ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr.J.Suresh Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Mr.Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner is claiming that he along with his brothers are the absolute owners and possessors of the open place admeasuring 227.79 square yards in Sy.No.1206, situated at Korutla Municipality, Jagityal District, on the strength of a registered gift settlement deed bearing document No.1098 of 2008, dated 10.06.2008. When respondent Nos.3 to 5 interfered with their possession, they filed a suit in O.S.No.110 of 2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Korutla, against them seeking perpetual injunction. The said suit is pending. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent Nos.3 to 5 obtained building permit orders and work commencement letters for construction in the subject property. The same is by way of misrepresentation/ suppression of facts. Therefore, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 12.02.2025 to respondent No.2 with a request to revoke the said building permit orders on the ground of misrepresentation/ suppression of facts. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent No.2 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Whereas, Mr.Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that the said suit was dismissed for default and he has no instructions with regard to the restoration of the said suit. However, respondent No.2 will consider the representation dated 12.02.2025, and the allegations made by the petitioner that respondent Nos.3 to 5 obtained the aforesaid building permit order and work commencement letter by way of misrepresentation/suppression of facts, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 by putting the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing.

4. In the light of the said submission, notice to respondent Nos.3 to 5 is dispensed with. This Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 12.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner, inspect the site and if the allegations made by the petitioner herein that respondent Nos.3 to 5 obtained the aforesaid building permit order and work commencement letter by way of misrepresentation/ suppression of facts or by making false statements and that they are proceeding with the construction in deviation to the building permit order and work commencement letter, he shall take action against respondent Nos.3 to 5, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 by putting the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. However, it is made clear that respondent No.2 can’t decide and adjudicate the title disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5. He shall consider the aforesaid three aspects only. He shall complete the said exercise within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J February 19, 2025 ynk