SURA KUMARASWAMY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order dtd. 4/8/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26991 of 2022 allowing the writ petition.

(2.) The Appellant is Respondent No.5 in the writ petition. Respondent No.5 herein is the writ petitioner. The writ petition has been filed to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 and 3 in revoking the building permission No.174509/GWMC/ 3416 of 2022, dtd. 1/6/2022, vide proceedings in File No.R-237229/GWMC/TP/2022, dtd. 20/6/2022, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to restore the building permission granted in her favour.

(3.) The brief facts are that the petitioner, claiming to be the owner of plot admeasuring 215.25 square yards situated in Survey No.157(new) and 552 (old) of Waddepally Revenue Village, Hanumakonda Mandal, Warangal City and Urban District, has applied for building permission duly enclosing the necessary documents and Respondent No.2 after considering the said documents granted building permission in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings No.174509/GWMC/ 3416 of 2022, dtd. 1/6/2022. However, the said permission was revoked by Respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.R-237229/GWMC/TP/2022 dtd. 20/6/2022, on the sole ground that a civil suit i.e., O.S.No.477 of 2020 is pending against the vendor of the petitioner and the Appellant (Respondent No.5 in the writ petition) and the vendor of the petitioner, to create dispute over the property, during the pendency of the suit has disposed of the property in favour of the petitioner and suppressing the fact of pendency of O.S.No.477 of 2020 the petitioner has obtained building permission from the Respondent authority. The grievance of the petitioner as ventilated in the writ petition is that Respondent No.2, in exercise of powers under Sec. 176(9) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (briefly "the Act", hereinafter), has erroneously revoked the building permission on the ground of misrepresentation of facts and admittedly the petitioner is not a party to the suit, as such it cannot be said that she has suppressed the said fact in her application. Respondent No.2 on being satisfied that the writ petitioner is having prima facie title has granted permission, whereas Respondent No.5 in the writ petition (Appellant) relying on the agreement of sale dtd. 1/8/2003 and the LRS proceedings dtd. 20/4/2018, has submitted objections and in fact Respondent No.5 in the writ petition is not having any title or ownership over the subject property and thus prayed for allowing the writ petition.