Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Smt. Lalitha Srikrish & others - Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.16456 OF 2021
Decided On : 17-01-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Writ petition - Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A - TS b-PASS Act, 2020 - Section 7(11) - GHMC Act, 1955 - Section 428, 433, 450 - Petitioners previously applied for building permissions - Building permissions were granted separately in respect of said plots and work commencement letters were issued - Respondent observed that documents submitted by Petitioners are suspicious and a civil suit is pending - Respondent kept building applications in abeyance temporarily - Respondent has no power to withhold building permissions - It can only grant or refuse permissions; it cannot keep permissions in abeyance – Respondents contends noting pendency of civil litigation between parties, a hearing was conducted which was attended by both parties/their representatives - Verification of documents submitted by parties raised suspicions regarding their genuineness - Sale deeds of Petitioners are fabricated - Whether Petitioners have suppressed pendency of O.S. - Whether Respondent has power to pass impugned order by keeping applications seeking building permissions in abeyance - Whether 7(11) of TS b-PASS Act, 2020 bars Respondent to revoke or keep permission in abeyance after expiry of 21 days from date of deemed approval.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioners cannot contend that since only revised applications were filed, pending suit was not disclosed - Once an application is made including a revised application seeking building permission all relevant documentation and relevant facts are to be filed and disclosed - Petitioner filed suit which was prior to filing of revised building permissions - Petitioners were aware of said suit filed by themselves, but did not disclose same - Non-disclosure of O.S. amounts suppression of material fact - It was further contended by Petitioners that intimation letter was vague as details of suppression/misrepresentation were not mentioned - Said contention cannot be accepted as order clearly mentions that on account of pendency of O.S. said order was passed - As said suit was filed by Petitioners themselves, they cannot claim that notice did not specify details of suppression/ misrepresentation - Section 7 (11) of T.S. b-PASS Act, 2020 does not employ mandatory language - It only states that authorities can revoke deemed approvals within 21 days - Provision does not make it imperative for authorities to revoke permissions only within 21 days from dated of deemed approvals - Further, TS b-PASS Act, 2020 does not state that non-compliance of 21-day period under Section 7 (11) leads to any consequence - Time-limit of 21 days under Section 7 (11) is directory and not mandatory - Interpretation of Section 7 (11) that after lapse of 21 days deemed approvals cannot be revoked is incorrect - Section 7 (11) being directory cannot be interpreted in a way which restricts power of authorities to take action against people obtaining permissions by making false declarations, suppressing material facts and misrepresentations.
Result: Writ petition disposed of
ORDER :
The present writ petition is filed seeking a direction against Respondent No.3 in keeping the revised permissions in File Nos. TS/00432/2021 (Plot Nos. 58 to 60), TS/000433/2021 (Plot Nos. 61 to 63), TS/ 000735/2021 (Plot Nos. 87 to 89 Part) and TS/000793/2021 (Plot Nos. 89 Part to 91) temporarily in abeyance and not releasing the same in spite of representation dated 22.05.2021 to Respondent No.3 and representation dated 17.6.2021 to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.Further, the proceedings dated 10.05.2021 vide Lr. No.G1/TPS/Secbad Zone/2021 is challenged as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. A consequential direction is sought against the Respondent authorities to forthwith release the Plans in the above said Files and without reference to the representations 20.04.2021 and 21.04.2021 and in the light of the Orders dated 01/06/2021 passed by the XVI Addl. District Judge, Malkajgiri in I.A. No.59 of 2021 in O.S. No.13 of 2021.
2. Heard Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Vijay B. Paropakari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Mr. Chatla Madhu, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr. R. Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. K. Mohan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8.
3. Facts of the case
(ii) According to the Petitioners, they had previously applied for building permissions in respect of Plot Nos.58 to 63, 82, 87 to 91. Building permissions were granted separately in respect of the said plots on 29.11.2020 and work commencement letters were issued on 15.12.2020 and 14.12.2020.
(iii) However, on various dates i.e., 18.02.2021, 08.03.2021 and 10.03.2021, the Petitioners filed revised applications for building permissions in respect of Plot Nos.58 to 63 and Plot Nos. 87 to 91. In respect of the revised applications, fee intimation letters dated 15.04.2021 were issued for payment. The Petitioners paid various amounts to the tune of Rs.34,26,397/- and executed a registered mortgage deed dated 16.04.2021 as required under the GHMC Act, 1955.
(iv) While the matters stood thus, Respondent No.3 received complaints dated 20.04.2021 and 21.04.2021 from Respondent No.4. In his complaint, Respondent No.4 claimed to be the absolute owner of Plot Nos. 58 to 63 and stated that the permissions granted in favour of the Petitioners are illegal as O.S. No.13 of 2021between the parties is pending.
(v) Pursuant to the said complaints, an intimation letter No.G1/223/TPS/Secbad zone/GHMC/2021 dated 05.05.2021 was issued by Respondent No.3 calling Petitioner No.6 and Respondent No.4 to attend a personal hearing on 06.05.2021. The parties were heard and Respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 10.05.2021.
(vi) In the said impugned order, Respondent No.3 observed that the documents submitted by the Petitioners and Respondent No.4 are suspicious and a civil suit is pending between the parties. Therefore, Respondent No.3 kept the building applications in abeyance temporarily.
(vii) The Petitioners submitted representations dated 22.05.2021 and 17.06.2021 to the Respondent authorities requesting them to pass orders on revised building applications dated 18.02.2021, 08.03.2021 and 10.03.2021.
(viii) Hence, this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 10.05.2021.
4. Contentions of the Petitioners
(ii) The Petitioners applied for revised building permissions and after verification of the submitted documents, plans and site inspections, fee intimation letters dated 15.04.2021 were issu
Point of Law; Time-limit of 21 days under Section 7 (11) is directory and not mandatory. The interpretation of Section 7 (11) that after the lapse of 21 days deemed approvals cannot be revoked is inc....
Building permits obtained through misrepresentation can be revoked by the Commissioner, emphasizing the necessity for truthful declarations in property disputes.
Building permission must be obtained with full disclosure of all relevant facts, including pending litigation; failure to do so constitutes misrepresentation under Section 450 of the GHMC Act.
: Commercial construction – Petitioner has no indefeasible right of deemed permission merely on plea of expiry of sixty days period.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
