Disposed

K. Gopi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Dec 2021WP/8612/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Building permissions over disputed land were challenged alongside cancellation proceedings for suppressed litigation. The court dismissed two petitions, allowing a fresh building application after the civil proceedings concluded. It disposed of the show-cause challenge with liberty to explain and directed GHMC to hear both sides before deciding.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to apply afresh after civil proceedings and to answer the show-cause notice; GHMC directed to hear both sides, decide according to law and serve its order.

K. Gopi Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NOS: 8612 ,12858 AND 13740 0F 2021

¶6

wP NO.8612 0F 2021:

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 K. Gopi, S/o Nemnoori, age 60 years, occupation. Business, R/o H.No. 11-60, Fathenagar, Hyderabad.

¶9

2 Praveen }!fgt .4gury_q!, S/o Sumare Chand Agaruvat, aged about 56 years, occ. Business, Rt/o H.No. 4-52, Vasanthvrhar, Street No-.8, Uppat, Rangrr"ddl.Eil?1+ij".*,

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of relangana, rep. by thq Principal secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA and UD) Dept. Secretariat, HVderabad.

¶12

The Greater Hyderab_ad Municipal Corporation (GHI/C), Hyderabad rep by the Commissioner Tank Bund, Hyderabad,

¶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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting Petitioners application dated 0410212021 to accord permission for construction of building in plot Nos. 1-11-2so in Sy. Nos. 53/5, 89/1 situated at Shyamlal Building, Begumpet, secunderabad vide Letter No. 3/c30/0243812021 dated 05-03-202'1 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural^justice, violative of statutory provisions and also violative of Articles 14 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant Building Permission order for construction of building in premises No. 1-1 1-250 in sy.Nos. 53/5, 89/1 situated at Shyamlal Building, Begumpet, Secunderabad

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

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 direct the 2nd respondent GHIMC to accord permission for construction of compound wall surrounding our property in premises No. 1-1'1-250 in Sy.Nos. 53/5, 89/1 situated at Shyamlal Building, Begumpet, Secunderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: Dr. K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA, COUNSEL FOR

¶18

SRI B. JITHENDER

¶19

counsel for Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNtCIpAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶20

Counsel for Respondent No. 2: SRI CHATLA MADHU, SC FOR GHMC

¶21

¶22

NP N O:^'12858 OF 2021

¶23

Between:

¶24

M/s. G .R. Thanoa Maliqai Private^{Limited and GRTHotels and ResortsPrivate} Limited ,^{nepreie-nteO Uyits authorized signatory Sri.S.R.VasudevanS/o} ?Jifi?i3ftl-

¶25

AND

¶26

The state of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Prinopal secretary,Municipal Administrationand} Urnan Oevefopmerit^{(VtR anb Ub) Dept.. Slcretarrat.Hyderabad'}

¶27

Greater Hvdeiabad^{Municipal Corporation(GHMC)' Hyderabad'repDy Ine} Commissi6ner, Tank^{Bunk,Hyderabad.}

¶28

J- ih; i;ii a;;;ei2.nlo.,^{Gre5ter Hvderabad Municipal corporation(GH1i/c)' Tank} Bunk, Hvderabad.

¶29

i;;'il",at 6;;issioner,^{Greater Hyderabad Municipalcorporation (GHMC), Zonal} Office, Secunderabad.

¶30

X.'c;biS7;. Nemnoori,^{Aged.60 years, occ.Business,R/o' H No l'1-60, Fathenagar'} Hvderabad.

¶31

1. ijiJridEnk*rrrr^{Agaruat, S/o. Sumare Chand Agarwal, Aged about56 years.Occ.} bl.i.'Ji'.,'n.Nt.i-"s2,^{Vi'.a'ninurlriii, sit""t tro.6, uppal,hansa "ooY..Rl1tJ3ounr.}

¶32

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be pleasedto} issue an appropriate^{writ or Direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of writ} of Mandamus, declaring^{the action of the second Respondentin issuing noticevideLr'} No. E-261677/01/c3o/15066/2018/GHMC^{Oi. O4lo5l2o21to the petitionersas illegal',} arbitrary and violative^{of principleof natural justice and violativeof provisionsof GHIr/C} Act, and rules tramed^{thereunder and set-asidethe same}

¶33

lA NO: 1 OF 21

¶34

Petition under Sectio n^{151CPC praying that in the circumstancesstatedin the} affidavit filed in^{supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto Suspend the} operation of the^{impugnednotice vide Lr. No. E-261677/01/C30/15066/2018/GH[VCDt'} o4lo5l2o21 issued^{by the 2nd Respondentto the Petitioner, pending disposal of main writ} Petitio n

¶35

lA NO: 2 OF 2021:

¶36

Between:

¶37

Greater Hvderabad^{Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Hyderabad'rep by the}

¶38

Commissi6ner,^{Tank Bunk,Hyderabad.}

¶39

i#'i;i;^{pt;nnei2.nb.,tjreiter nvoeraoad Municiparcorporation(GHMC), Tank} Bunk, Hyderabad.

