1. 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. Subsequently, respondent No.1 issued show cause notice dated 20.11.2023 to the appellant stating that he has made construction without leaving mandatory setbacks and erected RCC columns for construction of second floor illegally and unauthorizedly and further, directed him to submit reply within seven days. The appellant submitted reply to the show cause notice on 25.11.2023 stating that he had made construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that pillars over the slab of first floor are raised only for setting up a roof garden, but not with any ill intention and not to deviate from the approved plan; that he was not making any construction of second floor nor constructed the building without leaving mandatory setbacks, and he along with his family is residing in the said building and requested to drop the proceedings.

                  2.5. That as per the remarks of the Tahsildar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 07.02.2024 stating that the subject property falls under TS.No.25, Block-E, Ward-38 of Mallepally Village and as per TSLR, it is recorded as "ABADI" in Col.No.10 and as "GPWD" in Col.No.20 and directed the appellant to submit reply within seven days. The appellant submitted explanation to the said notice on 13.02.2024 stating that earlier, aggrieved by the notice issued by Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, dated 08.12.2017, they preferred Writ Petition No.42012/2017 before this Court and interim stay of all further proceedings was granted, however, respondent No.1 without considering the same, revoked the permission granted to him on 22.08.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred appeal, vide MA.No.56 of 2024, which was dismissed by the appellate Court vide impugned order, dated 22.11.2024, with the following observations:

                  “15. As per Section 450 of GHMC Act, 1955, the Commissioner has power to cancel the permission sanctioned to any building if the permission is obtained by misrepresenting the material facts. In the present case there is a dispute regarding revocation of the sanction plan on the ground of misrepresentation of the fact and as per the letter received from the Collector, Hyderabad and as per the report of the Tahsildar, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad that the appellant has made illegal and unauthorized constructions on the said property which falls in TS No.25, Block-E, Ward-38 of Mallepally village and as per TSLR Col. No.10 it is recorded as "ABADI" in Col. No.20 it is recorded as "GPWD. Though the contention of the appellant that immediately after issuance of the work commencement certificate, the appellant have already made construction on the said property. On perusal of the record it clearly establishes that there is a dispute regarding the fact that the appellant has encroached the Public Lane and made illegal constructions and that a Public Interest Litigation case is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and further this court cannot decide the title and ownership over the schedule property.

                  16. Considering the above said circumstances and considering the entire material placed on record, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned speaking order passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, for the said reasons the appeal falls to the ground and there are no merits in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”

3. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. G.Sindhu, learned counsel-on-record for the appellant, Sri Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, and Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no misrepresentation or suppression of facts by the appellant while applying for permission for construction of residential building; that respondent No.1 had granted permission dated 22.08.2022 for construction of G + one upper floor. He further submitted that respondent No.2 revoked building permission based on the remarks of the Tahsildar, which was made without any enquiry and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. He further submitted that there is a dispute regarding identity of the property; that the appellant is claiming ownership over the said land on the basis of the Gift deed and he has been in possession thereof, however, the trial Court without adverting to the same and without considering the various contentions raised by the appellant and the material placed in proof of his title and possession over the subject property and also pendency of the Writ Petitions, viz., Writ Petition Nos.26607 of 2012 and 42012 of 2017, filed in respect of the subject property, has erroneously confirmed the order passed by respondent No.1 revoking the building permission granted to the appellant and hence, the learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for appellant, to buttress his submissions, relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Ors Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors (MANU/SC/0209/1977), wherein it is held as hereunder:-

                  “8…. Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be constructed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be constructed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the appellant has obtained building permission by false statements and misrepresentation of the facts. Learned counsel further submitted that one Yousuf has filed a complaint petition against the construction made by the appellant herein and others on 05.06.2023 stating that the same are unauthorized and are made encroaching road portion and further, he also approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.17616/2023 against the respondents-Corporation and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 07.07.2023, directing the respondents to consider the complaint dated 05.06.2023 of the petitioner therein in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, by putting all the concerned parties on notice and giving a fair opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and communicate the same to the petitioner therein.

