Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1420
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN, J.
Ladella Ravinder - Appellant
Vs.
The Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5197 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 33921 of 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2025
Important Points
Subject
Building and Construction Law - Municipal Law
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.120(b), S.34, S.420, S.467, S.468, S.471, S.474
Headnote
(B) Appeals - Maintainability of review petitions under Section 114 of the CPC - The court held that a review petition is not maintainable if an appeal remedy exists, reinforcing procedural requirements. (Paras 9(ii), 10(ii))
(C) Fraud - The principle that fraud vitiates all - The court acknowledged that fraud can invalidate orders but emphasized proper legal channels must be pursued to prove such claims. (Paras 9(iii), 10(iii))
Facts of the case:
The case involves disputes between neighbors regarding building permits issued for properties in proximity, leading to conflicts over unauthorized constructions and rightful ownership documentation. The petitioner sought redress after being served notices related to alleged deviations from building permits, while the respondent claimed the petitioner was misrepresenting facts to encroach upon their property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order issued by municipality was appealable under the Act and granted the petitioner the liberty to appeal. The review application of the respondent was deemed non-maintainable, and the preceding orders were upheld.
Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner deviated from the permit and if the GWMC acted within legal parameters. It also considered the legitimacy of the review petition and the framework of fraud as a defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that alternative appeal routes must be utilized instead of writ petitions when available and reiterated the non-reviewability of orders that have alternative remedies. It also mandated that claims of fraud require legally established proof.
Result: W.P. No. 5197 of 2023 granted liberty to appeal; W.P. No. 33921 of 2024 dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Bhanu Priya G
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. Ravi Chandra Bejjaram, learned counsel representing Mrs. G. Bhanu Priya, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.5197 of 2023 and respondent No.8 in W.P. No.33921 of 2024, Mr. Bhanu Murthi Bala, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P. No.5197 of 2023 and petitioners in W.P. No.33921 of 2024 and Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC) appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Lis involved and parties in both the writ petitions are one and the same. Therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and they are being disposed of by way of common order.
3. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as they are arrayed in W.P. No.5197 of 2023.
4. CASE OF THE PETITIONER in W.P. No. 5197 OF 2023:
i) He is a retired employee of S.C. Corporation and belongs to S.C. Community.
ii) He has purchased an old building bearing D.No.3-9-107, admeasuring 200 square yards, situated at Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda from one Mr. Muralidhar Sharma, under a registered sale deed, dated 18.12.1995.
iii) Since the aforesaid building was in dilapidated condition, he obtained building permit dated 02.08.2018 for construction of Ground Floor + 2 Floors.
iv) Respondent No.4, wife of Mr. Saibaba, claims to be the owner of his adjacent building bearing D.No.3-9-107/1 of the very same locality. On enquiry, it was found that originally the said building belonged to one Mr. Ravula Lakshmi Narayana and others, who entered into an agreement of sale with one Ms. Jangala Lalitha on 30.12.1992. Pursuant to the same, Ms. Jangala Lalitha entered into an agreement of sale in favour of Ms. Ghousia Begum, who in turn entered into an agreement of sale dated 30.01.2005 with the husband of respondent No.4 to an extent of 99 square yards out of 200 square yards and remaining extent of 101 square yards is with Mr. Rapolu Purushotham.
v) Thus, none of the aforesaid transactions right from 1992 is valid as there are no registered sale deeds executed. However, the husband of respondent No.4, Mr. T. Saibaba, Head Constable, executed a registered Gift Deed dated 16.12.2015 in favour of his wife, respondent No.4 to an extent of 108.47 square yards as against 99 square yards. On the strength of the same, respondent No.4 applied for building permit on 30.10.2018 i.e., subsequent to the building permit order of the petitioner, showing the total extent of 108.47 square yards and obtained building permit order dated 16.12.2018 for construction of Ground + 2 Floors.
vi) The building permit order granted to respondent No.4 is in utter violation of Building Rules framed vide G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2012, G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 05.01.2016 and prescribed setbacks. The setbacks prescribed in both the building permit orders are as under:
| Building Permit of the Petitioner | Building Permit of Respondent No.4 | |
| 165.55 meters | 90.5 meters | |
| Total Floors | G + 2 | G+2 |
| Front | 2.36 meters (about 8 ft) | 1.55 meters (5 ft) |
| Rear | 1.1 (4 ft) | 0.55 (1 ½ ft) |
| Side-I | 1.1 (4 ft) | 0.55 (1 ½ ft) |
| Side-II | 1.1 (4 ft) | 0.55 (1 ½ ft) |
vii) The husband of respondent No.4 is working in Police Department started troubling the petitioner even before he started construction on the ground that he belongs to SC Community and the husband of respondent No.4 does not like SCs to be his neighbour. Accordingly, he got issued a notice dated 24.05.2018 to the petitioner from respondent No.2 as if the petitioner was making unauthorized construction of RCC Pillars without taking prior permission from GWMC. The petitioner had submitted explanation on 04.06.2018 to the said notice stating that his neighbor, husband of respondent No.4 had laid a drainage pipe touching his compound wall without providing any gap, and thereby his portico and steps got fully damaged. Therefore, in order to protect his property from untoward incidents and to reconstruct the wall, he dismantled the steps and portico and started reconstruction.
viii) The husband of respondent No
