IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12388 of 2008 Between: A.Tirupathi Venkateshwarlu S/o.Late Kondaiah R/o.B-20, B-111, Railway Quarters, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Alwal, Secunderabad 3 B.Nandgopal S/o.Laxmanlal R/o.Hyderabad, rep.by his GPA Holder Ms.Venkata Ramana D/o.Veeraiah, aged 29 years, R/o.5-5-189/27, Sambhani Nagar, Khammam .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Ceritorified Mandamus declaring the order dated 4.6.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 in Proceedings No.G1/281/BA/281/2007 as bad illegal, and ultra vires of the provisons of HMC Act 1955 and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and fair play and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRP.V.SANJEEVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12388 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by A.Tirupathi Venkateshwarlu assailing the action of the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Secunderabad-2nd Respondent in revoking the permission granted to him with regard to construction of a building over plot No.44, vide proceedings ROC No. G1/281/BA/281/2007, dated 4-6- 2008. 2. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of plot No. 44 admeasuring 244 square meters having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 30-4-1986. He filed an application before the 1st Respondent seeking permission to construct a Building over it. He also obtained loan from State Bank of India, R.P. Road, Secunderabad. Proceedings have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad permitting the petitioner for construction of house (ground + first floor). He commences constructions. While so, B.Nandgopal-3rd Respondent filed a suit for injunction simplicitor inter alia alleging that he purchased the house under an unregistered sale deed dated 20-8-1987. His efforts to secure ad interim injunction was not fruitful. The third respondent having failed to obtain ex-parte interim orders choose to approach the second respondent with an objection petition on 13-5-2008. The second respondent served a notice on the petitioner on 23-5-2008 directing him to stop the construction and submit explanation within seven days. Thereafter the petitioner filed explanation. The 2nd Respondent proceeded to issue the proceedings impugned in the writ petition revoking the permission granted on 4-6-2008. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Third respondent entered appearance and filed counter. It is stated in the counter affidavit that two suits one being O.S.NO. 786 of 2008 filed by him and another being O.S.No.102 of 2008 filed by the petitioner are pending adjudication. It is further stated that the petitioner suppressed the pendency of suits in his explanation to the show cause notice issued by the second respondent and therefore, the second respondent is justified in revoking the permission granted to the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 30-4- 1986 and submitted application seeking building permission on 11-12- 2007. That no proceedings were pending as on the date of application and thus there was no suppression of material fact in the building permission application. He further submits that the proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent revoking permission basing on the objection raised by the third respondent is wholly unjust and unwarranted. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the petitioner is not at all in possession of the property and that he suppressed the information as to pendency of civil suits in his explanation submitted to the show cause notice and therefore, the second respondent is justified in revoking the building permission granted to the petitioner. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Malnohar Rao kulkarni Vs. Commissioner, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation[1] In the cited case the building permission came to be revoked as the site has been set a part for park. Whereas in the case on hand, the site is not earmarked for park in respect of which permission has been granted by the second respondent. Therefore, the cited decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 7. Learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the petitioner has made a false statement in the affidavit while submitting the application seeking building permission that the link documents are not available and which fact appears to be incorrect. In my considered view, this cannot be a ground for cancellation of permission granted to the petitioner. 8. A fact remain that two suits are pending before the Civil Courts, one filed by the petitioner and other filed by the third respondent. The rights of the parties are required to be adjudicated on the full fledged trial in the civil Suits. As on this day, no interim orders are passed by the Civil Court. The petitioner claiming the property under a registered sale deed dated 30-4-1986 executed by one S. Malla Reddy. He stated the same in the building permission application submitted by him. There is no suppression of material fact in the building permission application. 9. Therefore, revocation of the building permission granted in favour of the petitioner merely because there is title dispute between two parties is wholly unwarranted. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the revocation order dated 4-6-2008 issued by the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings No. G1/281/BA/281/2007. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 23rd June, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 12388 OF 2008 23rd June, 2008. [1] 1971 Andhra Weekly Reporter 313