Allowed

S.Balwantha Reddy v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC4 Oct 2021WP/15596/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner objected to revocation of building permission by GHMC alleging illegal cancellation due to conflicting land status reports pending in related writ proceedings. Court held revocation was illegal without proper consideration of records and title dispute claims.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of cancellation/revocation of permission dated 09.06.2021 passed by Respondent No.2 set aside.

S.Balwantha Reddy Vs State of Telangana and another — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

wRlT PET|TION NO. 15596 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

S.Balwantha Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o.H.No.2-16-78, Beerappasadda, Uppalkalan, Uppal Mandal, .lrBflli3r*

¶8

AND

¶9

I State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lVlunicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶10

2 The Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

4 The Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal Medchal - Malkajgiri District.

¶12

Respondent Nos. 3, 4 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 23.07.2021 in l.A. No.2 of 2021 .

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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^particularly one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari, calling for all the connected records including the Order in cance llation/revocation of^permission vide No.01/TPS/C2ILBNZ/GHlt1lCl2021 , daled 091061202l passed by Respondent No.2 inspite of^pendency of the Writ Petition No.30645 of 2016 as illegal, improper, un.iust, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of lndla and consequently set aside the cancellation/revocatio n of permission vide No.01/TPS/C2ILBNZ/GHlncl2021, dated 0910612021 passed by Respondent No.2.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto suspend the operation of ca ncellation/revocatio n of permission vide No.O1/TPS/C2ILBNZ/GHMC/2021 , daled 0910612021^passed by Respondent^No.2 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.G.^{KRISHNA MURTHY}

¶18

SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING^{FORMs. K. KIRAN MAYEE} Counsel for the Respondent No.1:^{GP FOR MUNICIPAL AOMINISTRATION AND} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: SRI SAMPATHPRABHAKARREDDY,} S,C. FOR GHMC

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos'3& 4: GP FORREVENUE}

¶21

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.15596 OF 2021

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy, leamed Senior Counsel representing Ms. K. Kiran Mayee, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, learned Govemment Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and leamed Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalfofrespondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶27

This writ petition is filed to call for the records includine the order of cancellation / revocation of permission No.01/TPS/C2ILBNZ/ GlIMCl2}zl, dated 09.06.2021 passed by respondent No.2 and to set aside the same.

¶28

FACTS:

¶29

i) The petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of a residential house bearing M.No.2- I 6-78, admeasuring 290 square yards in Survey No.757, situated at Beerappagadda, Uppal Kalan, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, which is hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property'. He had purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 11671 of2013, dated 30. 10.2013. According to him, the subject property is in existence since more than 30 1.ears.

¶30

ii) After the purchase of the subject property, the petitioner had submitted'bn application to respondent No.2 seeking for construction of a

t/.P.No.15596 of202l

residential house, on which respondent No.2 had requested the petitioner to get clearance from the Revenue Department.

¶36

iii) Pursuant to the same, respondent No.4 had addressed a retter No.B/1169/2015, dated 11.09.2015 to the authorities of respondent No.2 stating that the subject property comes under Gramakantam of Uppal Khalsa Village. considering the said letter dated l1.0g.20r5, having satisfied with the application submitted by the petitioner and the fulfillment of other requirements, respondent No.2 had issued building permission vide permit No.5093 g,/DC EZ/Circumstances.2/20 I 6, dated 06.06.2016 in favour of the petitioner for construction of Ground + two upper floors.

¶37

iv) The petitioner had also applied permission for digging a bore_ well in the subject property so as to proceed with construction work, and respondent No.4 had accorded the permission vide letter No.Bl625l20l4, dated 28.05.2014.

¶38

v) While so, the Officials of Rural Water Supply & Sanitation (RWS & S) Department of panchayath Raj as well as the Revenue Department with the help of concerned porice came to the subject property and stopped the work of digging bore_well. Then, the petitioner herein had filed W.P. No,30945 of 2016 against them, and this Courr vide order d,ated, 14.09.2016 in W.p.M.p.No.38304 of 2016 granted interim order directing the respondents therein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject

¶39

#_re

¶40

KL,J Ll.P.No.15596 oJ 202 I

¶41

¶42

propeny, and the said order is still subsisting. However, after hearing both the sides, the matter has been reserved tbr orders.

¶43

vi) Further, the Superintending E,ngineer, RWS & S Circle, Uppal, Hyderabad, vide its letter No.B 1/285/RWS&S/l 4, dated 17.11.2015, sought clarification from respondent No.4 as to whether the subject property is a private land or Government land. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.4 had informed it vide letter No.B/1 1 69/20 1 5, dated 29.02.2016 that the subject property is a patta land and not in either Gramakantam or Govemment Land.

