Sri J. Srinivas Yadav v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-18. Sri J. Srinivas Yadav v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
\ t 3383 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 32182 OF 2025 Between: 1. Sri J. Srinivas Yadav, S/o Late Swamy Yadav, aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 1-1-96/1, Street No. 1, Habsiguda, Near Kallu Compound, Hyderabad 2. Sri D. E. Nagaraj, S/o E. B. Krishna, aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No. 202, H. No. 16-11-20161413/1, Ghanasai Apartments, Opp. Ganesh Temple, Saleemnagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, lvlunicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, (MAUD), Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad ttilunicipal Corporation, Head Office, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The City Planner, Greater Hyderabad filunicipal Corporation, L. B. Nagar Zone, Hyderabad.
4 M/s Radheshyam Constructions and Developers, Rep by its Managing Partners R. Uthara Reddy and G. Mohan Rao, Having office at Plot No. 1 221 Al2, Ven kataramana Colony, Serilingampally, Hyderabad. 5 Jogiparthy Venkatesh, S/o. J. Yadaiah Guptha, Aged Not Known, Occ. Agriculture Rep. by l\4/s. Radheshyam Constructions and Developers. Having oflice at Plot No. 1221N2, Venkataramana Colony. Serilingampally, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of lVlandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Building Permit No 1363/GHMC/LBN/2025-BP dated 10. 10. 2025 in favour of Respondent No.
4 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the constitution of rrdia, contrary to section 450 of the GHMC Act, 19s5, and in wirfur defiance of the judgment dated 30. 12. 2024 in w. p. No. 10419/2023, and consequently, sert aside the said permit and direct Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 not to grant or act upon any buirding permission in respect of the property in Survey Nos' r 06 and 1 07, Kothapet Virage, Uppar Mandar, Medchar-Marka. igiri District, without prior nor. ice to the petitioners and due verification of pending ritigations and revocation c rders. IA NO: 10F 25 Petition u rder section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file,J in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the op'-'ration and imprementation of the impugned Buirding permit No. '1363/GHMC/LB'\/2025-B' 'r0-10-2025 dated and direct Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 not to undertake.
permit, arow, or carry out any construction activity whatsoever in 'espect of the property situated in Survey Nos. 106 and 107 , Kothapet Villagt:, Uppal Mandal, Medchal_Malkajgiri District, pending disposal of this Writ Petition. IA NO: 2oF 20 Between: 1. M/s. Radheshyam Constructions and Develooers ? irttets-R*Lithllr"iJaov-""J-cl'H,'"n#"AT"l,"rirT,;B i/"J,. ",Hlinnil,? 122tAt2,'y'enkataramana iorony, 5;r. it;;;#p;il! ,: Hyderabad. 2. Jogiparthy Venkatesh. S/o J yadaiah Guptha, Aged Not Known, Occ. grttrlq, py_n,'rs, nao neinvam *,'i . [90 ail;i;. ;;til;, and Devetopers. Havino ,'. ,,,', onrce at [)tot No. 122tN2. Venkataiamani C. r". v. 'Slriiiig-ri.. ,pl";;"'. Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Telanoana ' Administlation and Ur-Gn ,I:ft o,:x",i'B#j,x;13f, I Hyderabad. i,fii8Bjl . J,:lfJti: 2 Hvderabad M un icipal corporation, Head #*"rfllil'ir133:jbroJ:""' orrice, Greater Hvderabad Municipal corporation, L. B. r|F. :rrya! l:#Sr' Nasar 4 Sri J.
Srinivas Yadav, S/o Late Swamy Yadav, aged about 55 y-ears, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 1-1-96/1, Street No. t, Habsiguda, Near Kallu Compound, Hyderabad 5 Sri D. E. Nagaraj, S/o E. B. Krishna, ageq about 47 years, Occ. Busine_ss, R/o Flat No. 202, H. No. 16-1 1-20t1l4l3lf, Ghanasai Apartments, Opp. Ganesh Temple' saleemnagar' Malakpet' Hyderabad' ... RES'. NDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 25. 10. 2025 in the present Writ Petition vide W. P. No. 32 182 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition with exemplary costs. Counset for the Petitioner: SRI B. CHANDRASEN REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI B. VAMSHIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 & 3: SRI SRINIVAS RAO PACHWA, S. C. FOR GHMC Counset for the Respondents No. 4 & 5: SRI B.
