Telangana High Court
Sri S.Srinivas Rao And 2 Others vs State Of Telangana And 13 Others on 10 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION Nos.33 and 28418 of 2021 and 37346 of 2025
DATED:10.07.2026
Writ Petition No.33 of 2021
Between:
S.Srinivas Rao and others ...Petitioners
And:
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Urban
Development Department,
Hyderabad and others.
...Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
Writ Petition No.33 of 2021 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus
declaring the inaction of respondent No.2 in disposing of the petitioners’
representation dated 10.09.2020, seeking revocation of the Building
Permission bearing No.17994/HO/N7/Cir-18/2012, dated 15.12.2012,
allegedly obtained by respondent Nos.5 to 7 by playing fraud and
misrepresentation in violation of the status quo orders passed by this Court,
2
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of
Constitution of India and for consequential relief.
2. Writ Petition No.28418 of 2021 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus
declaring the inaction of respondent No.2 in considering the petitioners’
representation dated 15.09.2020, seeking revocation of the conveyance deed
Nos.1318 & 2328 of 2009, dated 18.07.2009 and 10.12.2009, relating to
Plot Nos.45 and 46, admeasuring 500 Sq.yrds and 550 Sq.yrds,
respectively, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and
300-A of the Constitution of India and for consequential reliefs.
3. Writ Petition No.37346 of 2025 is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus
declaring the Building Permit No.5386/GHMC/SEC/2025-BP, dated
08.07.2025, issued by respondent No.2 in violation of the status quo orders
dated 04.09.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27734 of 2012, and order
dated 05.01.2021 passed in W.P.No.33 of 2021, and by suppressing
material facts including the rejection letter dated 08.11.2021, issued by the
Zonal Commissioner, Secunderabad, GHMC, which itself is under
challenge in W.P.No.28449 of 2021, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of
3
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and for
consequential relief.
4. The petitioners and respondent Nos.1 to 17 are same in all the Writ
Petitions. Since the parties in all the writ petitions are same, the issues
involved are interconnected and the result is interdependent, all the writ
petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by way of Common
Order.
5. Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for petitioners,
Sri Kishore Rai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.Divya Rai Sohni,
learned Counsel-on-record for respondent Nos.8, 16 and 17, Sri V.Ravi
Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri V.Rohith, learned
Counsel-on-record for respondent No.9, and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel for GHMC-respondent No.2 in W.P.No.37346 of
2025.
6. W.P.No.37346 of 2025 is taken up as a lead case insofar as facts are
concerned.
4
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
7. Brief facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, as averred in the
writ affidavit are that petitioner No.1 is the General Power of Attorney (for
short ‘GPA’) holder of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, vide GPAs dated 14.10.2019
and 12.10.2019 respectively, who are his siblings; that originally, one
Mansab Jung was the absolute owner and possessor of the land
admeasuring Acs.2935 Sq.yrds, in Sy.No.74/8 of Mahendra Hills, East
Marredpally, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’);
that he sold the subject property to one P.Bhaskara Murthy, through a
registered sale deed, dated 25.04.1959, who in turn entered into an
agreement of sale, dated 31.07.1967, with the father of petitioners, namely,
S.P.Eswara Rao, however, the said P.Bhaskara Murthy expired before
executing the sale deed; that as the legal heirs of P.Bhaskara Murthy failed
to execute the sale deed, petitioners’ father filed a suit vide O.S.No.497 of
1993, and the same was decreed vide Judgment and decree dated
04.09.1995 and the same has become final; that despite the said decree,
legal heirs of P.Bhaskara Murthy failed to execute the sale deed in favour of
petitioners’ father; that petitioners’ father filed E.P.No.88 of 1997 and the
same was allowed and the executing Court executed the sale deed No.2134
5
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
of 1999, dated 21.02.1998, in favour of the petitioners’ father and delivered
possession to him through Court Bailiff on 25.08.2012; and that at the
instance legal heirs of P.Bhaskara Murthy, R.D.O, Secunderabad, initiated
proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C; that challenging the said
proceedings, petitioners’ father filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.27734 of
2012 and this Court vide Order dated 04.09.2012, granted Status Quo.