¶40

e. ifie 2on'al Commissioner,^{Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Zonal} office' secunderabad ....'ET.r,.NER./RESPoNDENTS^{2 To4}

¶41

AND

¶42

M/s.G.R,ThangaMaligaiPrivateLimitedand-GRTHotelsandReSortSPrivate Iiln,t"o,'nupi"i""nGo^{oy its arinor.ii"J sisnatoryt''..?#*u.1?*SJ3[r%%,?,t;fi?l3l[-}

¶43

2.ThestateofTelangana,Rep.byitsPrincipalsecretary,MunicipalAdministralionand' u'ru'u-"'b*.u*roprnenl(trrtA^{an'o ub) Dept, SecretariatHvderabad'}

¶44

3 X. G;;I-s);.-r!6r"i6,i.^{A;;."60'v;;iJ,'occeusiness'Fvo H t'io t1-60' Fathenasar'} Hvderabad.

¶45

iji";;; Krmar^{Agarwat, s/o. Sumare chandAgarwat, Aged about56 years, occ.} - blli.'Ji','H.r.rt.+-"s2. vi.I'njn"*nai, s'r;et No 6' Rufi']pt^Be1o,1,[:39X,?J'.tl'f!.,,^{, *.}

¶46

¶47

. petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^{statedin the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the Highcourt maybe pleasedto vacate the} lnterim Orders in WP.^{No. 12858 of 2021} '^{D|.09.06.2021}

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI B' CHANDRASEN REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL} FOR M/s. CHANDRASEN LAW^OFFICES

¶49

Counsel for Respondent^{No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION&} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶50

Counsel for Respondent^{Nos. 2 to 4: SRI CHATLAMADHU}

¶51

Counsel for Respondent^{Nos'5 & 6: Dr' K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA'} COUNSEL FOR SRI^{B. JITHENDER}

¶52

WP NO: 13740 OF 2021

¶53

Between:

¶54

tr//s. G,R. Thanga Maligai Private Limited,^{and G-RT.Hotels and Resorts Private} Limit ed, Represe"nted by^"its authorized^{si g natory S ri.S'R.Vasudevan S/o.} i. J;fi ?13ft L

¶55

AND

¶56

1 The state of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary,MunicipalAdministrationand} Urban Developmenl 1Mn^{and UD) Dept., Se-crelariat, Hyderabad.} Greater Hvdeiabad^{[r,4unicipalCorporation (GHMC), Hyderabad.Rep. by the} Commissr6ner, Tank Bunk, Hyderabad.

¶57

2 ifre City Planner Z.H.O., Greater^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Tank} Bunk. Hvderabad.

¶58

4 ine Zonal Commissioner, Greater^{HyderabadtVlunicipalCorporation (GHIt/C), Zonal} Office, Secunderabad.

¶59

5 K. Gopi, S/o. Nemnoori, Aged^{60 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.11-60,Fathenagar,} Hvderabad.

¶60

6 Ciareen Kumar Aganrval, S/o. Sumare^{Chand Agarwal, Aged about 56-years,Occ} Business, R/o. H,tio.4-52, Vasanthavihar,^{Street No.8, Uppal, RanSa ReSSJPoriSL"l,i,}

¶61

Petition under Article 226 of the^{constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be pleasedto} issue an appropriate Writ or Direction^{or Order, more particularly one in the natureof Writ} of Mandamus, declaring^{the action of the 2nd Respondentin issuingthe impugned order} vide Lr.No.E-2616771011C3011^{5066/2018/GHMC/458Ot.0510512021to the petitionersas} illegal, arbitrary and violative of^{principleof natural justice andviolativeof provisionsof} GHMC Act, and rules framed thereunder^{and set-asidethe same}

¶62

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶63

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto suspendthe} operation of the impugned order vide Lr.^{No. E-261677/01/C30/15066/2018/GHIUC/458} D|. O5tO5l2O21 issued by the 2nd Respondent^{to the Petitioner, pending disposal of main} Writ Petition

¶64

lA NO: 2 OF 2021:

¶65

Between:

¶66

K. Gopi, S/o. Nemnoori, Aged 60^years, Occ.^{Business,F/o.H.No.11-60, Fathenagar'} Hyderabad.

¶67

¶68

Praveen KumarAganval, S/0. Sumare Chand Agarwal, Aged about 56^{years, Occ.'} Business, Fr/o. H. No.4-52, vasanthavi har, street i.9eiff ?il,r?ruP_?SF3fi [P^l?gtt .

¶69

AND

¶70

M/s. G.R. Thanga Maligai Private Limited, and GRT Hotels^{and Resorts Private} Limited, Represented by its authorized signatory Sri.S. R.Vasudevan^{S/o. S.V.Raman.}

¶71

rhe state of retansana, Rep. by its Principal .""r",rr,*fnt'n?Jir?Ilfl+LltHlll'f:F5 Urban Development (MA and UD) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶72

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation^(GHMC), Hyderabad.^Rep. by^the Commissioner, Tank Bunk, Hyderabad.

¶73

The City Planner Z.H.O., Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation^{(GHMC), Tank} Bunk, Hyderabad.

¶74

The Zon'al Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation^{(GHMC), Zonal} office' Secunderabad' .-.RES'oN,ENTS/RES',NDENTS

¶75

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto vacate the order} daled 2110612021 rendered in WP No 1374012021^{and consequently dismiss the WP with} costs

¶76

fA NO: 3 OF 2021:

¶77

Between:

¶78

'1 . Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GH[/C), Hyderabad. Rep. by the Commissioner, Tank Bunk, Hyderabad,

¶79

The City Planner Z.H.O., Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Tank} Bunk, Hyderabad.

