Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 600
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Sri. G. Chenna Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No.16850 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G RAVINDAR
For the Respondent: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV
The High Court emphasized that complex factual disputes regarding property ownership and permit status are to be resolved by designated administrative bodies, not through judicial review.
Headnote:(A) Telangana State Building Permission Approval and Self Certification System (TS-bPASS) Act, 2020 - Section 18 - GHMC Act, 1955 - Building permit cancellation - Petitioners alleged ownership and proper compliance for construction permits; however, permit was canceled due to misrepresentation regarding land use as open space. Court held that disputed factual matters must be resolved by the District Level Committee, not in Writ under Article 226. (Paras 2-12)
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - The Court can consider certain factual aspects in writ petitions only, not complicated/serious disputed questions of fact. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners owned property and obtained a building permit but faced cancellation due to allegations of misrepresentation regarding the land's status. Previous orders mandated further hearings before any final decisions. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The impugned cancellation order was valid as proper procedures were followed and notice was given, confirming jurisdictional authority. (Paras 7-8)
Issues: Whether the property was misrepresented as residential rather than open space and jurisdictionity of the GHMC in the cancellation process. (Paras 4, 8, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The contested realities and ownership must be addressed by a designated District Committee rather than through judicial review in this instance. The High Court limits its role to non-disputed factual determinations. (Paras 11-12)
Result: Writ petition disposed of; petitioners permitted to seek remedy with District Level Committee.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership claimed by petitioner. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. legality of building permit challenged. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding misrepresentation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. disputed factual questions; jurisdictional limits. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. remedy through district level committee. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. petitioner's liberty to approach for review. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
(K. LAKSHMAN, J.)
Heard Sri Jelli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Ravindar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. 1st petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot bearing No.19 admeasuring 874 square yards in Survey No.7 Part, Ward No.11, Block No.13, situated at Green Hills Colony (New Green Hills Colony), Saroornagar Village and Revenue Mandal, under GHMC L.B.Nagar Circle, on the strength of a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.3992 of 2018 dated 21.07.2018. He has obtained building permit order dated 13.11.2018 for construction of Stilt + 5 Floors over the subject property. 1st petitioner has entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing Document No.370 of 2019 dated 22.01.2019 with 2nd petitioner. According to the petitioners, they have completed the construction strictly in accordance with the said building permit order dated 13.11.2018.
3. On the complaint lodged by Green Hills Residential Association, 3rd respondent has issued show cause notice dated 17.10.2019 to the petitioners herein alleging that they have obtained the aforesaid building permit order by way of misrepresentation/suppression of facts. Petitioners have submitted reply.
4. Perusal of record would reveal that 3rd respondent has issued notice dated 07.08.2019 to the petitioners herein stating that they have encroached into land belongs to Khilla Maisamma Temple. They tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject property and construction being carried out by the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid building permit order. Therefore, petitioners have filed four writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.17887, 25849, 26759 and 26797 of 2019 to declare letter dated 07.08.2019 addressed by 3rd respondent to petitioners as illegal; to declare notice dated 17.10.2019 issued by Deputy City Planner, L.B. Nagar Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad, as illegal; to set aside letter dated 22.11.2019 disposing of reply dated 18.11.2019 by 3rd respondent and to set aside notice dated 18.11.2019 issued under Section 450 of GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT , 1955 (for short ‘GHMC Act’), respectively. Vide common order dated 15.03.2021, this Court set aside order dated 18/19.11.2019 passed by Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad, 2nd respondent herein, and remanded the matter back to the official respondents to pass orders afresh duly taking into consideration the reply dated 18.11.2019 submitted by petitioners. Before passing orders, the authorities shall put all the parties on notice and afford them an opportunity of hearing. Petitioners, if they are so advised, are also permitted to file additional documents or bring to the notice of the authorities subsequent events which may weigh with the authorities. GHMC is free to take the representation made by Green Hills Residential Association stating that they would like to withdraw the original complaint made to GHMC on the basis of which show cause notice was issued and consequential orders were passed which are impugned in the aforesaid writ petitions.
5. Perusal of record also would reveal that thereafter 3rd respondent has issued a show cause notice alleging that petitioners have obtained building permit order by way of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. 3rd respondent has also issued order dated 17.02.2023 cancelling the subject building permit order. Challenging the said order, petitioners have filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.5696 of 2023. Vide order dated
