and others atleging that they have encroached the public lane and made illegal constructions. Respondent 1 \ l4 LNA, J ( LISA.No.23 of 2024 No.3 has also filed WP.No.176l6 ol 2023 and C.C.No.. )72 ol 2023 with regard to the unauthorized constructions made by r c appettant and further, the inaction of the GHMC authorities in takinq:teps against such authorized constructions. That as a consequence of th: orders passed in the said cases, the GHMC authorities have inspected tl t subject property and having found that the constructions raised by th: appeltanr are in deviation of the sanctioned plan, have taken steps in at r ordauce with the provisions of the GHMC Act and finally, respondenr \o.2 has passed speaking order revoking the building permission grantei ro the appeltant, rvhich cannot be laulted with. I 5. The aforesaid view of this Court is fortified b. the j udgment of this Court in Smt. Lalitha Srikrish & others Vs. The Slt'c of Telanguna, rep. by its Principal Secretary, MA & L/D, Secretuiat, H.ytlerabatl & others2, wherein it is held that tlre applicant shall neccs: rrill.disclose all the facts and file all the relevant documents rvh i e applying for permission for construction. It was further held that the rcnding cases or litigations over the building permission is invariably lir.l. ed to ownership or title, such pending litigations/dispute with regard rr title over the property is a rnaterial fact which has to be mandatorilr lisclosed bv the ' 1zozz1 z arr lt ) LNA, J CMSA.No.23 of 2021 appellant who seeks building permission over said property. Such discloser of pending litigationslsuits is necessary for the authorities to determine prime facie title and possession. 16. With regard to the same aspect, it is pertinent to note the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 24.0g.2021 in Writ Appeal No.162 of 2O2l {M/s. Fortuna Infrastructure India pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Telangana), wherein it is held that non-disclosure of pending litigation amounts to material misrepresentation under Section 450 of the GI{MC Act, 1955. For betrcr appreciation, the relevant paragraphs, viz., para Nos.27 to 29 of the said judgment are extracted as hereunder:- " 27. Under this provision, the Commissioner of GHMC has power to cancel anv permission obtained for making building constrLLction, ( he is satisfied that such permission wos grdnted in co,nsequence of any material misrepresentation or fruudulent statement by rhe applicanr for building permission. 28. No material is placed before this Court by the 7th respondent that he had disclosed to the Commissioner of GHMC about the litigation pending befween it and the appellant i.e. E.A.No.8l of 2008 in E.P.No.j7 of 2008 in O.S.No.l102 of 1996 before rhe V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad or that appellant had obtained registered sale tleed I6 LNA, J CMS.4.No.23 of 2024 dt.17.11.2007 from the said Court througit decree dt.27.11 1996 in O.S.No.l402 of 1996 29. II,'tl suclt in"formalion been disclosed, it is possible' t ut the Commissioner might have rejected the ap2 ication mode for grant of Municipal permission to 7th respondent as there would be a serious d(n,t t as to whether he had prima facie title to the subject property or not. "

17. Thus, the aforesaid view taken by this Court tt rt non-disclosure or lnisrepresentation or suppression of material fac.r with rcgard to pending cases/litigations before the Courls by thc appellant while applying for permission for grant of building pernris;ion amounts to playing fraud on the GHMC authorities, is fortified ry the aloresaid judgments of a leamed single Judge and a Division I}: Lch of this Court as stated supra. I 8. This issue is answered accordingly lssue No.2:-

19. On filing of Municipal Appeal by the appellan before the trial Court challenging the revocation order, the trial Cour has thoroughly considered the facts and circumstances of the case arrr by refer-ring to Section 450 of the GHMC Act, observed that as .l e appellant has rnisrepresented the lacts with regard to the subject properly while t J 7 LNA, J CMSA.No.23 of 2021 obtaining building permission, the Commissioner has rightly revoked the building permission granted to the appellant

20. There is no procedural irregularity or violation of natural principles ofjustice by respondent No.2 while passing the revocation order and the trial Court, in its wisdom, has rightly confirmed the said order. That aparl, the appellant failed to make out any case or valid ground to inter'l-ere with the impugned order

21. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly lssue No.3:-

22. In the light of the findings of this Court on issue Nos.1 and 2 and further, in the light ol the legal position laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court does not find any itlegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court in passing the irnpugned order

23. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to submit fresh application with GHMC by disclosing the pendency of the all cases/litigations in respect of the subject property, and it is for the GHMC to consider the same and pass appropriate orders l8 LNA, J CMSA.No.23 o12024 \ in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the cas r. there shall be no order as to costs

24. Pending ntiscellaneous applications, if any, shall :,r rnd disrnissed //TRUE COPY// \ Sd/- N. SRIHARI t)r :PUTY REGISTRAR becrtoN oFFtcER To 1 The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, at Hyderabac 2 One CC to Ms. G. Sindhu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Midde Arun Kumar, SC FOR GHMCIOPLT( )l 4. One CC to Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies K arni PR W HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 ( JUDGMENT CMSA.No.23 of 2024 B r.:c z$fr DISMISSING THE APPEAL 1 \b \.l/