¶80

The Zon-al Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad^{Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Zonal} office' Secunderabad ....pETrroNERs/REspoNDENrs 2 ro 4

¶81

AND

¶82

M/s, G.R. Thanga Maligai Private Limited,^{and GRT Hotels and Resorts Private} Limited, Represented by its authorized sisnatory .t,..^{*nur1?f,fJ3[r?Jr",i,?ru;fi?I3f,li.}

¶83

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Municipal Administrationand} Urban Development^(MA and UD) Dept., Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶84

K. Gopi, S/o. Nemnoori, Aged 60^years, Occ. Business,^{R/o. H.No.11-60,Fathenagar,} Hyderabad.

¶85

Piaveen Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Sumare Chand Agarwal, Aged about 56^years,Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No.4-52, Vasanthavihar, Street No.B, Upp:l, RilEi*/esgJr?i$11i,

¶86

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the}

¶87

affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to vacate the}

¶88

lnterim Orders in WP. No. 13740 of 2021 , Di. 2110612021

¶89

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. CHANDRASEN REDDY, SENIOR^COUNSEL FOR M/s. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES

¶90

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL^{ADMINISTRATION&} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶91

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI CHATLA^MADHU

¶92

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: Dr. K. LAKSHMI^NARASIMHA, COUNSEL FOR SRI B, JITHENDER

¶93

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶94

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶95

\'IIIT PET'ITIO\ \ os.8612. 12858 AND 13740 0 F 2027

¶96

COMMON ORDER:

¶97

W.P. No.86l2 of 2021 is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 - GHMC in rejecting the petitioners' application dated 04.02.2021 to accord pemission for construction of building in plot Nos. 1- I l -250 in Sy.Nos.53/5 and 89/1, siruated at Shyamlal Building, Begumpet, Secunderabad vide letrer No.3/C30/0243812021, dated 05.03.2021 as illegal, and for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to grant building permission order.

¶98

W.P. No. 12858 of 20Zl is filed by the petitioner _ M/s. G.R. Thanga Matigai Private Limited & GRT Hotels & Resorts private Limited, to declare the action of respondent No.2 - GHMC in issuing notice vide Lr.No.E-261677/OUC3OltSO66l2OlBlctfrvlc, dated 04.05.2021as illegal.

¶99

W.P. No. 13748 of 2021 is filed by the very same petitioner to declare the action of respondenr No.2 - GHMC in issuing the impugned order vide Lr.No.E-26 I677l01lc30l t50661 2}t8l GHMC/ 458, dated 05.05.2021as illegal.

¶100

The parties in these writ petitions and the /rs involved are one and the same and, thereflore, all these writ petitions are disposed of by way of common order.

¶101

Heard Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of peritioners in W.p. Nos. 1285g of 2021 and 13740

¶102

¶103

¶104

KL,J lU.l'. No.86l2 of202l & botch

¶105

¶106

of 2O2l; Dr. K.^{Lakshmi Narasimha, leamed counsel representingMr' B'} Jithender, leamed^{counsel for petitionersin W.P.No'8612 of 2021and} respondent Nos.5^{and 6 in W.P. Nos.12858and 13740 of 2021' and Mr'} Chatla Madhu,^{leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC'}

¶107

The petitioners^{in W.P No.86l2 of 2021 are respondentNos5} and 6 in w.P. Nos.12858^{and 13740 of 2021 and they will be hereinafter} referred to as 'unofficial^{respondents', while the petitioner in W'P'} No.12858 and^{13740 of 2021,IWs. G'R. Thanga Maligai Private Limited} & GRT Hotels &^{Resorts PrivateLimited will be referred to as 'the} Company,andtheofficialrespondentsinallthewritpetitionsbeing Greater Hyderabad^{Municipalcorporationwill be referred to as} 'GHMC'.^{Therefore,for the sake of convenience,the pafiies arrayed in} W.P. No.12858^{of 2021will be hereinafter referred'}

¶108

The unofficial^{respondents claimthat theyare the absolute} ownersandpossessorsofHousebearingNo.l.ll-250/B/A(o1dNo.1.11250)withopenspaceoflandadmeasuringl000squareyardsinSurvey Nos.53/5 a4d 8gll,^{situated at Shyamlal Buildings, Begumpet'} Secunderabad.^{They have purchasedthe said propefiy throughregistered} sale deed bearing^{documentNo.49l0of 1993 in the month of Septerrber.} 1993.

¶109

i) Besides the^{abovesaid property,there is anotherproperty} admeasuring approximately^{7528 squareyards bearing H'No'1-l l-249'} The same was^{purchasedby the Companyin the year 2006'Whenthe} said company tried to^{encroachthe land of the unofficialrespondents,}

¶110

KL.J W.P. No.86l2 of202l & bqtch

¶111

¶112

they have f-rled a suit vide O.S. No.258 of 2017 on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad for declaration. In the said suit,^{they have} also filed I.A. No.23 1 of 2017 for^grant of interim injunction,^{and the} same was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the same,^{the unofficial} respondents had preferred an appeal vide CMA 19 of 2018^{and the same} was allowed on 13.i1.2018 by the leamed XXVII Additional Chief .ludge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Feeling^{aggrievedby the said} order, the Cornpany filed a revision vide C.R.P. No.483 of^{20 19, and this} Court in I.A. No. I of 2019, grantedsla/z/s^quo on17.04.2019^withregard to the schedule property for a period of two rnonths. The said^{two months} period w'as lapsed and r-ro funher extension was made.

