Disposed

Smt. Sabera Begum v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Feb 2025WP/2897/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A house owner's building permit was revoked by the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC without notice. The Court held that only the Commissioner is competent to revoke deemed approvals under TS-bPASS rules, set aside the revocation order, and allowed GHMC fresh action after notice and hearing.

What did the court decide?

Revocation letter dated 13.09.2022 set aside; GHMC may take fresh action after notice and hearing within four weeks.

Smt. Sabera Begum Vs The State of Telangana — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

IVONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2897 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Sabera Begum, W/o Mr. Omer Bin Fatha, Aged about 50^years, Occ; Housewife, Ri/o H.No.10-1-11231, AC Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-

¶12

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Having its office of Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, GHI/C, Circle No.17, Khairatabad Zone, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶14

The Zonal Commissioner, GHtr/C, Circle No.17, Khairatabad Zone, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶15

The Assistant City Planner, GHMC, Circle No.17, Khairatabad Zone, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High-Ciiurt may be pleased to issue any Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 issuing Revocation Letter vide Lr.No.199913/GHMC/ 1609612022 dated 13.09.2022 over Petiiioner's property bearing H.No.6-2-122 /A, admeasuring 20 Sq. yards, situated at Bistiwada, A.C. Guards, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner, inspite of obtaining construction permission vide Application No.1 9991 3/GHMC/ 1 6096/2O22 dated

¶18

10-08-2022 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles. of natural justice besides violation of GHMC Act and Rules therein also violatioh of Article 14, 300A of Constitution of lndia, and consequently set aside. the lRevocation Letter vide Lr.No. 1 9991 3/cH[/C/1 6096/2022 dated 1 3.O9.2022 issued by the Respondent No.3 in respect of Petitioner's property bearing H.No.6-2-1221A, admeasuring 20 Sq. yards, situated at Bistiwada, A.C. Guards, Khairtabad,^-lyderabad.

¶19

l.A.NO:1 OF 202s

¶20

Petition Undr-'r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoJrt may be pleased to suspend the Revocation Letter vide Lr.No. 199913/GHM,l/160961 2022 dated 13.09.2022 issued by the Respondent No.3 in respect of Petitioner's property bearing H.No.6-2-1:22 /A, admeasuring 20 Sq. yards, situated at Bistiwada, A.C. Guards, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, by directing the Respondenls not to interfere into the constructic n activities of the Petitioner over the above said property, without following due process of law, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN r\ND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 : SRI M.ARUN KUt\tAR, SC FOR GHMC

¶24

The Court made th€, following ORDER

¶25

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶27

WRIT PEIITION No.2897 of 2o25

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5. perused the record.

¶30

Petitioner is claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.6-2-122/A, admeasuring 20 Sq. yards, situated at Bistiwada, A.C.Guards, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, on the strength of a registered gift deed bearing document No.356g of 1990, dated 25.O9.1990. She has obtained building permit order, dated 1O.O8.2O22 for construction of ground floor + 1 upper floor and started construction over the subject property. In the meanwhile, respondent No.3 has issued revocation letter, dated L3.O!.2O22 vrithout issuing any notice or without grving any opportunit5r to submit explanation to the petitioner. He

¶31

KL,J W.l'.No.2897 of 2025

¶32

¶33

has revoked the permission stating that proposed road widening was not shown. Aggrieved by the said action of respondent No.3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶34

Respondent No.3 has issued revocatior letter, dated 13.O9.2022 on the following grounds:

¶35

"...The minimum uidth of the approach road is 9 mtrs and tle applicant has not mentioned the road aJ.feded area in tle application. The plot dtmensions/ plot area are not tallging with the submitted ounership ,locuments/ as speciJied in the TS-bPASS application form."

¶36

Respondent No.3 has no power or jlrrisdicition to issue revocation letter, dated 13.09.2022 and revoke the building permit order granted to the petitioner.

¶37

Section 7 of the Telangana State Quilding

¶38

Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TSbPASS) Act, 2020 deals with 'approval of building permissions'and the sarne is relevant whic.h is extracted as rihder:

¶39

KL,J W.P.No.2897 of 2025

¶40

¶41

"7. (t)

¶42

(21 (3) (4) (s) (6) (7) (8) (e) (10)

¶43

(11) The permission issued under deemed clause can be revoked by the commissioner within 21 days from the date of deemed approva-l if it is found that deemed approval has been obtained by mis-representation of the facts or false statements, and/or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions."

¶44

Section 450 in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 deals wittr Power of Commissioner to cancel permission on the ground of material misrepresentation by applicant and the same is relevant which is extracted as under:

¶45

"If at ang time afier permission to proceed uith any building or work tLas been giuen, the Commi-ssioner is sati"sfied that such permi.ssion

¶46

KL,J W.l).No.2897 of 2025

¶47

¶48

was granted in consequence of anu mateial misrepresentation or fraudulent stdtement contained in the notice giuen or ilLfonnation fumished^{under section 428 or 433 or in the} further^{information if any,} furni.shed,^{he mag} cdncel such permi.ssion and ang u,ork done thereunder shall be deemed to haue been. done witltout his permission. "

¶49

Rule 72 (uii) of the Telangand Stcte Building Pertnissic,n Approoal and Self Certifico:tion Sgstem IIS-bPASS/^{Rules,2O2O (hereina-fter referred to as the} Rules, 2O2O) says that the permission issued under deemed clause can be revoked by the Competent Authority within 21 days from the datr: of deemed approval rvithout any notice, if it is found that deemed approval tras been obtained by misrepreserrtation of the facts or false statements, and / or against the building rules, regulations and Master Plan land use provisions.

¶50

KL,J W.P.No.2897 of 2O25

{ I I I l l

I I

t' ,

Rule 2 (ot) of the Rules, 2O2O deals^with 'Com4tetent^{Authorttg'and it means the Commi3sioner,} Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

¶58

¶59

¶60

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for^{GHMC, on} instructions, would submit that the^{Commissioner,} Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,^Hyderabadis the competent authority to revoke the building^permit order and there is no delegation of^power to the^Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, respondent No.3 has no^power or amthority to issue revocation order. The Commissioner, GHMC is the competent authority to pass^revocation orders.

¶61

It is also opt to note that on the aforesaid^ground, respondent No.3 cannot revoke the building permit^order.

¶62

Viewed from any angle, the impugned^revocation order dated L3.O}.2O22 is liable to be pet aside^ald accordingly it is set aside. However, liberty is^{granted to} respondent No.2 to initiate fresh action, strictlyⁱⁿ

¶63

¶64

KL,J W.F.No.2897 of 2025

¶65

¶66

accordance with the procedure laid down under the GHMC Ac1., 1955, by putting the petitioner (ln notice and affording her an opportunity of hearing. He sha_ll complete the entire exercise within four (04) weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.

¶67