MAYUR REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE Counset for the Respondents: SRI MOHD. ASIFUDDIN The Court made the following: ORDER *7 IN TIIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No. 32La2 of 2o. 25 DATED: 18. 02. 2o. 26 Between: J. Srinivas Yadav and another. ... Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, reptd. by its Principal Secretary, Municipat Administration & Urban Developrn ent Department, Hyderabad and others. ... Respondents -ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare thc action of responclents in issuing building permir No. t363iGFIIVlciL. BN/ 2ozs-Bp, dated 10. 10. 20115 in favour of respondent No. 4, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Articles-14 and 300-A of currstitution of tndia and contrary to Scclion 450 of the Greater I lyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. 1955, and also in wil[ul disobedience of the Order dated 30. 12. 2024 passed by this Court in w. p. No.
l04l9 of 2023 and, for const:quential r-el ief. t ? 2' Heard sri B. chandrasen Reddy, Iearned senior counser appearing for Sri B. vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel_on_record for petitioners' sri Srinivas Rao pachwa, rearned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, Iearned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Mohd. Asifuddin, learned counsel for I I respondent i No. 5. I i i 3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that originally, one Narasaiah yadav was the owner of land admeasuring Acs. 2-02 gts situated in Sy. Nos. l06 and 107 of Kothapet village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed No. 23l I of lg7l, dated 27. 12. 1971; that the said Narasaiah yadav expired on 2I. o4.
rggo reaving behind his son Mahender yadav and his daughter-in-raw chittaboina Balamani as his legal heirs; that the said Mahender yadav wenr missing and his whereabouts have remained untraceabre; that after completion ol mandatory period of nine years fiom the date of his missing, his wife-Baramani appried for issuance of Family Member certificate before the Tahsildar, who issued the same on 19. r0. 2005 in of Balamani and her six child. en; 3Yt that subsequentry, after -";. a J conducting survey and Panchanama, the Tahsildar issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds to her and her name was recorded in the revenue records for the years 2005 and 2006; and that the petitioners purchased land admeasuring Ac. 1-38 gts in Sy. Nos. l06 and 107, situated at Kothapet Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (he'reinafter referred to as 'subject property'), under registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (AGPA) No. 3153 of 2007, dated 05. 03.
2007, from the said Balanrani and others and have been in continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the subject property. 4. It ir; fumher averred that during the intennediate period when Mahender Yadav was missing, some third parties created fahricated documents including GPA No. 364 of 1993, executed in favour of Balakrishna and V. Ramesh and another GPA No. 200 of 1995 in favour ot'K.
Sadeva Goud, basing on which, sale deeds were executed by dividing the subject property into plots without any approved layout or lawful ownership; that one Mandava Asha Priya clairned ownership over the subject property, basing on the alleged layout plan approved by Granr Panchayat in the year 1995 and she, without any manner of right or title, illegally trespassed into the subject property and demolished the petitioners compound wall and also the bore-well installed by them; that petitioners rodged a compraint before the Chaitanyapuri Police Station, which was registered as case in Crime No. 477 of 2021, dared l4. og. 2o2l, charge sheet was filed and the same is pending. In fact, the Gram panchayat of Kothapet vilrage ceased to exist from the year r9g5, in view of formation of L. B. Nagar Municipality. tt is further ave*ed that the HMDA has issued a caution Notice No. 44 lTlrJC/ FI/r9g6y/1997, dared 30. 04. 1997, confirming that layouts in Sy. Nos.
l06 and 107 are unauthori zed and unapproved. 5. It is further averred that Mandava Asha priya fired a suit vide o. S. No. 1034 of 202t, before l-Additional Junior civil Judge, L. B. Nagar, seeking perpetual i^junction against petitioners, along with an interlocutory application vide I. A. No. l l2l of zo2l seeking l * :l i temporary injunction; that the trial clourt on detailed examination of the evidence on record vide order dated 30. r r . 2o22,dismissed the said interlocutory application, by observing that Mandava Asha priya failed to establish either possession or title over the subject property and further recorded that the petitioners are in lawfur and continuous possession of the subject property; that subsequently, respondent No. 5 along with two others filed another suit vide O. S. No. 21l2 of 2022 for injunction against the petitioners and the same is pending; that suppressing the pendency of the said suit and other material facts, the vendor of :espondent No.