¶44

vii) Thereafter, the very same Superintending Engineer had addressed a letter dated 14.03.2016 to the Assistant City Planner, Circle2, Uppal, GHMC informing that as per the report of the Deputy Inspector of Survey, Malkajgiri Division, the subject property falls under Survey No.757 of Uppal Khalsa Village which is a patta land and not in either Gramakantam or Government land and thus, per the report of respondent No.4, the portion of the subject property is patta land and not in either gramakantam or Govemment Land.

¶45

viii) Based on the said letters dated 11.08.2015 and 14.03.2016, respondent No.2 had granted permission on 06.06.2016 in favour of the petitioner for construction ofa residential house consists of gr.ound + two upper floors.

¶46

ix) While so, the Superintending Engineer (FAC), RWS & S had addressed letter No.B1/285/RWS&512020, dated t7,03.2020 to

::=.:**rc

KL,J Il. P.No.15596 ol202l

¶51

respondent No.2 with a request to cancel / revoke the building permit dated 06.06.2016 issued in favour ofthe petitioner herein. pursuant to the said letter, respondent No.2 had issued a show-cause notice dated 20.11.2020 under section - 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Act, 1955, to rhe petitioner herein stating that he had obtained the building pennit dated 06.06.2016 by misrepresenration and suppression of facts. The petitione' had submitted his explanation. Respondent No.2 without considering his explanation properly had issued the impugned proceedings on 09,06.2021 revoking the building permit dated 06.06.2016. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition.

¶52

4. CONTENT'IONS ON BE HALF OF THE PETITIONER:

¶53

i) Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy, leamed senior counsei, would submit that the petitioner had purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed dated 30.10.2013.

¶54

ii) On the request of respondent No.2, the petitioner had obtained a certificate dated 08.05.2015 vide proceedings No.C/533/2015 issued by respondent No.4, wherein it had been mentioned that the subject property has been in existence for more than 30 vears.

¶55

iii) On submission of application for house construction permission, the officials of respondent No.2 sought clarification from the Revenue Authorities, who in tum informed them as well as the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S that the subject property is a patta land and it is located in Sy.No.757 of Beerappagadda of Uppal Khalsa

¶56

¶57

KL,J l\t. P.,Vo. I 5596 of 2021

¶58

Village and it is not in either Grantakantham or Govemment Land. On satisfoing the same, respondent No.2 had issued building^permitdated 06.06.201 6.

¶59

iv) On transfer of earlier Officer, the successor of the the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S addressed a letter to respondent No.2 authorities to cancel / revoke the said building perrnit issued in favour of the petitioner on the ground that it was obtained by misrepresentation and suppression of facts. According to leamed senior counsel, there is no misrepresentation or suppression ofi fact by the petitioner and there is no title dispute as on today.^'fhere are no proceedings pending in Civil Court with regard to the title of the petitionel over the subject property.

¶60

v) Learned senior counsel has referred to several proceedings including the survey report dated 23,07.2018 issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hydelabad. Without considering the facts, proceedings and the survey repofts and also the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 had issued the impugned proceedings revoking the building permit dated 06.06.2016, which is illegal.

¶61

vi) In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad; the High Court for the State ofTelangana and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private

¶62

¶63

¶64

KL,J tu. P.No.15596 of202l

¶65

Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad Districtr; T. Rameshwar v. Commisioner, MCH2; K, Pavan Raj v. the MCH3; Challa Rajendra Prasad v. State of Telanganaa; and The Church of South India Trust Association v. The G HMCs respectively.

¶66

vii) With the aloresaid submissions, the leamed senior counsel sought to allow the writ petition as prayed for.

¶67

5. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF GHMC:

¶68

i) Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC, would contend that respondent No.2 had leceived a letter dated 17 .03.?020 from the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S stating rhat rhe subject property is a Govemment Land and, therefore, it had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation, and on consideration of the explanation and also the entire record, respondent No.2 had issued the impugned proceedings dated 09.06.202i revoking the building permit dated 06.06.2016.

¶69

ii) According to him, there is suppression and misrepresentation of fact and, therefore, there is no error in issuing the impugned proceedings under Section - 450 of the GHMC Act, 1955.

¶70

iii) With the aforesaid submissions, the learned Standing Counsel sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶71

. 2001 (3) ALD 600 . 2006 (3) ALD 337 . 2008 (1) ALD 792 . MANrJ lTLl0226/2021

. (2010) I ALD 561

KL,J lf P.No.l 5596 of202l

¶76

5" CONTENTIONS ON^BEHALF o^{F THE REVENUE:}

¶77

i) Leamed Govemment Pleader for^{Revenuereferringto the} counter filed by respondent No.4^{would contend that the subject property} is in Survey No.737l1 of Beerappagadda^{village and it is a govemment} land.