7.1. It is further averred that the M.R.O, Marredpally, Secunderabad, filed
L.G.C.No.167 of 1997, against Vyjayanthi Cooperative Housing Society
and others, including petitioners’ father and the same was dismissed vide
Judgment and decree dated 18.03.2010, holding that State miserably failed
to establish its claim in respect of lands in Sy.No.74/2 to 13 of Marredpally
Village, Secunderabad, including the subject property; that during the
pendency of W.P.No.27734 of 2012, petitioners’ father died on 24.12.2016,
and the subject property was devolved on to the petitioners; that while the
matter stood thus, petitioners came to know that one M/s.Bricks Infra was
trying to commence construction by encroaching a part of subject property;
that petitioners submitted a representation dated 16.07.2018 to respondent
No.2 not to grant any permission to M/s.Bricks Infra, in respect of subject
6
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
property; that a small tin shed was constructed by the petitioners on
19.09.2018, in the subject property, however, on the directions of the
Tahsildar, Marredpally, the same was removed on 20.09.2018.
7.2. It is further averred that on an application filed under the Right to
Information Act on 01.11.2018 before respondent No.2, the petitioners
came to know that one Sara Mehdi and P.N.Chenoy i.e., respondent Nos.6
and 7, respectively, have obtained building permission vide
No.17994/HO/N7/Cir-18/2012, dated 15.12.2012, in respect of land
admeasuring 500 Sq.yrds and 550 Sq.yrds in Plot Nos.45 and 46 in
Sy.No.74 of Marredpally Village, basing on registered conveyance deed
Nos.1318 & 2328 of 2009, dated 18.07.2009 and 10.12.2009 respectively;
and that respondent Nos.6 and 7 entered into development agreement with
respondent No.5 i.e., M/s.Trireme Infrastructure Private Limited, vide
document Nos.304 & 818 of 2011, dated 08.02.2011 and 06.05.2011,
respectively, followed by Supplementary deed No.4040 of 2018, dated
29.11.2018 and respondent No.5 commenced the construction, basing on
the said permission which was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation;
that petitioners have filed representations dated 10.09.2020 and 11.09.2020,
7
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
before respondent No.2 seeking revocation of building permission dated
15.12.2012, but no action has been taken by respondent No.2. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.33 of 2021.
7.3. It is further averred that this Court vide Order dated 05.01.2021 in
W.P.No.33 of 2021, directed the official respondents to verify whether the
unofficial respondents are having necessary renewal to commence the
construction work and if the allegations made by petitioners are found to be
true, the official respondents shall take necessary action strictly in
accordance with law; that official respondents filed counter stating that
GHMC authorities inspected the site and found no construction activity and
also stated that there is no need to revoke or cancel the building permission
under Section 450 of the GHMC Act, since the same was already lapsed
long back and no renewal application is filed. The petitioners have filed a
representation dated 15.09.2020, before respondent No.2, for revocation of
conveyance deed Nos.1318 & 2328 of 2009, dated 18.07.2009 and
10.12.2009 and aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2, petitioners
have filed W.P.No.28418 of 2021.
8
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
7.4. It is further averred that respondent No.5 submitted another
application seeking building permission through TS-bPASS on 24.09.2021,
and the same was rejected by respondent No.2 vide Rejection Letter dated
08.11.2021. Challenging the said rejection order, Respondents No.5 to 7
filed W.P.No.28449 of 2021, wherein the petitioners herein were arrayed as
party respondents and the same is pending adjudication.
7.5. It is further averred that respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8 to 14, executed
a Tripartite Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated
12.07.2024, in favour of respondent No.15 represented by Respondent
No.8, and filed fresh application dated 17.12.2024, before respondent No.2,
by suppressing all the aforesaid facts and pending litigations; that
respondent No.2 granted building permission vide permission
No.5386/GHMC/SEC/2025-BP, dated 08.07.2025, in violation of Orders of
Status Quo dated 04.09.2012 in W.P.No.27734 of 2012. Aggrieved by the
same, petitioners have filed W.P.No.37346 of 2025.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the unofficial
respondents obtained building permit on 15.12.2012, for construction in
respect of land admeasuring 878 square meters in Plot Nos.45 and 46 in
9
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
Survey No.74, Seva Mandal Society, Marredpally, Secunderabad, to which,
they have no valid title. He further submitted that the alleged plot numbers,
and door numbers are fictitious and non-existent and there is no sanctioned
layout in the name of Seva Mandal Society, and the same are only created
for obtaining building permission dated 15.12.2012. He further submitted
that respondent Nos.6 and 7 obtained the earlier building permit on the
basis of conveyance deeds dated 18.07.2009 and 10.12.2009 registered as
Document Nos.1318/2009 and 2328/2009 respectively, with regard to Plot
Nos.45 and 46, showing them as encroachments with building bearing
D.No.10-3-46, for regularization as Government land. He further submitted
that no building permission can be granted without proper localisation and
identification of the property, particularly when petitioners are in
possession of subject property and the status quo orders passed by this
Court are subsisting.