S-Asha Priya obtained building permission vide permit No. 2289IGHMC/ LBN/2022-BP, dated 03. 03. 2022, for construction ol'Stilt +5 upper floors in the disputed land in Sy. Nos. l06 and 107 6. Aggrieved by granting of such building permission, dated 03. 03. 2021), petitioners submitted representations, dated 08. 1 I . 2021, 17 . 03. 202'2,, 19. 03. 2022, 12. 07 . 2022 and 23. 01. 2023 to the GHMC and the GHMII authorities, on due enquiry and after affording reasonable opportuniiy to all the concerned parties, flound that Asha Priya obtained permission dated 03. 03. 2022 by suppressing the material facts and acco::dingly, issued Show-Cause notice dated 09. 03. 2023, under Section 2. 50 of GHMC Act, 1955, calling upon the perrnit holder to explain as to why the permission should not be revoked; and later, on due conr;ideration of material placed on record, respondent No. 2- Commis:;ioner revoked the building permission dated 03. 03. 2022 vide speaking, Order dated 10. 04. 2023.
7' Aggrieved by the revocation order dated 10. 04. 2023, one Akarapu Badrinath filed a writ petit ion videw. p. No. r04lg of 2023, claiming to have purchased the prots in Sy. Nos. r06 and 102 which incrudes the subject property, arong with three others from Mandava Asha priya, and this court vide order dared 30. 12. 2024, disposed of the said writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner therein to submit fi'esh applicarion to the GHM. as per TS-bpAss Act, 2020,by dury disclosing the pendency of suit filed by hinr; that accordingly, fresh application for building permission was filed; and that the GHMC without considering the order dated 30. 12. 2024, passed by rhis courr in w'P. No. l04r9 of 2023, accorded permission for constructi on vide impugned permit No. 1363/GHM. /LBN/2025_Bp, dated r0. 10. 2025, in favour of respondent No. 4 herein in respect of the subject property; that petitioners submitted representation dated rg. t0. 2025 to Zonar and Deputy commissioners, GHM. , L. B.
Naga r zone,fbr canceilation of the impugned buirding permission, however, r. ro action has been taken thereon by the respondents-corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ petition is filed. 8. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed counter contending that originally, the land in Sy. No. l06 admeasuring Acs. I -04 gts was classified as that Sailu as lnamdar; of one Panga ,Inam, the name Iand showing afterthederniseofthesaidPangaSailu,thenamesofhislegalheirs- P. Laxmaiah,P'lstariandP'Pentaiah'wererecordedaslnamdars;and thattheyappliedforgrantofoccupancyRightsCertif,rcate(oRC)and accordingll',theRDOEast'RangaReddyvideproceedingsdated their favour' granted ORC in 10. 12. 1991, g. ItisfurtheraverredthatthenamesofP. Sreeramuluandothers' continuedtobereflectedinthepahaniesfortheyearslgg3-94and |gg4-g5irrespectoflandadmeasuringAc. 0-36gtsinSy. No. l07and thesaidownersalongwiththeownersoflandinSy. Nos.
l0sandl09, developerlthelandsintoplotsandobtainedGramPanchayatlayout fromNagloleGramPanchayat,dated04. 02. lgTSinrespectoftheentire GPAs were gts and that registered Acs. g-00 land adrneasuring executei. inrespectofabovesaidlandsandptotsweresoldunder various::egisteredsaledeedsthroughGPAholders;thatMandavaAsha 200 34' 48 and 49' admeasuring plots bearing Nos'33' Priya ptrrchased and in Sy'Nos'106 800 Sq'yrds total admeasuring square 'yards each, fegistefed Sale toz, situated at Kothapet Yillage, R. R. District, Undef deed Nr. 5338 of 1996, dated 23. 09. 1996, from panga pentaiah and others; whire so, when the petitioners tried to interfere with the possession of subject plots, Asha Priya filed a suit vide O. S. No. l034 of 2021 on the file of v Junior Civil Judge, R. R. District, ar L. B. Nagar and initially, the said Court vide Order dared 30. 1 I . 2022 in t. A. No. l2l of 2022 in o. S. No. lo34 of 2021, granted ad-interirn injunction. l0' It is further averred that respondent No.
