Partly allowed

Omer Hussain Barzaiq v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Oct 2022WP/29240/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the cancellation of building permission. Court held that pendency of writ petitions alone is not a ground to cancel permission under Section 176(9). Set aside order and directed respondent to examine if disclosure of pending litigation was required.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.11.2021 set aside. Respondent No. 3 directed to issue notice and examine disclosure requirements under Section 176(9) of GHMC Act within six weeks. Status quo maintained.

Omer Hussain Barzaiq Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERAtsAD} (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29240 OF 202'l

¶7

Between:

¶8

Omer Hussain Barzaiq, S/o. Hussain Bin Ahmod Barzaiq, Aged about. 28 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1B-10-2731C11 , Barkas, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

The Jalpally Municipality, Represented by its Commissioner, at Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

Khalid Bin Ahmed Bakoban S/o. Ahmed Bin Ali, Bakoban, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 18-11- 413, Barkas, Hyderabad.

¶15

Rafiq Ahmed, S/o. Shaik Ahmed,, Aged about 63 yedrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 19-3-425/8/2, Jahanuma Char, Chaman Masjid, Bhadurpura.

¶16

Respondent Nos.4 & 5 are impleaded as per Court Order daled 2011012022 in l.A. Nos. 2 o't 2021 & I of 2022 respectively.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in canceling the permission granted to the petitioner vide proceeding . No. Lr.G11003912021 , dated 1011112021 as illegal, arbitrary, un- reasonable unconstitutional, in breach of principles of natural justice and set-aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 not to demolish the compound wall and two rooms constructed by the petitioner after obtaining the permission.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the Highcourtmay be pleasedto} suspend the^{proceedingNo Lr.G 1/0039120210daled1o11112021passed by the} Respondent No.31^{and direct the respondent No. 3 not to demolish the compound} wall and two rooms^{constructed by the petitioner after obtainingthe permission.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI MOHD. IMRAN KHAN,Sr' COUNSEL REP'FOR} SRI. GOVIND REDDY KONTHAM

¶22

counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FORMUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: GP FORREVENUE}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.3: SRIN. PRAVEEN KUMAR,}

¶25

S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.4& 5: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR}

¶27

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶28

rION' BLE SM 1" .IU S'I'I(]I.] t,A I-I'[I IA KAN N E(;ANTI

¶29

WRIT PE'II'IION No.292'10 of 2021

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is flled seeking the tbllowing relief:

¶32

" ... to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in canceling the permission granted to the petitioner vide proceeding No.Lr.C 1/00:19l2021, dated 70.17.2027 as illegal, arbitrary, un- reasonable unconstitu tio nal, in breach of principles of natural justice and set-aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 not to demolish the compound wall and two rooms constructed by thc petitioner after obtaining the permission..."

¶33

Sri Mohd. Imran Khan, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Govind Reddy Kontham, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 3'd respondent has issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 1 8. 10.202 I to show-cause why the building permission should not be cancelled/revoked within 7 days, as the petitioner has suppressed the pending A.S.No.45 of 2Ql9 before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Learned senior counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply stating that the vendor of the petitioner has f,rled a suit for injunction against the unofficial respondents and the said suit was decreed and thereafter, they preferred an appeal and in the said appeal, the judgment and decree of the Court below was suspended. Questioning that, they filed

¶34

¶35

a c.R-P. and rhe said c.R.p. was disposed of and the appcar is pending ad-f udicarior. r-earned senior counsel submits that the petitio,er has purchased the properly on 17.0r.2020 and the appeal itself is of the year 2019. As the petitioner is not aware of the pending appeal, it cannot be said that the petitioner by suppressing the fact has obtained the permissio.. He submits that thereafter the order impugned dated l 0. l I .202 I came to be passed solely on the sround that w.P.No.26335 of 2021 and w.p.No.26539 of 2o2r are per-rding before this court. Llence, the 3'd respondent has directed the petitioner to stop the work and maintain status quo tilr further orders issued by the Municipality and cancelled the permission. It is also srated in the impugned order rhat it will be re-examined after the rinat judgment received from the High Court. He submits that W.p.No.26335 of 2o2l is filed by the 4th respondent herein seeking a direction to dispose of the representation filed by him, whereas as w.p.No.26539 of 202r was disposed of by this court on 17 .0g.2022 with a direction to the 3'd respondent to consider the representation of the 5rl, respondent herein dated rr.r0.2oz1. As relief that is sought in w.P.No.26539 of 202r seeking to consider the representation which

¶36

¶37

I I

¶38

was basing on the submission made by tl.re learned standing counsel and that already his representation was disposed ot' and the order which is impugned in this writ petition is passed. l-earned senior counseI submits that basing on these grounds the Municipal Commissioner cannot revoke the permission. l-he only porver vested with the Municipal Commissioner is to revoke the buitding permission is under Section 176(9) ol the GI-IMC Acr. It is subrnited that nothing has been stated either in the show-cause noticc or in t[-re order impugned that how the pending litigation amounts to suppression of facts. When the petitioner has categorically mentioned that he has no knowledge about the said pending suit and the petitioner is not a party to the said suit, it cannot be said the petitioner suppressing the fact has obtained the building permission.

¶39

Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, submits that under Section 176(9) of the GHMC Act, if the permission is obtained by suppression or m is-representation of facts, the Commissioner has the authority to cancel the permission. I-Ie submits that the petitioner has suppressed pendency of the suit and

¶40

¶41

obtained the building permission. I_{ence, the 3.d respondent has rightll, cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner.

¶42

Sri Ch..lagannatha Rao, Iearned standing counsel, submits that he vvill come up with a detailed counter_affidavit.

¶43

On the lact of it, the order impugned dated 10.11.202 I is unsustainable. Because, the building permission of the petitioner is revoked solely orr the grour.rd of pending writ petitions and that cannot be a ground available to the respondent Municipality to cancel the building permission' In that view of the matter, the order dated 10. 11.202 I is set aside and the 3.d respondent shall issue a notice to the petitioner and should arso examine on the aspect whether in the application filed for buirding permission there is any requirement to disclose rhe pending litigation cases in the light of Section 176(g) of the GHMC Act. After considering explanation of the petitioner, the 3'd respondent shall pass appropriate orders. Tilr such time, the respondents sr-rall not interfere with the petitioner,s building as weil as the petitioner shall not carry out any construction till the final orders are passed. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of

¶44

¶45

six r,vceks from the date of receipt ol a copy oI this order

¶46

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed oL No ordcr as to c()sts.

¶47

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/- K. AM JI ASSISTANT REGI R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶54

The District Collector. Ranga Reddy District.

¶55

The Commissioner, Jalpally Municipality, at Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District 4. One CC to SRI GOVIND REDDY KONTHAM, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶56

One CC to SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S.C. for Municipalities [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies.

¶57

One Spare Copy
MP
GIPN--'/2

i l I li

HIGH COURT

DATED:2711012022

lt S -r,1 fa:
J
o,) 24 llr"]! ?m .<br>-L .-=./e'i:r':t/
ORDER

¶63

WP.No.29240 of 2021

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

Omer Hussain Barzaiq v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omer Hussain Barzaiq v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Lamd Mark Developers Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Surya Rao Voora Vs State of Telangana

Sri Mekala Ramakrishnudu Vs The State of Telangana

Mudavath Radhakrishna and another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

M/s. Surabhi Farms Vs The State of Telengana

T. Madaru Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others