8.1. Learned Counsel for petitioners further submitted that respondent
authorities failed to undertake proper verification with the revenue
authorities prior to grant of building permission and thereby failed in
discharge of statutory duties. He further submitted that construction activity
10
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
undertaken by respondent No.5, under the guise of permit which expired
and was issued in the name of different builder, is illegal. He also submitted
that the conveyance deeds and regularisation proceedings relied upon by
respondent Nos.6 and 7 are contrary to the findings of L.G.C.No.167 of
1997, wherein the subject property was held to be patta land and the
Government’s claim was rejected, and the same was confirmed by a
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19106 of 2010, vide Order dated
28.05.2025, and the said order is binding on all parties claiming through the
Government, including respondent Nos.6 and 7.
8.2. He further submitted that under Section 388 of the GHMC Act,
1955, respondent No.2 is required to verify prima facie title, possession and
identification of the property prior to grant of building permission, but the
same was not followed in the present case.
8.3. Learned Counsel for petitioners further submitted that petitioners
have submitted a representation dated 22.07.2025, before respondent No.2
seeking cancellation of the building permit dated 08.07.2025, but no action
has been taken by respondent No.2. He further submitted that no notice of
commencement of construction has been issued before commencement of
11
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
construction, as contemplated under Section 440 of the GHMC Act, 1955
and finally, prayed to allow the writ petitions.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, by referring to the counter of
respondent No.2, submitted that respondents Corporation has received a
complaint, dated 26.07.2025, from petitioner No.1 seeking to cancel the
building permission dated 08.07.2025; that the respondent authorities
verified the records and observed that Zonal Office, Secunderabad Zone,
GHMC, has accorded building permission vide No.5386/GHMC/
SEC/2025-BP, dated 08.07.2025, for construction of Cellar + Stilt + 5
upper floors to an extent of 877.5 Sq.mtrs in Plot Nos.45 and 46 of Seva
Mandal Society, Block No.3, Ward No.10, East Marredpally,
Secunderabad, in favour of Sarah Mehdi and others, represented by
M/s Aarthi Constructions, represented by G.Bhuvaneshwar. He further
submitted that before granting building permission, GHMC has sent the
building application to SDC (LAO), who opined that the site under
reference in respect of Plot Nos.45 and 46 in Sy.No.74/9 was classified as
‘Private Land’ and basing on the said opinion, GHMC accorded permission
to respondent No.8 and that there is no illegality or irregularity on the part
12
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
of respondents Corporations in according building permission dated
08.07.2025.
9.1. Learned Standing Counsel for GHMC further submitted that on the
representation dated 10.09.2020, submitted by petitioners, respondent
authorities verified the records and noticed that on the application submitted
by P.N.Chenoy and another, building permission was accorded vide permit
No.17994/HO/N7/Cir-18/2012, dated 15.12.2012, for construction of Cellar
+ Stilt for parking + 5 upper floors and respondent authorities have also
inspected the site under building permission and did not find any
construction activity in the subject property and that the building permit
which was obtained in the year 2012 has already lapsed long back and no
application was submitted for renewal of earlier permission till date.
9.2. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-GHMC further
submitted that petitioners are placing reliance upon the status quo order
granted by this Court in W.P. No.27734 of 2012. However, as per the
records available with the respondent authorities, the said status quo order
pertains to land in S.No.74/8, whereas the unofficial respondents sought for
and obtained building permission in respect of land in Survey No.74/9, thus
13
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
the said Status quo order has no application to the respondents’ property.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.8, 16 and 17, by
referring to Counter, submitted that respondent Nos.6 and 7 are the absolute
owners and possessors of Plot Nos.46 and 45 admeasuring 550 Sq.yrds and
500 Sq.yrds in Sy.No.74 of Marredpally Mandal, having acquired the same
under registered sale deed Nos.457 and 455 of 1990, dated 12.01.1990; that
respondent No.5 entered into a Tripartite Development Agreement with
M/s.Aarti constructions and M/s.Trireme Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. He further
submitted that petitioners are claiming rights through Mansab Jung in
respect of land in Sy.No.74/8, but no documents have been filed to show
the title of Mansab Jung over the property in Sy.No.74/8, whereas the title
documents, layout approvals, development permissions, conveyance deeds
and possession of the unofficial respondents exclusively pertain to Survey
No.74/9; that petitioners are trying to lay claim over Plot Nos.45 and 46 in
Survey No.74/9 under the guise of Survey No.74/8, therefore the petitioners
have no right, title, or possession over the subject property. He further
submitted that petitioners have failed to produce any proceedings or
14
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, when they are claiming
rights over a large extent of land.