5 along with three others purchased Plot Nos. 33,34,4g and 49 in Sy. Nos. l06 and 107, which includes the subject property, from Mandava Asha priya, under registered sale deed No. 20 r of 2022, dated 05. 0 I . 2022;and rhar, on the same day, respondent No. 5 entered into Development Agreement-cum_ General Power of Attomey bearing No. 37l of 2022, rvith respondent No. 4 for development of the subject prcperty; and that frorn the date of the said purchase, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are in possession and enjoyment of the subject property; and that subsequently, in view of sale of the subject plots in favour of respondent No. 5, Asha priya has withdrawn the suit as not pressed. 1 1. It is further averred that when the petitioners again tried to interfere with the possession of the subject plots by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, respondent No. 5 along with two others filed a suit vide o-s. No.
2ll2 of 2022 on the file of principal Senior civil Judge, * Medchal-Malkajgiri District and obtained interim Orders dated 09. 12. 2022 in I. A. No. 346 of 2022 and the said suit is pending. 12. tt is mrther averred that petitioners are claiming to be owners of subject property having purchased the same from one Chittaboina Balamani and others under registered AGPA dated 05. 03. 2007; that the said Balanrani and others filed a suit vide O. 5. No. 470 of 2007 on the file of Prircipal Junior Civil Judge, R. R. District, at L. B. Nagar, against the then plot owners of the layout and after the trial, the said suit was dismissed vide Judgment and decree dated 28. L2. 2012 and no appeal was preferred and thus, the Judgment and decree dated 28. 12. 2012 has become firal 13. It isr further averred that vendors of the petitioners were never in possession of the subject property and physically, the land admeasuring Ac. l-38 gts is not available, as the land in Sy. Nos.
l06 and 107 was already converted into layout, dividing the same into plots, anrl presently houses are existing in the said land; and that the petitioners, having failed in the suits, approached respondent No. 2 with unclean hands by suppressing the dismissal of O. S. No. 470 of 2007; that respondent No. 3, on due verification of the documents and physical possession of Asha Priya-vendor of respondent No. 5, l0 accorded permission for construction vide permit No. 2289. GHMCILBN/2022-Bp, dared 03. 03. 2022, in her favour and subsequently, she sold the same to respondent No. 5 and in pursuance thereof, respondent No. 4-Developer had been in the process of construction by investing huge money. 14' It is further averred that petitioners filed w. p. No. l4567 of 2022 questioning the building permission dated 03. 03. 2022 and rhe same was dismissed by this court vide order dated 24. 03.
2022, directing the petitioners to avair appropriate remedy before the civir court; that petitioners preferred w. A. N o. 2g9 of 2022 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 19. 04. 2022, and,having faired in ail their attempts, the petitioners approached respondent No. 2 for cancelration of building permission by suppressing the facts and basing on the same, respondent No. 2 issued that show-cause notice dated 0g. 03. 2023 to vendor of respondent No. 5 and that reply was given therero, bringing to the notice of respondent No. 2 the orders dated 24. 03. 2022 passed by this court in w. p. N o. 14567 of 2022, wherein it is observed that the respondents-GHMC has no jurisdiction to go into the aspects as to whether the registered document in favour of Asha priya is genuine or whether the petitioners priya-vendor or Asha of respondent l1 No. 5, are the owners of the subject property; and that, without considering the said order, respondent No.
2 revoked the earlier building pe:mission, by proceedings dated 10. 04. 2023. 15. It is iurther averred that aggrieved by the revocation Order dated 10. 04. 2023, respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition vtde w. p. No. l04lg of 2023 antl this Court vide Order dated 30. 12. 2024, dismissed the writ petition, hc'wever, granted liberty to respondent No. 5 herein to submit fresh applir;ation under TS-bPASS by disclosing the pendency of suit in o. S. No. '. zl12 of 2022 and further, observed that it is for the GHMG to consider the same in accordance with law; that in pursuance of the said order. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted fresh application to GHMC by disclosing pendency of suir in o. S. No. 2 l12 of 2022 and, GHMC, by duly examining all the documents and also physical possession of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 over the subject propefty, accorded permission fbr constructionvide permit dated lo. lo. 2025, for constructicrfl of Stilt + 5 upper floors and respondent Nos.
