SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 36324

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J
Shaik Khaja – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.12, Khairatabad, Hyderabad – Respondent
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.23 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Chidambaram, G. Sindhu
For the Respondents: Midde Arun Kumar, Nazir Ahmed Khan

Failure to disclose pending litigations or title disputes at the time of applying for building permission constitutes material misrepresentation and fraud, allowing the municipal authority to cancel the permission under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

Headnote:(A) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - Section 450 - Revocation of building permission - Misrepresentation of facts - Failure to disclose pending litigation regarding title and possession of the property at the time of seeking building permit - Held, non-disclosure of such material facts constitutes fraud upon the authorities, justifying cancellation of permission under Section 450. (Paras 12, 13, 17)

(B) Appeals - Scope of judicial review - High Court will not interfere with orders of statutory authorities unless there is perversity or procedural irregularity - Appellate Court correctly affirmed the municipal authority's decision based on the finding of misrepresentation. (Paras 19, 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought and obtained building permission for construction of a G+1 structure. Subsequent complaints revealed the property was subject to ongoing litigation/disputes regarding title and alleged encroachment of public lanes. The municipal authority revoked the permission citing non-disclosure of material facts, which was confirmed by the appellate court.

Findings of Court:
The court held that applicants are mandatorily required to disclose all ongoing litigation concerning the title or possession of the property in their application. Suppression of such facts provides sufficient grounds for the Municipal Commissioner to invoke powers under Section 450 of the GHMC Act to cancel the grant of permission.

Issues: Whether the appellant obtained building permission by misrepresentation of facts and if the revocation order and subsequent appellate confirmation are sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-disclosure of material facts, specifically pending litigation related to the subject property, amounts to material misrepresentation and fraudulent statement, warranting the cancellation of building permits under Section 450 of the GHMC Act.

Result: Appeal dismissed; however, liberty is granted to the appellant to submit a fresh application disclosing all relevant litigation status.

Table of Content
1. summary of factual history and previous legal disputes regarding the property. (Para 1 , 2)
2. summary of arguments by counsel regarding misrepresentation and unauthorized construction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's reasoning on the mandatory duty to disclose pending litigation under the ghmc act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.11.2024, passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, in MA.No.56 of 2024, whereby the original speaking order vide Lr.No.645/2/A/TPS/W11/C12/KZ/GHMC/2024-1, dated 23.03.2024, passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.12, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, revoking the building permission granted to the appellant, was confirmed.

2. In nut-shell the facts of the case, as putforth by the appellant, are that he is the owner and possessor of the building bearing Door No.11-4-645/2/A, situated at A.C. Guards, Asifnagar, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject property’); that originally, the land in Sy.No.162 belongs to one Zohara Begum and she gifted a piece of land admeasuring 500 sq. yards to Shaik Khaja, who is the grandfather of the appellant herein, through a registered gift deed dated 5 Aban 1345 Fasli; that a shop was existing in the said Survey Number; that appellant's grandfather i.e., Shaik Khaja has gifted 500 sq. yards of land along with the shop constructed in an extent of 25 sq yards, vide H.No.11-4-645/2 to Shaik Mahboob, who is father of the appellant, through a gift deed dated 12th Aban 1951 Fasli; that the father of the appellant had been in possession and enjoyment of the same; and that, after his demise, the appellant along with his mother and brothers has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute owners.

2.1. While so, the Tahsildar, Golconda, issued notices on 16.7.1984 and 05.12.1988 demanding payment of NALA tax for the vacant land; that the TSLR issued by the Office of the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records discloses the name of the appellant's grandfather as well as the name of Zohara Begum; that when one Mohd. Munawar Ahmed Sohail and others tried to grab 475 sq. yards of vacant land, the appellant and his brother filed LGC.No.40/2008 against the said persons before the Special Court under Land Gabbing (Prohibition) Act (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the Special Court”) to declare them as ‘land grabbers’; that in the said case, the appellant contended that that they are continuing tailoring business in the said shop; that the municipal authorities have allotted H.No.11-4-645/2 to the said shop; and that the appellant also filed Exs.A1 to A9 evidencing his possession and title over the said land, however, the Special Court, without considering the evidence placed on record, has dismissed the said LGC and aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.26607 of 2012 before this Court and the same is pending.

2.2. While the things stood thus, the Tahsildar issued proceedings under Section 6 of Land Encroachment Act dated 08.12.2017 on the pretext that the land in T.S. No.25, Block-E, Ward-38 of Mallepally Village, Asifnagar is recorded as "ABADI" in Col No.10 and as "G PWD" in Col. No.22 to an extent of 446 sq. yards and questioning the same, the appellant's brother has filed Writ Petition No.42012 of 2017 before this Court, wherein interim stay was granted and the said Writ Petition is pending consideration.

2.3. It was further averred that the appellant applied for permission for construction of G + one upper floor on Plot/H.No.11-4-645/2/A; that respondent No.1 granted permission, vide Lr.No.193724/GHMC/14723/2022 dated 22.08.2022; and that accordingly, the appellant made construction adhering to the conditions stipulated in the permission.

2.4. Subsequently, respondent No.1 issued show cause notice dated 20.11.2023

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top