¶113

ii) While so, the GHMC had granted building permission dated I I .09.2019 in favour ol the Company without notice to the unofficial respondents and without following guidelines issued by the Govemment vide G. O.Ms. No. 1 68, Municipal Administration and Urban Developn.rent (M) Department, dated 07.04.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.50 of Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.ll) Departrnent, dated 22.04.2019.^-I'he total area is covered in two house numbers is 1000 square yards of land purchased by the unofficial respondents and⁷⁵²⁸ square yards of the land pr.rrchased by the Company

¶114

iii)^-fhe ur.rofficial respondents had subrnitted an application^dated 04.02.2021 with the GHMC seeking building^{perrnissionin respectof the} prenrises bearing House No.l-11-250/B/A (Old No.1-11-250) admeas*ring 1000 square yards by paying requisite fee and submitting

KL,J lV.P. No.86l2 of202l & batch

¶119

necessary documents, but the same was rejected vide order dated 05.03.2021 without assigning any reasons. The unofficial respondents had also submitted another application dated 05.03.2021 with the GHMC with a request to accord permission for construction of cornpound wall. In the said rejection order dated 05.03.2021, the application dated 04.02.2021 submitted by the unof'licial respondents was rejected on the ground that their land is shown in the sanctioned plan of the Comparr.v vide Building Permission Order dated 11.09.2019. The GHMC did not consider the fact that the Company purchased the land fiorn the sarne land owners to an extent of 7528 square yards in the sar.ne survev numbers v2., Sy.Nos.5315 and 89/1, situated at Sl.ryamlal Buildings. Begumpet, Secunderabad, whereas. the unoftlcial respondents had purchased the land way back in the year 1993. The GHMC is also a party to O.S. No.662 of 1994 filed by the unofficial respondents. They have filed a writ vide W.P. No.228 of 2021 before this Court seeking cancellation of the building pennission granted in travour of the Cou.rpany and the said writ petition is pending. Without consideling the same, the GHMC had rejected the application submitted by the unofficial respondents, vide order dated 05.03.2021.

¶120

In W.P. No.12858 of 2021, the petitioner - Company claims that originally late G. Mahalakshmi, M/s. GRT Hotels and Resorts Private Limited, I\rVs. Macur Hospitality India (P) Limited and M/s. Mamallapuram Hotels (P) Limited and others had purchased the immovable property admeasuring 7528 square yards bearing M.No.1-11-

¶121

)

¶122

KL,J llt.P. No.86l2 of2021 & batch

¶123

249, l-11-2491B/1 to l-l 1-249/8/6, situated ai Begumpet, near Shyamlal Building, Hyderabad falling in Sy.Nos.53/5 and 89/1 of Begumpet Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from their vendors, i.e., M/s. Sairam Carriers, represented by its Managing Partner, Mr. G. Sudarshan Reddy and 17 others under seven (07) different registered sale deeds dated 11.05.2006. The said property was earlier mortgaged by the predecessors-in-title to N{/s. Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited (Mongagee/Decree-holder) and the said property was put for auction by the said Bank on several occasions f'rom 2003 onwards. The Vendors ol the Company had purchased the said propefty after taking the consent of M/s. Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited and from the Govemment of Andhra Pradesh. M/s. Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited was under reconstruction scheme, and later obtained clearance from the Govemment of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No.19201/Co-op III (1) 2005- I , dated I 8.04.2006, approved the sale of the said property.

¶124

i) While so, NzI/s. Macnur Hospitality India (p) Ltd. And M/s. Mamallapuram Hotels (P) Ltd., were merged into Iv,I/s. GRT Hotels and Resorts Private Limited by virtue of the orders passed by the High Court of Madras dated 13.04.2009 in Company Petition Nos.8 to l0 of 2009. Subsequently, the name of M/s. G.R. Thanga Maligai pvt. Ltd., was changed to M/s. GRT Hoteis and Resorts private Limited w.e.f. 21.03.2007. The other six purchasers have executed and registered lease deed in favour olthe company i.e., M/s. GRT Hotels and Resorts private Limited vide documenr Nos.2258, 2259,2260,2261,2262 and 2263 of

¶125

¶126

KL,J W.P. No.8612 of202l & barch

¶127

2008, dated 26.06.2008. Thus, the total propefty is 7528 square yard and it is a single block having a compound wall and the owners are the individual family members and the Company run and owned by the same family members. Though the property was 7528 square yards and physically the land available is only 7167 square yards.

¶128

ii) One Mr. Bakthula Yadagiri and otl.rers have t-rled a suit 1or inj unction vide O.S. No.489 of 20 I I and a suit for declaration, r'ide O.S. No.594 of 2012, and both the suits were ended in compromise. As^per the terms of the said compromise, Mr. Bathula Yadagiri and others have received an amount of Rs.13.00 Crores from the Company. The legal heirs of the Bathula Ramaiah were the^pafties to both^{the said suits, and} the same legal heirs along with some others were the Vendors of the unofficial respondents. The Company had flled I-.G.C.^No.26 ol 2013 and the Special Couft under A.P. Land Grabbing^{(Prohibition)} Act, Hyderabad, recorded the compromise memo and closed the LGC^case vide order dated 20.06.2013. Thus, the Company and others are enjoying the possession of 7528 square^{yards(physically} available area^is 7167 square yards).

¶129

iii) The unofficial respondents had filed a suit vide O.S. No.2l06 of 201 3 for perpetual injunction and the same^was dismissed fol^det-ault on 28.12.2018. In the said suit, they had filed I.A.^No.1599 of²⁰¹³ seeking interim inj unction and the same was dismissed^vide order dated 30.11.2015. Challenging the same, they had f'reld an appeal^vide C.M.A. No.5 of 2016 and the same was dismissed as^withdrawn on^{the memo}

¶130

¶131

KL,,I lr.P. No.86l2 o/2021 & bqtch

¶132

¶133

filed by the unofficial respondent on 30.06.2017. They have also sought liberty to file fi'esh suit by filing a memo dated 13.04.2018. During pendency of the said suit, the unofficial respondents had filed a suit vide O.S. No.258 of 2017 seeking declaration. They have also filed an application vide I.A. No.23 1 of 2017 seeking interim injunction and the said petition was disrnissed vide order dated 17.04.2018. As against the sarne, they have filed appeal vide CMA 19 of 2018 and the same was allowed. Challenging the same, the Company has preferred a revision vide CRP No.483 of 2019 and this Court has passed an order of status quo. The unofficial respondents have also filed another suit vide O.S. No.483 of 2020 for perpetual injunction and the same is pending. The Company has filed a petition seeking rejection of the plaint and the same is also pending.