4 and 5 have also compieted construction of Stilt + 2 upper floors as on 25. 10. 2025, however, in view of interim order of status quo passed by this court on 25 . 10 -2025, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 stopped further construction. It is specifi,:ally averred that petitioners have not challenged the { i,* registered sale deed/titre deed of respondent No. 5 and having failed to obtain order from the competent civil court, the petitioners cannot seek cancellation of the building permission and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 16. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have purchased the subject property under registered AGPA dated 05. 03. 2007 from original owner-chittaboina Balamani and others, who were in possession and enjoyment of the same; that vendor I I of respondent No. S-Asha priya was never in possession I of the subject I property; that the application fired I by vendor of respondent i No. 5 for , ad-interim injunction vide t. A. No.
l2l of 2O2l in o. S. No. l034 of 2021, was dismissed by the triar court with categorical observation that vendor of respondent No. 5 failed to establish title as well as possession over the subject property. He further submitted that vendor i of respondent No. 5 obtained permission for construction. vide permit i t { I l: dated 03-03. 2022, by suppressing and misrepresenting a the facts t including pendency of civil Suits, therefore, GHMC has rightry revoked the said permission on the complaint submitted by the petitioners. He further submitted that GHMC granted impugned permission on 10. r0. 2025, without considering the earlier revocation r3 proceedings as well as the observations made by this Court in W. P. No. l04l9 of 2023, therefore, the impugned perrnission dated 10. 10. 202i is liable to be set aside. 17. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that the entire extent of land in Sy. Nos.
106 and 107 along with adjacent lands was developed into plots and the layout was approved by Nagole Gram Panchayat in the year 1978 and plots have been sold to various individuals under registered sale deeds and structures have also been raised thereon. He further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that while processing the application for permissic,n for construction, GHMC has to only verify the prima focie title and cossession; that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and their vendors have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject and GHMC after due verification of the title documents as well as physical possession of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 over the subject property, granted permission for consr. ruction. He further submitted that GHMC did not violate the orders of this Court dated 30. 12. 2024 in W. P. No. l04t9 of 2023 as alleged 'ry the petitioners and in fact, this Coun while dismissing the writ petition filed by respondent No.
5 has granted liberty to submit fresh application through TS-bPASS by duly disclosing the pendency t4 of o. S. No. 2l12 of 2022 and accordingly, fresh application for building permission was hled by disclosing the pendency of the suit-oS. No. 2l12 of, 2022 and that the authorities of GHMC, alrer due consideration of all the material placed before it, has rightly granted permission for construction. He fuither submitted that disputed question of title and facts cannot be gone into by the GHMC while processing the application for building permission. By contending thus, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that no grounds are made <lut by the petitioners to cancel the irnpugned building permit and the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be set aside. 18. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.
2 and 3 submitted that respondents-Corporation has considered the entire material placed before it, along with the TS-bPASS application filed by respondent No. 5, particularly the Af,fidavit-curn-Undertaking given by respondent No. 5, wherein the pendency of suit-OS. No. 2l12 of 2022 is stated, and having found prima facie title in favour of respondent No. 5 and his possession over the subject property, granted the impugned building permission and as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. l5 19. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions advanced try learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material a'trailable on record 20. Penrsal of the material available on record discloses that the petitionersr are claiming title to the subject property based on the registered sale deed executed in their favour by Balamani and others, and that respondent No.
5, on the other hand, is claiming title to the subject property based on the registered sale deed in his favour by one Mandava Asha Priya. Earlier, the suit-OS. No. 470 of 2007 filed by Balamani and others against plot owners in respect of layout in Sy. Nos. l06 and 107, seeking the relief of perpetual injunction was dismissed by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, vide judgment dated 28. 12. 2012. wherein it is categorically observed that Balamani and others-plaintifl-s therein had no possession over the schedule [and. Further, it is also apt to note that the suit- OS. No. 21l2 of 2022 filed by respondent No. 5 herein along with two others against the petitioners herein seeking the relief of perpetual injunction is pending before the trial Court and that the trial Court though Lnitially granted ad-interim order on 09. 12. 2022 in IA. No. 346 of 2022, subsequently, dismissed the said application on merits t6 21.
From the above, it is evident that the title and rights of the parties in respect of the subject property is not crystallized and the said issue is pending adjudication before the trial Court. 22. Furtherrnore, it is not out of place to note that this Court in Writ Petition No. 14567 of 2022, filed by the petitioners herein against one Mandava Asha Priya-vendor of respondent No. 5, vide order dated 24. 03. 2022, categorically observed that respondents-Corporation has no jurisdiction to go into the aspects as to whether the registered document in favour of Mandava Asha praiya-vendor of respondent No. 5, is a genuine one, or whether the petitioners herein or the said Mandava Asha Priya is the owner of the subject property and that if the petitioners case is that sale deed in favour of Mandava Asha priya is not binding on them, basing on which building permission was granted, they can seek appropriate remedy before a civil court. on appeal-wA. No.
