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) 62869

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

Non-disclosure of pending litigation regarding the title or possession of a property during a building permit application constitutes material misrepresentation and fraud, authorizing the municipal commissioner to cancel such permission under Section 450 of the GHMC Act.

Headnote:(A) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - Section 450 - Building permission - Revocation - Suppression of material facts - Appellant failed to disclose pending litigation regarding title/possession property while applying for building permission - Held, non-disclosure of such litigation amounts to material misrepresentation and fraud upon the authorities - Authority has power under S.450 to cancel permission obtained through misrepresentation. (Paras 12, 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
Appellant challenged the revocation of building permission granted for construction on a property. The municipal authorities revoked the permission citing suppression of material facts, specifically the pendency of various legal proceedings regarding the title and ownership of the subject property, and allegations of encroachment on public lanes and construction deviations.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the revocation order, noting that the applicant is mandatorily required to disclose all pending litigations involving the property when seeking building permission. Failure to do so constitutes material misrepresentation. The appellate court correctly confirmed the revocation order as per the GHMC Act.

Issues: Whether the appellant obtained building permission through the suppression of material facts and whether the revocation of such permission by the municipal authority is sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-disclosure of pending litigation concerning title/possession at the time of applying for building permission amounts to playing fraud on the municipal authorities, thereby justifying the cancellation of the permission under Section 450 of the GHMC Act.

Result: Appeal dismissed with liberty to submit a fresh application disclosing all pendency of cases.

Table of Content
1. factual background concerning revoked building permission and pending litigation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding suppression of material facts and legal standards for public orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. mandatory disclosure of litigation as a prerequisite for legal building permission. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. final confirmation of the revocation order due to misrepresentation. (Para 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. Su

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