¶134

iv) While the rnatter stood thus, the Company had submitted an application on 10.04.2008 seeking permission to construct high rise commercial building consists of 3 cellars, ground + l1 Upper Floors. The GHMC vide its letter dated 01.06.2009 requested the parties to remit an amount of Rs.8,24,38,2201- towards building permit fees, development charges, impact fee and others. pursuant to the same, the Company had deposited an amount of Rs.2,7g,72,g201- and Rs.1,43,5 1,780/-. Thereafter, the Company has backed out ofthe said Project due to non-feasibility.

¶135

v) The Company had also filed an application on 26.02.2016 sdek;rg building permission and the GHMC vide proceedings dated

--.----

KL'J W.P. No.86l2 of202l &^batch

¶140

¶141

Zl.O7.2006^{grantedpermissionfor constructionof ground 1 1stfl6or for} the purpose of^{constructionof function hallSubsequently,on} 06.0g.2018, the corrpany^{had fi1ed anotherapplicationfor revised} building^{permission and the GHMC vide proceedings dated I 1.09.2019} accorded^{permissionfor constructionof the building for the purposeof} running hotel^{consistsof 1 cetlar + stilt + 6 UpperFloors.At present,} construction of^{1 cellar, stilt and two UpperFloorsare completed and the} construction is^{taken place overan extent of2200square yards'}

¶142

The unofficial^{respondents have filed acomplaint} vi) No.T42l2020lBl,dated2l.Og.2O2ObeforetheLokAyukta,andtheLok Ayukta directed^{the GHMC to inspectthe subject property and file a} report. Accordingly,^{the GHMC had filed the report on 14'12'2020} stating that the^{allegationsmade by the unofficial respondentsat'e} absolutely frivolous,^{unfounded and vexatious'The unofficial} respondentsbysuppressingthetruematerialfactsareconstantlytryingto cause harm to^{the Company by one means or the other' ln the said} process, they had^{approachedthe GI{MCby rnakinga cornplaint'} Accordingly, the^{GHMC had issued a notice dated 17 '02'2021to which} theCompanyhadsubmitteditsobjectionsvideletterdated22.02,202|' The unofficial respondents^{havesuppressed abovesaid facts aboutthe} cases and filed^a writ^{vide w.P. No.228 of 2021 seekingcancellationof} the building^{permit granted in favour of the Companyalleging that the} Company had^{obtainedthe building permit by suppressingthe facts} including pendency of^{O.S.No.258of 2017 and that it has encroached}

¶143

¶144

KT,J W.P. No.86l2 o12021 & batch

¶145

their land. The property belongs to the Company is nothing to do^with the propeny of the ur.rofficial respondents. The land admeasuring 361 square yards is encroached by the thild pafties. The Company had submitted explanation / objections dated 24.02,2021 to the notice dated 17.02.2021 issued by the GHMC. Without considering the same, the CHMC has issued impugned notice dated 04.05.2021.

¶146

Tl.re unofficial respondents have filed counter affidavit with sirnilar allegations made in W.P. No.8612 of 2021. They have also rnentioned chronological events and proceedings pending. They have taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the very writ petition since it was filed challenging the show-cause notice. Reliance was also placed on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bankr; Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha2; Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouses. The Company had obtained the building pennission by way of suppression and rnisrepresentation of facts, more particularly, during the pendency of suit O.S. No.258 of 2017, LA. No.23 I of 2017 and CMA No.19 of 2018 and the status quo ord,ers dated 17.04.2019 in C.R.P. No.483 of 2019. Therefore, the GHMC after conducting inquiry passed orders dated 0 4 I 0 5,05.2021 in Lr.No.E-26 1 67 7 I 0l I C30 I 15 066/20 I 8/GHMC/45 8. The GHMC has issued notices, conducted inquiry and considered the replies/objections filed by all the parties and finally held that it had

¶147

(2021) 3 scc 806

¶148

(20i2') 1i scc 56s (2004) 3 SCC 440

¶149

-----...................-

¶150

¶151

¶152

KL. I,/.P. No.86 l 2 / 202 ) & burth

¶153

decided to initiate action for cancellation ol building permission under Section - 450 of the HMC Act, 1955 for suppression of facts. Thereafter. the GHMC had issued the impugned show-cause notice dated 04.05.2021 vide proceedings Lr.No.E-261677 l0llC30l15066i2018/GHMC under Section - 450 of HMC Act, 1955 as to why the building permission dated 11.09.2019 issued in favour of the Company shall not be cancelled under Section - 450 of the HMC Act and requested it to submit explanation within seven (07) days. In the meanwhile, the Company was directed not to make any further construction. Therefore, according to unolllcial respondents, there is no error in the said proceedings dated 04.05.202 l.