10.1. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.8, 16 and 17 further
submitted that one M.Meena Kumari & 5 others, have filed LGC.No.32 of
2011, in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4-00 gts in Sy.No.74/8, claiming
title from the legal heirs of Mansab Jung, against the land owners of Seva
Mandal Society and the same was dismissed on 29.01.2013. Aggrieved by
the same, they have filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.13507 of 2013, and
the same was also dismissed by this Court on 24.12.2013, therefore, the
said Mansab Jung had no title over the subject property and consequently,
the petitioners cannot claim title through him. He further submitted that
originally, the land in Sy.No.74/9 belongs to one Syed Ali Abbas and his
family members and they have conveyed an extent of Acs.36-00 gts in
favour of Seva Mandal Society through seven registered sale deeds. Out of
the said land, an extent of Acs.12-00 gts fell within the limits of the GHMC,
for which Seva Mandal Society obtained layout approvals and revised
layout permissions from the GHMC. Pursuant thereto, Seva Mandal Society
developed the land into residential plots and sold Plot No.46 to respondent
15
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
No.6 and Plot No.45 to respondent No. 7, under registered Sale Deed
Nos.457 & 455 of 1990, dated 12.01.1990; that subsequently Government
regularized the said plots under G.O.Ms. No. 166 of 2008 and executed
conveyance deeds in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the year 2009,
thereby confirming their possession and title.
10.2. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.8, 16 and 17 further
submitted that respondent Nos.6 and 7 entered into registered Development
Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney with Respondent No. 5, and
thereafter, a Tripartite Development Agreement-cum-General Power of
Attorney with M/s. Aarti Constructions for development of the subject
property; that respondents have obtained valid building permissions, layout
approvals, and occupancy certificates from the competent authorities,
pursuant to which large-scale residential development has already been
undertaken and several flats have been handed over to purchasers. He
further submitted that as per the report of the Deputy Director, Survey and
Land Records, and the proceedings of the District Collector, the plots
developed by Seva Mandal Society are tallying with the approved layouts
and correspond exclusively to Survey No.74/9; that M/s Aarti Constructions
16
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
subsequently obtained fresh building permission in the year 2025. He
further submitted that petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy
before the competent Civil Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief
Act, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
11. From the aforesaid pleadings and submissions made on behalf of
petitioners and respondents, it is evident there is a serious dispute with
regard to location of the subject property.
12. The petitioners are claiming that the subject property forms part of
Sy.No.74/8 and are ascertaining their rights through a Judgment and decree
dated 04.09.1995 passed in O.S.No.497 of 1993 and further claiming that
they are put in possession by Court Bailiff in E.P.No.88 of 1997. Whereas,
respondent Nos.5 to 10 are claiming that subject property forms part of
Sy.No.74/9 and ascertaining their rights under registered sale deed Nos.457
and 455 of 1990, dated 12.01.1990; and that they are in possession and
enjoyment of the subject property and in fact, have raised some structures
by obtaining permission from respondent No.2-GHMC.
17
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
13. It is a settled principle of law that while granting permission for
construction, the Commissioner, GHMC has to only consider the prima
facie title and possession of the applicant in respect of the property for
which permission for construction has been sought for and the
Commissioner cannot go into the disputed question of title of the property
and adjudicate the same. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the
following decisions:
(i) In Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. Collector, Hyderabad1
the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that “the
Commissioner is not empowered to decide any disputed questions of
title or the ownership over the property and he is only entitle to
proceed on the basis of prima facie title of the applicant seeking
permission.”
(ii) In K. Pavan Raj v. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad2
the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that “the
Commissioner therefore cannot be compelled to decide 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.”
