2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13761

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ, G.M. Mohiuddin, J
Jubilee Hills Educational Society – Appellant
Versus
Jubilee Hills Co-operative House Building Society – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.425 of 2026|W.P.No.3281 of 2026|O.S.No.797 of 2018

A writ court cannot decide disputed questions of fact or render findings on document validity when such issues are sub judice in a civil suit; a municipal authority's jurisdiction in granting building permission is limited to prima facie scrutiny of possession and entitlement, not adjudication of title.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art.226 - Writ jurisdiction - Scope - Disputed questions of fact - Findings on validity of documents - The learned Single Judge, having observed that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, proceeded to render findings on the genuineness, validity and enforceability of the renewed Lease Deed - Such approach cannot be sustained in law - Any determination by the writ Court would be premature and prejudicial to the parties before the competent Court - Findings liable to be set aside. (Paras 15-17)

(B) Municipal Laws - Building permission - Enquiry by municipal authority - The Commissioner, while exercising powers under the GHMC Act, 1955, does not sit as a civil Court to adjudicate disputed questions of title, but such jurisdiction is administrative and regulatory in nature, confined to examining whether the applicant has placed such material as would prima facie disclose possession, entitlement to apply, and compliance with the applicable building rules and statutory requirements - The role of the Commissioner is limited to a prima facie scrutiny regarding title, possession and compliance with building norms - Municipal authority is not required to adjudicate upon absolute title or final legal enforceability of rival claims - Principle laid down in Hyderabad Potteries Private Ltd. v. Collector, Hyderabad and T. Rameshwar v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad followed. (Paras 11(ii), 13(ii), 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
Respondent No.1 Society, as owner/lessor, executed a registered Lease Deed dated 21.08.1987 in favour of the appellant Education Society for thirty years for running a school. Clause 15 conferred an enforceable option for renewal for a further thirty years. Upon expiry in 2017, the appellant sought renewal, but respondent No.1 imposed extraneous conditions. The appellant filed O.S.No.797 of 2018 for specific performance, and an interim status quo order was granted. Subsequently, the Managing Committee passed a resolution on 30.09.2020 approving renewal, and a renewed Lease Deed dated 12.10.2020 was executed, though unregistered. The appellant applied for building permission, and GHMC granted Building Permit dated 20.11.2024 after the appellant furnished an undertaking-cum-indemnity bond. Respondent No.1 challenged the permit in W.P.No.3281 of 2026. The learned Single Judge set aside the permit and remanded the matter to GHMC. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present writ appeal.

Findings of Court:
The findings of the learned Single Judge regarding the validity, legal efficacy or enforceability of the renewed Lease Deed are set aside. The GHMC did not exceed jurisdiction and its prima facie opinion was not irrational or perverse. However, the municipal authority should have adverted to the objections and recorded brief reasons. The matter is remanded to GHMC for consideration of objections and decision in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the learned Single Judge erred in recording findings on the validity and enforceability of the renewed Lease Deed despite observing that disputed questions cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings; the extent of the municipal authority’s jurisdiction in granting building permission amidst title disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ Court, having recognized that disputed questions of fact are not amenable to adjudication under Art.226, cannot proceed to render findings on the genuineness and validity of documents that are subject matter of a pending civil suit; municipal authorities are only required to undertake a prima facie scrutiny regarding possession and entitlement for building permission and cannot adjudicate title disputes.

Result: Writ appeal disposed of by modifying the impugned order; building permit restored subject to GHMC considering objections and passing a fresh order after hearing parties.