                  6.1. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the said complainant, alleging disobedience of the order passed in Writ Petition No.17616 of 2023, filed Contempt Case No.2372 of 2023 against the respondent officials for not initiating action against the unauthorized construction made by the appellant and others; that the respondent officials have once again inspected the subject property and found that the owner has laid RCC slabs for construction of ground plus one upper floor and further, erected RCC columns for construction of 2nd floor illegally and unauthorizedly in the subject property and accordingly, a show cause notice on 20.11.2023 was served on the appellant.

                  6.2. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation issued show cause notice dated 07.02.2024 under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the GHMC Act’), pursuant to the letter addressed by the Collector, Hyderabad, duly enclosing the remarks of the Tahsildar, Asifnagar, Hyderabad, to the effect that the subject property falls in TS No.25, Block-E, Ward-38 of Mallepally Village and as per TSLR, in Col. No.10 it is recorded as "ABADI" and in Col. No.20, it is recorded as "GPWD". He further submitted that as the reply dated 23.02.2024 submitted by the appellant was found to be not satisfactory, the building permission granted earlier, vide No.193724/ GHMC/14723/2022 dated 02.08.2022 was revoked by respondent No.2. He finally submitted that revocation order was passed by respondent No.2, based on the remarks of the Tahsidlar, which was confirmed by the trial Court vide impugned order, by duly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case from a proper perspective and as such, this Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the appellant obtained the municipal sanction plan by creating fabricated documents of title. He further submitted that since the appellant and some others have encroached the public lane and started constructions illegally by raising pillars and were further trying to get regularize the public road on their names, by creating fictitious documents, respondent No.3 made a complaint to the Collector, the RDO, Hyderabad, the GHMC Authorities and the Tahsildar, Asifnagar Mandal, on 05.06.2023, to demolish the illegal constructions and thereafter, alleging inaction on the part of the officials concerned, he has filed Writ Petition No.17616 of 2023, which was disposed of with certain directions to the GHMC authorities.

8. Further, alleging disobedience of the orders passed in the Writ Petition, respondent No.3 filed CC.No.2372 of 2023 and later, pursuant to his representation, dated 05.06.2023, the GHMC Authorities revoked the municipal permission granted to the appellant, but failed to take steps for demolition of the illegal construction raised by appellant. He further submitted that since the appellant has taken permission on the Government land fraudulently, respondent No.2 has rightly revoked the building permission granted to the appellant, but failed to take steps for demolition of the illegal construction raised by appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court, after careful examination of the entire case, observed that there is a dispute regarding title in respect of the subject property that the appellant encroached the public lane and made illegal constructions and that a Public Interest Litigation is also pending before this Court and accordingly, rightly declined to set aside the revocation order passed by respondent No.2. He further submitted that the appellant failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

9. Apropos the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the following points raise for consideration: -

                  (1) Whether the appellant obtained building permission dated 22.08.2022 from the GHMC by misrepresentation or suppression of facts?

                  (2) Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court is sustainable?

                  (3) To what relief?

Issue No.1:-

10. A bare perusal of the facts of the case, even as narrated by the appellant himself, goes to show that a couple of cases in respect of the subject property are pending, i.e., firstly, LGC filed by the appellant and his brothers against one Mohd. Munawar Ahmed Sohail and others ended in dismissal by the Special Court, against which, the appellant filed WP.No.26607 of 2012 before this Court and the said Writ Petition is pending consideration; and secondly, against the proceedings of the Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, the appellant’s brother filed WP.No.42012 of 2017 and the same is also pending consideration.

11. A person who applies for grant of building permission has to mandatorily show his prima facie title and possession over the property, by enclosing relevant documents along with the application, and state all the facts related to the property, i.e., pendency of cases/litigations, if any, in relation to right/title/possession of the property, the orders, if any, passed therein by the competent Courts, etc. On furnishing all such details of the property by the applicant, the GHMC authorities, will scrutinize the same and on being satisfied with the veracity thereof, grant permission for construction of building.

12. In the case on hand, as stated supra, Writ Petition Nos.26607 of 2012 and 42012 of 2017, which are filed in respect of the subject property are pending before this Court, which necessarily means that there is a dispute with regard to title/possession over the subject property. During the pendency of the said Writ Petitions, the appellant applied for grant of permission for construction of G + one upper floor on the subject property concealing the pendency of the cases before this Court. While granting building permission, prima facie title and possession over the land will be considered by the authorities concerned and the said authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title disputes, if any, over the said land. Non-disclosure or concealing the material facts or litigations, if any, before the Courts, while submitting application for building permission amounts to playing fraud on the authorities concerned, by suppression and misrepresentation of material facts.