14. Perusal of the record discloses that no interim order or restraint order
has been passed in the present writ petitions restraining the respondent
1
2001 (3) ALD 600
2
2008 (1) ALD 792
18
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
authorities from processing or granting building permission in respect of the
land in Sy.No.74/9. Though the petitioners heavily relying upon the Status
Quo Order granted by this Court in W.P.No.27734 of 2012, the same
pertains to land in Sy.No.74/8 and the same has no application to the
respondents’ property i.e., Sy.No.74/9. It is also evident from the record
that building permission dated 08.07.2025, was granted in favour of
unofficial respondents in respect of land in Sy.No.74/9. Mere pendency of
proceedings or complaints submitted by the petitioners, in the absence of
any restraint order from a competent Court, cannot constitute a ground for
withholding building permission.
15. Admittedly, no direction has been issued by this Court restraining
GHMC from considering or granting building permission in respect of the
land in Sy.No.74/9, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that
respondent No.2 granted building permission while Status Quo Order was
subsisting is untenable.
16. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners
that the land claimed by respondent Nos.8, 16 and 17 in Sy.No.74/9 does
not exist on ground and the same is created for the purpose of obtaining
19
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
building permission. In fact, the respondent Nos.8, 16 and 17 are claiming
their title, right from the year 1990 and have obtained title documents,
layout approvals, development permissions and conveyance deeds
pertaining to Sy.No.74/9. More so, the GHMC is not vested with
jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of title and is only required to
examine whether the applicant has established prima facie title for the
limited purpose of considering an application for building permission.
17. The Commissioner, on being satisfied that respondent Nos.6 and 7
have prima facie title and possession over the subject property, has granted
the building permission. Furthermore, this Court while exercising the writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot go into
disputed question of facts and title disputes and also cannot sit in appeal
over the decision of an administrative authority, i.e., Commissioner in
granting permission. It is the competent Civil Court, which can only
adjudicate disputed question of facts and decide the title (See:
S.Rameshwar Rao & 4others Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation, Repby its Commissioner and others).
20
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
18. It is relevant to refer to Judgment of this Court in S.H. Kishan Vs
State of Telangana & others, 3 wherein, it was held as under:-
“As seen from the pleadings of the respective parties, it is clear that
there are serious disputed questions of title between the parties. Merely
because, by the impugned proceedings, building permission is granted
by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent Nos. 4 & 5, it does not take
away the right, title and interest of the petitioners, if any, over the
subject property and they can always approach the civil court seeking
adjudication of their right, title and interest over the subject property.”
19. It is also relevant to refer to Judgment of this Court in
Dr. M.Satchinanda Rao Vs State of Telangana, 4 wherein it was held as
under:-
“‘Prima facie title’, therefore, is said to exist when the person
claiming such title places material on record to prove his ownership
over the property. Such material means and includes all the
documentation linking the person claiming the property and the
property itself. The documents placed on record should on a bare
perusal show that the applicant is the owner of the property. To
clarify further, the municipal authorities while granting permission
have to consider the following while examining the existence of
‘prima facie title’:
3
2021 SCC Online 783
4
2022(2) ALD 314(TS)
21
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
i) The applicant should have possession of the property over
which permission is claimed. The term possession herein not only
includes physical possession but also constructive possession. In
other words, the concerned authority should see whether the
applicant has control/custody over the property. Possession can be
proved by ancillary documents like property tax receipts, mutation
proceedings, electricity receipts, etc.
ii) The authorities should verify the documents showing the flow
of title which vests ownership rights in the applicant. These
documents include sale deeds and link documents.
iii) If the concerned authority, after a bare perusal of the
submitted documents, is of the opinion that the applicant has
possession over the property and has submitted the required
documents establishing the flow of title, it can grant building
permission on the ground of existence of ‘prima facie title. If the
concerned authorities want to seek clarifications regarding the
documents submitted, they cannot conduct a roving enquiry to see if
the applicant is the owner of the property.
In light of the aforesaid, Respondent No.3 has no authority to
conduct a roving enquiry by ordering a re-survey. While granting
permission it had satisfied itself that the Petitioner had a ‘prima facie
title’. Merely because it had received a complaint that a suit is
pending, it cannot revoke the building permission.”
20. In the light of foregoing discussion and the legal position, this Court
is of the considered view that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
22
LNA,J
W.P.Nos.33 &28418 of 2021
& 37346 of 2025
21. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, liberty is
granted to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court seeking
appropriate relief. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
DATE:10.07.2026
Tri/dr