¶154

The GHMC has filed counter contending that it has received several complaints dated 21 .09.2020,02.12.2020 and 03.12.2020 fl'orn unofficial respondent No.5 complaining that the Companl'had obtained the revised building permission dated I 1.09.2019 by way of suppression and misrepresentation of facts. Unolficial respondent No.5 has contended that he had purchased old house u,hich IS in dilapidated condition bearlng No. l-li-250 (New No.1-l l-250lBlA) with open space of land admeasuring 1000 square yards in Sy.Nos.53/5 and 89/1, situated at Shamlal Building, Begumpet, Secunderabad. Mr'. G. Rajendran and others have been alleging that they had purchased the land in the same survey number and the said persons are trying to encroach their property. They are constructing a mr"rlti-stolied building over their land without leaving any setbacks etc. Pursuant to the complair.rt lodged by the unofficial respondents, the Lokayukta directed the GFIMC to inspect the

¶155

¶156

KL,J ll.P. No.8612 of202l & batch

¶157

subject property and t-rle a report and accordingly^{it had submitteda} report dated 14.12.2020. The unofficial^{respondents have filed W.P.} No.228 of 2021 challenging the building^{permission grantedin lavour of} the Company and to cancel the building^perrnit order^{dated11.09'2019.} On exarnination ol tl.re said complaints and conducting^hearing,the GIIMC had passed the proceedings dated 04105.05.2021^{deciding to} initiate action tbr cancellation of building permissions under Section^- 450 of the HMC Act, 1955 for suppression of facts. Accordingly, the GHMC had issued show-cause notice dated 04.05.2021 to the Cornpany. The Cornpany instead of submitting explanation to the said show-cause notlce filed writ petitions vide W.P. No.12858 of 2021. and W.P. No.13748 of 2021 challenging the hearing order dated 04.05.2021. With the said submissions. it sought to dismiss both the writ petitions filed by the Company.

¶158

1 I . The Company has also filed W.P. No.13740 of 2021 to declare the action of the GHMC in issuing the impugned order dated 04/05.05.2021 to initiate the proceedings under Section - 450 of HMC Act, 1955, as illegal rvith the very sarne contentions as made in W.P. No.12858 ol 202 I .^'fhe GHMC and the unofficial respondents have also filed their counter and vacate stay petition vide LA. No.3 of 2021 and2 of 2021 respectively.

¶159

The above stated discussion would reveal that there are disputes between the Company and the unofficial respondents. According to the unofficial respondents, they had purchased the land in

¶160

-.--.F-

¶161

¶162

KL,J ,1.P. N<t.8612 ol202l & batch

¶163

the year 1993, whereas the Company had purchased the land in the year 2006. There is chequered history to the subject property. There are disputes with regard to the extent of land and boundaries etc. The Company herein had filed L.G.C. No.26 of 2013 and the sarne was closed on 20.06.2013 in view of the compromise. One Mr. Bakthula Yadagiri and others had also filed two suits vide O.S. No.489 of 201 I for pelpetual injunction and O.S. No.594 of 2012 for declaration. The said suits were ended in compromise and the Company had paid an amount ol Rs.13.00 Crores to the said Bathula Yadagiri and others.

¶164

¶165

The unofficial respondents had flled a suit^vide O.S.^No.2l06 ol 2013 against the Company for perpetual injunction.^{In the said suit,} they had also filed I.A No. 1599 of 2013 for temporary^{injunctionand the} same was dismissed. The unofficial respondents^{had illed an appeal vide} C.M.A. No.5 of 2016 and the same was dismissed^{as withdrawn.In O.S.} No.2106 of 2013, the unofficial respondents had tlled a^rnemo dated 13.04.2018 stating that they are withdrawing^the suit^{with a liberty to file} fresh suit. Pursuant to the same, the said^suit O.S.^{No.2l06 of 2013 was} dismissed for default on 28.12.20i8. During^pendency of^{the said suit,} the unofficial respondents had filed a suit^vide O.S.^No.258 of²⁰¹⁷ against the Company and others seeking^{declaration.They had alsofiled} I.A. No.23 1 of 2017 lor temporary injunction and^{the same\vas} dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the unofficial^{respondentshad flled} an appeal vide C.M.A. No. l9 of 2018 and the same^{was allowed by the} leamed XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad

¶166

¶167

KL,J llt.P. No.8612 of2021 & batch

¶168

¶169

Challenging the same, the petitioner herein had filed C.R.P. No.483 of 2019. This Courl vide order dated 17.04.2019 in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in C.R.P. No.483 of 2019 directed the parties to maintain status quo for two (02) months. The said order was not extended thereafter and the said CRP is pending. The above said suit O.S.No.258 of 2017 is also pending. The unofficial respondents have also filed another suit vide O.S. No.483 of 2020 against the petitioner lbr perpetual injunction and the same is also pending. In both the suits, the Company has filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint and the said application is also pending.

¶170

The Company had subrnitted an application on 10.04.2008 with the GHMC seeking permission of construction of high-rise commercial building consisting of three Cellars, Ground + 2 Upper Floors. The GHMC had directed the parties to remit an amount of Rs.8,24,38,220l- towards building permit fees, development charges, irnpact f'ee etc. The Company along with others had deposited an amount of Rs.2,78,72,820/- and Rs.1,43,5 1,780/-. Thereafter, the Cornpany had backed out the project due to n on-feasibility.