13. It is relevant to refer to Section 450 of the GHMC Act, which reads as hereunder:

                  “If at any time after permission to proceed with any building or work has been given, the Commissioner is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under section 428 or 433 or in the further information if any, furnished, he may cancel such permission and any work done thereunder shall be deemed to have been done without his permission.”

14. In the present case, it is to be taken note that respondent No.3 filed complaint against the appellant and others alleging that they have encroached the public lane and made illegal constructions. Respondent No.3 has also filed WP.No.17616 of 2023 and C.C.No.2372 of 2023 with regard to the unauthorized constructions made by the appellant and further, the inaction of the GHMC authorities in taking steps against such authorized constructions. That as a consequence of the orders passed in the said cases, the GHMC authorities have inspected the subject property and having found that the constructions raised by the appellant are in deviation of the sanctioned plan, have taken steps in accordance with the provisions of the GHMC Act and finally, respondent No.2 has passed speaking order revoking the building permission granted to the appellant, which cannot be faulted with.

15. The aforesaid view of this Court is fortified by the judgment of this Court in Smt. Lalitha Srikrish & others Vs. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others ((2022) 2 ALT 37), wherein it is held that the applicant shall necessarily disclose all the facts and file all the relevant documents while applying for permission for construction. It was further held that the pending cases or litigations over the building permission is invariably linked to ownership or title, such pending litigations/dispute with regard to title over the property is a material fact which has to be mandatorily disclosed by the appellant who seeks building permission over said property. Such discloser of pending litigations/suits is necessary for the authorities to determine prime facie title and possession.

16. With regard to the same aspect, it is pertinent to note the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 24.08.2021 in Writ Appeal No.162 of 2021 {M/s. Fortuna Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Telangana}, wherein it is held that non-disclosure of pending litigation amounts to material misrepresentation under Section 450 of the GHMC Act, 1955. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraphs, viz., para Nos.27 to 29 of the said judgment are extracted as hereunder:-

                  “27. Under this provision, the Commissioner of GHMC has power to cancel any permission obtained for making building construction, if he is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement by the applicant for building permission.

                  28. No material is placed before this Court by the 7th respondent that he had disclosed to the Commissioner of GHMC about the litigation pending between it and the appellant i.e. E.A.No.81 of 2008 in E.P.No.37 of 2008 in O.S.No.1402 of 1996 before the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad or that appellant had obtained registered sale deed dt.17.11.2007 from the said Court through decree dt.27.11.1996 in O.S.No.1402 of 1996.

                  29. Had such information been disclosed, it is possible that the Commissioner might have rejected the application made for grant of Municipal permission to 7th respondent as there would be a serious doubt as to whether he had prima facie title to the subject property or not.”

17. Thus, the aforesaid view taken by this Court that non-disclosure or misrepresentation or suppression of material facts with regard to pending cases/litigations before the Courts by the appellant while applying for permission for grant of building permission amounts to playing fraud on the GHMC authorities, is fortified by the aforesaid judgments of a learned single Judge and a Division Bench of this Court as stated supra.

18. This issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2:-

19. On filing of Municipal Appeal by the appellant before the trial Court challenging the revocation order, the trial Court has thoroughly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and by referring to Section 450 of the GHMC Act, observed that as the appellant has misrepresented the facts with regard to the subject property while obtaining building permission, the Commissioner has rightly revoked the building permission granted to the appellant.

20. There is no procedural irregularity or violation of natural principles of justice by respondent No.2 while passing the revocation order and the trial Court, in its wisdom, has rightly confirmed the said order. That apart, the appellant failed to make out any case or valid ground to interfere with the impugned order.

21. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.3:-

22. In the light of the findings of this Court on issue Nos.1 and 2 and further, in the light of the legal position laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order.

23. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to submit fresh application with GHMC by disclosing the pendency of the all cases/litigations in respect of the subject property, and it is for the GHMC to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

24. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.