IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 412 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/06/2008 in WP NO : 12388 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: B.Nandagopal, S/o. Laxmanlal, R/o.Hyderabad, Rep by his GPA Holder, M/s Venkata Ramana, D/o. Veeraiah, aged 29 years, R/o. 5-5- 189/27, Sambhani Nagar, Khammam. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 A.Tirupathi Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Late Kondaiah, R/o. B-20, B-111, Railway Quarters, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad 2 The Chief Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Alwal, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MRCHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondent : MRP.V.SANJEEVA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.NO. 412 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ appeal is filed by 3rd respondent in writ petition who is aggrieved of the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by a learned single Judge in WP No. 6325 of 2009. The writ petition was filed questioning the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyerabad Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad-3rd respondent herein revoking the building permission granted to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner for construction of a building over Plot No. 44, admeasuring 244 sq. meters. According to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, he is the owner and possessor of plot No. 44, admeasuring 244 sq. meters, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 30.4.1986. He applied and obtained permission from 3rd respondent herein for construction of a house (ground + first floor) and started construction of the house. While so, the appellant herein filed a suit for injunction simplicitor on the ground that he purchased the house under an unregistered sale deed dated 20.8.1987 and having failed to obtain exparte interim orders, he filed an objection petition on 13.5.2008 before 3rd respondent who served a notice on the 1st respondent-writ petitioner on 23.5.2008 directing him to stop the construction and after the writ petitioner filed an explanation, 3rd respondent herein passed the order dated 4.6.2008 which was impugned in the writ petition revoking the permission granted earlier. The 3rd respondent revoked the building permission mainly on the ground that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner suppressed material facts and misled the department as there were two suits being O.S.Nos. 786 of 2008 and 102 of 2008 pending in courts and there was a title dispute with respect to the property. It is contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner that the writ petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 30.4.1986 and filed an application seeking building permission on 11.12.2007 and by the time he filed the said application, no civil proceedings were pending and therefore there was no suppression of material facts. It is also submitted by him that the appellant has no right whatsoever to file an objection petition for cancellation of the building permission as he is alleged to have purchased the property under an un- registered sale deed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant supports the order of the 3rd respondent. He has tried to contend that the 1st respondent- writ petitioner has no title whatsoever over the property and civil suits are pending and therefore, the building permission was rightly revoked by the 3rd respondent. We have gone through the record and found that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner has not suppressed anything because by the time he filed the application seeking building permission on 11.12.2007, no civil proceedings were pending in respect of the property. However, the suits were filed later in the year 2008. The main ground for revoking the building permission was that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner has suppressed the pendency of the civil suits as well as dispute with respect to title of the property. The learned single Judge held that revocation of the building permission granted in favour of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner merely because there is title dispute between the two parties is wholly unwarranted and there is no suppression of material fact in the building permission application. Since it is found that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner has not suppressed the material facts, the order passed by the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained and it was rightly quashed by the learned single Judge. The findings of the learned single Judge that there is no suppression of material fact in the building permission application and that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is the owner and possessor of the said property by virtue of registered sale deed remain uncontroverted. We are of the opinion that dispute with regard to title is a matter which will have to be gone into the suits pending between the parties. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned single Judge needs no interference. The writ appeal is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt.1.4.2009 KR ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {LS}