¶171

Thereaficr. the Cornpany had submitted an application 06.08.2018 seeking building permission and the GHMC had accorded the sane on 26.02.2016 seeking building permission and the GHMC had accorded the same on 21.07.2016 for construction of Ground + First Floor lor the pulpose of construction of Function Hall. Thereafter, the Company had submitted another application dated 06.08.2018 seeking

¶172

¶173

Kl.,l . lt.l'.,'t.t.3612 ctl 2{))I &^h,tLtlt

¶174

revised building^{permissionand the GHMC vide proceedingsdated} 1 1.09.2019 had accorded^{permission for construction of 1 Cellar+ Stilt +} 6 Upper Floors in^{favourof the Companyfor the purpose of runninga} Hotel. According to^{the Company, pursuant to the said permitdated} I I .09.201 9, it^{had completedthe construction of Cellar + Stilt + 2 Upper} Floors and the construction^{is taken placeoveran extent of 2200 square} yards approximately out^{of the total extent.It is also relevantto notethat} according to the^{companythoughin the documentsit was mentioned as} 7528 square^{yards, physically the land availableis only 7167 squale} yards. The Company is^{making constructionin the land adtneasurit]g} 2200 square^{yards onlypursuant to the building peflnitdated11.09.2019.}

¶175

It is also^{relevantto note that the Company has specifically} contended that as^{per the averments of the vendors of unolficial} respondents in O.S.^{No.489of 2011, the Vendors of the unofficial} respondents are the^{owners of the land admeasuringAcs'1 '37 guntas} which is equivalent to^{9317 square yards. The Companyis in the} physical possession ofan^{extentof7167square yards only' According to} the Company, its^{propetyis nothingto do with the property claimedby} the unofficial respondents.^{316square yards of land belongs to it was} encroached by the^{third parties.Thus, there are disputes between the} Company and the^{unofficial respondentswithregard to the saidproperty'} During the pendency of^{the above suit proceedingsincluding O'S'} No.258 of 2017 and^{the statusquo order in C.R.P. No'483 of 2019, both} the company and the^{unofficial respondents have submitted applications}

¶176

¶177

KL,J tV.P. No.86l2 of202l & batch

¶178

¶179

seeking permission for construction. The GHMC has issued proceedings dated I 1.09.2019 in favour of the Company for construction of I Ceilar + Stilt + 6 Upper Floors for the purpose of running a Hotel. The application submitted by the unofficial respondents was retumed unapproved without any sanction vide proceedings dated 05.03.2021 on the ground that as per inspection, their land is within the sanction plan of GRT vide building llle No. l/C30/1506612018 and pennit No.1/C30/13642/2019. The land claimed by the Company and the unofficial respondents is in the very same survey numb er viz., Sy.Nos.53/5 and 89/1. The unofficial respondents clairn right over 1000 square yards or 836 square meters in the premises bearing No.l-11-250, whereas the Company is claiming that it is owner of the land admeasuring 7528 square yards (physically available area is 7167 square yards). 1'hus, there are cornplicated questions of fact including the title dispute and identification of property etc. On the complaints made by the Company and the unofficial respondents, the GHMC had conducted hearing and passed orders dated 04.05.2021 and decided to initiate the proceedings under Section - 450 of the HMC Act, 1955. In the said proceedings, the GHMC has considered the entire facts, documents and rival contentions. It is a detailed order consists of 26 pages. The GHMC had also consideled rhe fact that the Company had purchased the land in the year 2006, whereas the unofficial respondents had purchased the land in the year 1993 from the very same land owner. The unofficial respondents are not parties to the earlier suits which were compromised

¶180

¶181

KL,J W.P. No.86l2 of2021 & batch

¶182

by the Company with Mr. Bathula Yadagiri and others. In the impugned proceedings, dated 04/05.05 .2021 , the GHMC has specifically mentioned the reasons for taking steps to cancel the building permission that there are certain disputes over the property in Court of law prior to granting of building permission vide permit No. 1 /C30/1 36 4212019, dated 1 1 .09.20 I 9 in File No.1/C3011506612018; that the subject nlatter pertains ro over lapping of the plot; and that the Company and others had obtained the building permission duly suppression of facts regarding pendency of suits in O.S. No.258 of 2017 and CRP No.483 ol 20 l9 and CMA No.l9 ol' 2018 and the same were not brought to the notice of GHMC while obtaining building permission. With the said findings, the GHMC had decided to initiate action for cancellation of the building permission under Section - 450 of the HMC Act, 1955 for suppression of facts. Pursuant to the same, the GHMC had issued show-cause notice dated 04.05.2021 under Section - 450 of the HMC Act, 1955 requesting the Company to submit its explanation within sevcn (07) days.

¶183

As discussed above, the suit filed by the r.rnofficial respondents vide O.S. No.258 of 2017 is fbr declaration and perpetual injunction. Status quo order dated 17.04.2019 in I.A. No.l of 2019 in C-'.R.P. No.483 of 2019 was ordered by this Couft for a period of two months. The said CRP is pending and the said status qtto order is not extended. The said facts were not brought to the notice of the GHMC ivhile the Company submitting the revised application dated 06.08.201 8 seeking permission for construction of 1 Cellar + Stilt + 6 Upper Floors for the purpose of

¶184

¶185

KL,J ll.P. No.86l2 of2021 & bqtch

¶186

running a hotel. By the date ol filing the said application dated 06.08.2018 by the Company, the said suit O.S. No.258 of 2017 is pending. It is also relevant to note that the learned I Junior Civil Judge, Secrrnderabad, had granted status quo on 03.05.20i7 in I.A.^No.23 I of 2017 in O.S. No.258 of 2017, and the said I.A.^was dismissed on 17.04.2018. Thereafter, the unofficial respondents have^{filed an appeal} vide C.M.A. No.19 of 2018 and the same was allowed on 13.11.2018. Thus, as on the date of application dated 06.08.2018 submitted^{by the} Company seeking revised building permission, the said^{proceedings are} pending. The said f-acts were not disclosed by the Company in the said application dated 06.08.20 18. AII the said aspects were considered by the GHMC in the hearing order dated 04105.05.2021. Pursuant to the hearing ordel and pulsuant to the decision taken by the GHMC to initiate proceedings under Scction - 450 of the HMC Act, 1955 for cancellation of the building perrnission dated I 1.09.2019 on the ground of suppression and misrepresentation of facts, the GHMC had issued showcause notice dated 04.05.2021 to the Company requesting it to submit its explanation within seven (07) days. Challenging he said show-cause notice, the Cornpany has filed W.P. No.12858 of 2021.