¶78

ii) He would fufiher contend that though the^{petitioner filed W.P.} No.30945 of 2016 complaining about the^interference of^the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S,^{the Revenue Authorities and the} police, he did not implead the said Superintending Engineer, RWS &^S as party to the present writ petition. Even the^{impugned proceedings} were issued basing on the letter addressed by the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S and, therefore, he is a necessary^{paftyto the present} writ petition. The present writ petition has to be dismissed for^non- joinder of proper parties.

¶79

iii) Referring to various survey reports, the learned Govemment Pleader would also contend that the subject land is in Survey No.737l1 and, therefore, the petitioner herein is an encroacher. The^petitioner had obtained several proceedings from the revenue authorities including NOC dated 08.05.2015 by managing various authorities. and under the guise of such repofts, by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts, the petitioner had obtained the building permit dated 06.06.20 16.

¶80

iv) With the aforesaid submissions, the leamed Govemrnent ..^{Pleader sought to dismiss the writ petition.}

¶81

¶82

K1,,1 W.P.No.15596 oJ 2021

¶83

7. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

¶84

i) As stated above, the petitioner is claiming right over the subject property under a registered sale deed dated 30.10.2013. A perusal ofthe schedule mentioned in the said sale deed would reveal that the petitioner had purchased the house bearing No.2-16-78, admeasuring 290 square yards or 242.44 square meters, situated at Beerappagadda, Uppal Kalan under GHMC, Uppal Circle, Uppal Mandal, the then Ranga Reddy District. There is also a recital in the sale deed that the said^{property was} originally owned by one Mr. G. Mallaiah who expired on 22.01.1995 Thus, the petitioner had purchased an old house under the said sale^deed.

¶85

ii) Furlher, respondent No.4 had issued a certificate No.C/533/2015, dated 08.05.2015 certifying that the subject^property purchased by the petitioner under the said document was in existence for more than 30 years. Respondent No.4 had also addressed^{a letter dated} 11.08.2015 to the Assistant City Planner, Circle - 2, GHMC, Uppal informing that the Mandal Surveyor of its offlce inspected the^location of the subject property and reported that the said^property falls^under grantakantam of Uppal Khalsa Village, and also enclosed the location map.

¶86

iii) It is relevant to note that the Deputy Inspector ol Survey, Malkajgiri Division, Ranga Reddy District, submitted his^report in^file No.A6l441 112015, dated 03.02.2016 to the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Ranga Reddy District stating that he had^verifiedthe

¶87

.-L---

¶88

¶89

KL,J lv.P.No.15596 of202l

¶90

records of Uppal Khalsa Village of Uppal Mandal and found that Tippon and Village Map were not available. However, he could identi$r Sy.No.757 with the help of Village Map and could also identify the subject property falling in Sy.No.757 of Uppal Kalan Village, and location sketch was prepared and enclosed to the said report. Referring to the said report, respondent No.4 vide his letter No.B/116912015, dated 29.02.2016 informed the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S Circle that the subject property falls under Sy.No.757 of Uppal Khalsa Village which is a patta land and not in either Gramakantam or Government land

¶91

iv) It is also relevant to note that referring to the said report dated 03.02.2016 and the letter dated 29,02.2016, the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S vide its letter No.B/285/RWS&Si2014, dared 14.03.2016 informed the Assistant City Planner, Circle - 2, Uppal Circle, GHMC, Hyderabad, that the subject property falls in Sy.No.757 of Uppal Khalsa and it is a patta land and not in either Gramakantam or Government land. Referring to the same, respondent No.2 authorities had issued building permit dated 06.06.2016 in favour of the petitioner herein,

¶92

v) It is also relevant to note that the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, vide its letter No.A5ll4312018, daled 23.07.2018, informed the Superintending Engineer, RWS&S that for clarification with regard to conflict of survey reports in respect of Sy.Nos.757 and 737, the matter was entrusted to the Sun,eyor for field verification duly providing the map of three-men committee members \

¶93

¶94

KL,J ll.P.No.l5596 ol202l

¶95

report and to verifr it with the help of the Survey records of Uppal Khalsa Village, Accordingly, the Surveyor had visited the spot accompanied by the Mandal Surveyor, Girdhavari and Village Revenue Officer and verified the field with the map of three-men committee members report, wherein he picked up the common boundary of compound wall of NGRI and the scheduled property of extent 248 square yards under the occupation of the petitioner, developed the DGPS data and superimposed it upon the map of the three-men committee and village map of Uppal Khalsa Village. Uppal Mandal of Medchal - Malkajgiri District. After superimposing the developed data, it got tallied with the repoft of the Deputy Inspector of Survey report clari$ing that the subject property to an extent of 248 square yards is falling in Sy.No.757 of Uppal Kalsa Vitlage. The sketch prepared by the threeman committee was also enclosed along with the said letter. A perusal of the said sketch would reveal that it was signed by the Additional Director, Inspector of Survey and Regional Deputy Directors, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad and Kakinada.