289 of 2022 filed against the said order, a Division Bench of this Courr vide orders dated r9. o4. zoz2 upheld the observations made in Writ Petition No. 14567 of 2022 and dismissed the Writ Appeal. 23. Thus, it is manifesr that when the genuinity of the registered sale deed in favour of Mandava Asha Priya and subsequently, the registered t7 sale deed r:xecuted by her in favour of respondent No. 5 is disputed by the petitioners, the same has to be decided by a competent civil Court. Tlris Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate the disputed questions of title and possession over the subject property. 24. That apart, the petitioners without seeking appropriate remedy against Asha Priya-vendor of respondent No. 5 before a civil Court, as was observed by this Court in order dated 24. 03. 2022, in Writ Petition No. l456lt of 2022, has filed present writ petition betbre this Court. 25. Respondent No.
5 has stepped into the shoes of Mandava Asha Priya in of execution of registered sale deed dated 05. 01 . 2022 in 'riew his favour and obtained building pennission in respect of the subject property. However, at the instance of the petitioners, the said permission was revoked by the GHMC, vide order dated 10. 04. 2023. Subsequently, Writ Petition No. l04l9 of 2023 filed by respondent No. 5 challenging the revocation order was dismissed by this Court, granting liberty to respondent No. 5 to submit fresh application with GHMC under TS-bPASS by disclosing the pendency of the suit- OS. No. 2llZ of 2022 filed by him and others against the petitioners l8 seeking perpetual injunction and it is for the GHMC to consider same in accordance with law. 26. It is the case of respondent No. 5 that in purported compliance the said order, he has again apptied for building permission by enclosing an Affidavit-cum-Undertaking, stating about the pendency the suit-oS. No.
2l12 of 2022 filed by him against the petitioners further, has undertaken that he wili adhere to the Court orders in respect of the subject property. 27. It appears that the respondents-Corporation has considered same and issued the impugned building permit in favour of respondent No. 5. The commissioner, while considering the application building permission, is empowered only to veriff the prima facie and possession of the applicant over the property. He cannot delve into and adjudicate the disputed quesrions of title or ownership of property. The law in this regard is well-settled by the erstwhite Court in Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderobarlr, wherein, it is held as hereunder:- "The commisstonens not entitled to decide any disputed questions of tttle or the ownership.
All that the commtssioner required to do ts to find out prima facie title and lawful 3 ALD 'J2opl) 600 l9 possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration ts confin'zd to only the purpose of granting permission for and " nothtng n'tore. 28. In this regard, it is also relevant to note the judgment of the I erstwhile Jigh Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in K. Povsn Raj v. The Municipal Corporation of Hytlerabal wherein it is hetd as follows:- "The' commissioner therefore cannot be compelled to decicle the title dispute if it is complex in nature and he is entitled to proceed on the basis of prima facie title of the applicant for grant of permission. " 29. [n :he light of the above settled legal position, this Courl holds that the oomrnissioner, on due verification of the prima facie title as well as possession of respondent No. 5 over the subject propefty, has accorded building permission.
Thus, the Commissioner has well acted within the jurisdiction conferred on him and therefore, the impugned building permit issued in favour of respondent No. 5 cannot be faulted with. Ttre petitioners failed to rnake out any case to cancel the impugned building permission and as such, the writ Petition is [iable to be dismissed. '1zoos; t ALD7g2 30. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. 5 . P. PONNA KRISHNA STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to SRI B. VAfuISHIDHAR REDDY, loPUcI 2' Two CCs to lMunicipal Administra. tion and Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telanglna at Hyderabad. iOUn 3. one cc to sRr SR|NVASA RAo PACHWA, sc FoR GHMC topucl 4. one cc to sRr B. MAYUR REDDY, senior counser topucl 5. Two ccs to Gp FoR REVENUE, High --' court for the state of relangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6. One CC to SRt MOHD. AS|FUDD|N, Advocate [OPUC] 7.
Two CD Copies PIVI a BS HIGH COURT DATED:1810212026 1 $ES t o (,, 16 ilAf, 2026 J * D tsp RDER WP. No. 32182 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,r)
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.