¶187

Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned senior counsel, referring to various judgrnents including the proceedings, the GHMC had already cone to a conclusion that there is suppression of facts and decided to initiate ploceedings under Section - 450 of the HMC Act, 1955 vide hearing order clated 04/05.05.2021 , W.P. No. 12858 of 2021^is

¶188

¶189

W.P. No.86l2 of 2021 & barch

¶190

maintainable. The show-cause^{notice dated 04.05.202 Iissued undei} Section - 450 of the HMC^{Act is only a procedural one and it wasissued} on the strength of hearing order^{dated 04105.05.2021,wherein the GHMC} has made up its mind to initiate the^{proceedings under Section - 450 ol} the HMC Act, 1955. Therefore,^{W.P. No. 12858 ol202l is maintainable.} Whereas, Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha,^{learned cottnsel representing Mr.} B. Jithender, learned counsel for^{the unofficial respondents, would} submit that ordinarily writ^petition does^{not lie against show-cause notice} for the reason that it does not^give rise^{any causeof action and it does not} amount to an adverse order^{which affect the right of party unless the} same has been issued by a^person having^{no jurisdiction / competency to} do so. In fact, show-cause notice does^{not infringethe right of a party.} Even then, the Company instead of^{submittingthe explanation to the} show-cause notice dated 04.05.2021^{filed the above writ petitions.}

¶191

As discussed above, the GHMC^{has passed the hearing order} dated 04/05.05 .2021 on consideration^{of entire lactsincluding the written} submissions / explanation submitted^{by the parties and after conducting} hearing. It is a detailed and reasoned order.^{As statedabove, thereis} suppression of fact that^pendency of^{suit in O.S.No.258 of 2017 and} orders passed in I.A. No.23 1 of 2017 in^{O.S. No.258 of 2017, CMA} No.19 of 2018 and CRP No.483 of 2019.^{There are severaldisputed} questions of facts which are complicated in nature.^{Further, thereis} dispute with regard to the boundaries,^{extent and identification of} property etc. Neither the GHMC, nor this Court^{under Article - 226 of}

¶192

¶193

KL,J W.P. No.86l2 of2021 & batch

¶194

the Constitution of India has power to decide the same. When the Company subrnitted buitding permission application during pendency of O.S. No. 258 of 20i7, the same was rejected by the GHMC on 05.03.2021. The Company had made revised application dated 06.08.2018 with the GHMC by suppressing the said fact. Therefore, the GHMC has ri b htly passed the hearing order dated 04105.05,2021 and had rightly issued Show-cause notice dated 04.05.202 l.

¶195

Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned senior counsel, would subrnit that in the apptication format, there is no column with regard to mentioning of pendency of cases. In view of the same, this Court directed the leamed Standing Counsel appearing for GHMC to produce copy of the format. In the said format, there is column^..others,,. The purpose of mentioning the said column is to rnention any other parliculars including pendency of case proceedings etc. The Company has not mentioned about pendency of said case in O.S. No.258 of 2017 and, therefore, the Company cannot contend that there is no column in the format. Thus, there is no error in the proceedings dated 05.05.2021 issued by the GHMC rejecting the application submitted by the unofficial respondents and there is also no error in issuing the show-cause notice dated 04.05.2021 to the Company under.section - 450 of the HMC Act, requesting it to subrnit explanation within seven (07) days. There is also no error in the hearing order dated 04/05.05.2021passed by the GHMC.

¶196

¶197

KI,,J W.P. No.86l2 of2021 & barch

¶198

In view of the above said discussion,^{boththe Companyand} the unofficial respondents^instead of^{waiting tbr outcomeof the} proceedings in O.S. No.258 of 2017 made^{the applications.}

¶199

i) Therefore, W.P. No.8612 of^{2021 filed by Mr. K. Gopiand} another is dismissed^{grantingliberty to them to make freshapplicationon} conclusion of proceedings in O.S.^{No.258 of 2017.}

¶200

ii) W.P. No.13748 of 2021 filed by^{M/s. G.R. ThangaMaligai} Private Limited & GRT Hotels &^{ResortsPrivate Limitedis dismissed.}

¶201

iii) However, W.P. Nos.12858 of²⁰² I^{filed by M/s. G.R.'Ihanga} Maligai Private Limited & GRT^{Hotels & ResofisPrivateLirnited,is} disposed of granting liberty to it to^{submit their explanation to the show-} cause notice 04.05.2021. issued by^{respondent Nos.2 to 4 - GHMCunder} Section - 450 of HMC Act. The^{respondentNos.2 to 4 - GHMCshalt} consider the said explanation to be submitted^{by the Companyandpass} appropriate orders in accordance with law^{putting the Companyand} unofficial respondents on notice and affording^{them an opporrunity of} hearing. The respondent Nos.2 to 4^- GHMC^{shall serve a copy olorder} on the Company as well as unofflcial respondents.

¶202

iv) In the circumstances of the case. there^{shallbe no order as to}

¶203

costs.

¶204

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,^pending in^the Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶205

¶206

SD/-T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// Cn)

¶207

SECTION OFFICER

¶208

To,

¶209

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA and UD) Dept., State of Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Hyderabad, Tank Bunk, Hyderabad.

¶210