Material misrepresentation in obtaining a building permit justifies cancellation under Section 450 of the GHMC Act.

ORDER :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Satwik Makunur, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sheelam Ashok Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

2. According to the petitioner, his father had purchased land admeasuring Ac.2.37 guntas in Sy.No.53 situated at Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1829 of 1969, dated 12.09.1969. His father’s vendors purchased the said property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.1752 of 1967 dated 06.05.1967. His father was the absolute owner and possessor of the said property. Respondents 2 to 5 are his sisters. Thereafter, his father had executed a will deed dated 29.12.1999 in favour of the petitioner to an extent of 4461 sq.yards out of the said property and deposited the said will deed in a sealed cover with the District Registrar. Thus, on the strength of the said will deed, the petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of 4461 sq.yards of land. (for short, ‘the subject property’).

3. He has submitted an application with 1^st respondent/GHMC on 25.08.2014 seeking permission for construction of a building. During the pendency of the said application, his sister had filed a suit vide O.S.No.301 of 2016 (old O.S.No.101/2016) against the petitioner, his mother and sisters seeking partition, separate possession of the suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘D’ properties, injunction and also to declare the said will deed as null and void. Thereafter, 6^th respondent M/s Orange Avenues, etc., also impleaded in the said suit. She has also filed two Interlocutory Applications vide I.A.Nos.801 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction and I.A.No.957 of 2016, to restrain the petitioner and others in developing or raising any construction over the suit schedule properties. The said applications were allowed vide common judgment dated 15.11.2017.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said common judgment, dated 15.11.2017, mother of the petitioner had filed CMA No.35 of 2018, 6^th respondent had filed CMA No.36 of 2018 and 2^nd respondent had filed CMA No.81 of 2018. During the pendency of the said appeals, parties have reached to an understanding. Considering the said understanding, vide common judgment dated 31.10.2018, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeals with certain directives.

5. Thereafter, 1^st respondent has granted building permit order dated 21.04.2020 in favour of the petitioner for construction of two cellars for parking, ground + 4 Upper Floors for office over the subject property. As per the said building permit order, the petitioner has to commence construction on or before 20.10.2021 and complete the same on or before 20.04.2026. According to the petitioner, the construction was accordingly commenced and completed, and some portions are let out, lessees running commercial establishments.

6. While the matter stood thus, on the complaint lodged by 2^nd respondent had lodged a complaint to 1^st respondent alleging that the petitioner had obtained the said building permit order dated 21.04.2020 by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. Basing on the said complaint, 1^st respondent had issued a show cause notice dated 10.03.2022 under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the GHMC Act’) to the petitioner proposing to cancel the said building permit order on the ground that writ petitioner has obtained the said building permit by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts.

7. Challenging the said show cause notice dated 10.03.2022, the petitioner has filed writ petition vid