¶96

vi) It is also relevant to note that the GHMC Authorities had issued transfer of the title with regard to the subject property vide proceedings No.REV.MT,E/C021 6069 l20I 5 I C02,, dated I 2.08.20 1 5 in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶97

vii) The Superintending Engineer, RWS&S Circle, Hyderabad, sought clarification from the District Collector as to whether the subject property is a govemment land or private land, and whether it is falling in

¶98

¶99

KL,J tt/.P.No.15596 of202l

¶100

Sy.No.757 or 731. But, it is surprising to note that the AD, Inspector of survey, Survey and Land Records, Medchal - Malkajgiri Districr vide its letter dated 15.12.2016 informed rhe District collector, Medchal - Malkajgiri District that the su6;ect properry is falling in Govemment Land situated in Sy.No.737l1 of Uppal Kralsa viilage. In the said lefter, dated 15.12.2016, he has stated that the survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and the officials of the RWS & S, whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the same. Even then, respondent No.3 did not file any proceedings to show that the said survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner herein.

¶101

viii) Thereafter, the very same Superintending Engineer, RWS & S vide its letter No.B1/285/RWS&S/20 l4/4, d,ated 15.02.201g, sought clarification from the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, as to which of the two survey reports dated 15.02.2016 and 03.02.2016 are genuine. The Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land.Records, Hyderabad, sought field verification report from the survey Department who in tum has submitted their report along with the sketch stating that the subject property is falling in Sy.No.757 of Uppal Khalsa Village, and based on the said report, the Regional Deputy Director vide its letter No.A5l1 43/2,lg, dated 23.07.2Ol g. informed the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S that the subject properry is falling in Sy.No.757 to an extent of24g square yards.

¶102

ix) Ignoring all the said aspects, the Engineer-in-chief, Mission Bhagiratha Department, Hyderabad, had addressed a retter

¶103

¶104

KL,J W.P.No. I 5596 of 2021

¶105

No.OP. l/MB/408912019, dated 07.11.2019 to the District Collector, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, stating that there are discrepancies in the survey and the said survey repofts are false and baseless and, therefore, he has requested to take necessary action. The Engineer-in-Chief, Mission Bhagiratha Depafiment is not competent to come to a conclusion that the survey conducted by the concemed officials i.e., Survey and Land Records including the Regional Deputy Director and AD/Inspector of Survey. He cannot come to a conclusion that the said survey reports are false and baseless. In fact, he has no authority to say so. Pursuant to the said letter, the District Collector vide its letter No.E2l263712019. dated 07.03.2020, requested the Commissioner, Suruey Settlement and Land Records, to depute a concerned officer for survey and demarcation of the disputed area in Sy.No.757 and737ll of Uppal Khalsa.

¶106

x) It is relevant to note that the Commissioner, Sur-vey Settlement and Land Records did not conduct any survey and there is no demarcation of the subject property pursuant to the said letter dated 07.03.2020. Respondent No.2 has issued the impugned proceedings pursuant to the letter dated 17.03.2020 addressed by the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S, without waiting for the report from the Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records. Surprisingly, the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC had issued show-cause notices dated 10.08.2020 and 13.1 1.2020 under Section - 450 of the GHMC Act, 1955 to the petitioner seeking his explanation. The petitioner has submitted his explanation th-rough his counsel on 04.12.2020 duly enclosing copies

¶107

¶108

KL,J ll P. No. I 5 596 of 2021

¶109

of all the documents in support of his contention. Without^considering the same, respondent No.2 had issued the impugned^{proceedingsdated} 09.06.2021 revoking the building permit dated 06.06.2016

¶110

xi) It is also surprising to note that the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, vide its letter No.28359/TPS/Circumstances.2/LBNZI GIIMCI

¶111

2019-21, dated 20.01.2021, sought clarification from respondent No.4 with regard to the status of the subject property. He has also addressed reminder dated 20.02.2021. Respondent No.4 vide its letter No.B/41112021 , dated27,03.2021 without ret'erring to any of the sr-rrvey reports, proceedings and certificate issued by it earlier etc., and without conducting any inspection and survey afresh, clarified the Deputy ln Commissioner, GHMC that the subject property is located Sy.No.73711 of Uppal Khalsa Village, which is classified as'sarkari' Based on the said letter / clarification, respondent No.2 had issued the impugned proceedings dated 09.06.2021. Thus, the said impugned ploceedings are without any basis and contrary to recorcl. Respondent No.2 did not even consider the scope of Section - 450 olthe GHMC Act, 1955.

¶112

xii) It is relevant to note that Section - 450 of the GHMC Act, 1955, deals with power of Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation. As per the said provision, the Commissioner has to satisfo himself that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the application given or information fumished under Section

¶113

¶114

KL,J I(.P.No.15596 of 2021

¶115

428 or 433 of the GFIMC Act. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner herein had submitted his application seeking permission for construction, along with relevant documents, such as copy of sale deed, Encumbrance Certifrcate, transfer of title certificate^{and receiptsin proof} of payment of property tax etc. There is no suppression^or misrepresentation of fact by the petitioner herein.^{He has not givenany} fraudulent statement. Thus, respondent No.2 had^{not consideredall the} said aspects while issuing the impugned^{proceedings dated09'06.2021.}

¶116

xiii) It is also relevant to note that the^{petitionerherein had taken} all the said contentions in his explanation^{dated 04.12.2020,but the same} were not considered by respondent No.2. It^{is also relevant to note that} W.P. No.30945 of 2016 is pending andthe^{interimorderpassed thereinis} still subsisting. During subsistence of such^{interimorder, the} Superintending Engineer, RWS & S^{cannot seek for cancellation/} revocation of the buitding permit dated 06.06.2016^{granted in favour} of the petitioner herein, as he is a pa(y to the said^{writ petition.} If^{at all he} has any grievance over the subject^property, he has to file^{counter and} seek vacation of such interim order. Instead of^{doingso, he soughtto} cancel the building permit dated 06.06.2016.^{Thus, the entire action of} the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S and^{respondentNo.2 is illegal} and contrary to their own proceedings.

¶117

xiv) It is relevant to note that^{neither the Superintending Engineer,} RWS & S, nor the Revenue^{Authorities filedany suit for declaration of} title or recovery of possession^{in a competent Civil Court. Without doing}

¶118

¶119

KL,J [tt. P.No. I 5 596 of 2021

¶120

so, they cannot claim that the property belongs to them and that it is a govemment land.

¶121

xv) It is relevant to note that the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S sought clarification as to whether the subject property is Government land or Patta land. It is the Revenue Department, which has to take steps. For the said reason, this Court directed the petitioner to implead relevant authorities. Therefore, according to this Court, the Superintending Engineer, RWS & S is not a necessary party.

¶122

xvi) As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel that respondent No.2 does not have power to declare or decide the title dispute between the petitioner and the Revenue Department. He has also placed reliance on the principle iaid down in Hydera bad Potteries Private Limitedr; T. Rameshwar2; K. Pavan Rajs; Challa Rajendra Prasada; and The Church of South India Trust Associations. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned proceedings dated 09.06.2021 issued by respondent No.2 are liable to be set aside.

¶123

8. CONCLUSION:

¶124

The present Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order of cancellation / revocation oj, permission No.O1/TPS/C2ILBNZ/GHMC/202t, dated 09.06.202t passed by respondent No.2 are hereby set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶125

¶126

KI,.J
tv.P.No.15596 of 2021

¶127

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ

¶128

petition shall stand closed.

¶129

¶130

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// C]"

¶131

SECTION OFFICER

¶132

To,

¶133

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Irllunicipal Administratton and Urban Developmentvvvv'|vp"'|s Department, State of ret'angana decr"t"iiri,'Sriirfro nvo"ranla.

¶134

2, The comm issioner c *atei,vo eiaG;'il;i;ilii"rporarion, Hvdera bad R" """ * D;;; ;il;iut i"r, g l"; 3"u1",it,,,i, t,

¶135

4 ' The I!i"?:!: T-ahsitdlr, ilii :.:'J:i:',' Uppat lvtandat Medchal _ Matkaioiri Distrjct." " I 9n"^{CC to tr//s. K. Kiran uay"e,} Aauo-"ai;"rcrEuii 6. rwo ccs to Gp for Municipdt Ari;;i;;;i;il;ijrban Development, Hish court _^{for the State of Telangana'a1xvoeiaOaj.'iOU:ii ""}

¶136