The Telangana High Court has dismissed two appeals by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) against an order setting aside its revocation of Layout Regularisation Scheme (LRS) permissions for two plots, after refusing to condone delays of 820 and 794 days in filing the appeals.

The Court also found little prima facie merit in GHMC's allegation that the plot owners' vendor had committed fraud, noting that the Corporation had regularised the plots with full knowledge that they were situated in the open space of an unapproved layout.

A Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Renuka Yara held that GHMC had itself collected penal and pro-rata charges for the shortfall in open space before granting LRS permissions and subsequent building permissions. It therefore could not claim that it had been kept in the dark about the reduction of open space.

The Bench observed:

"It is the petitioners who with full knowledge about shortfall of open area granted LRS proceedings and also granted building permissions. This fact pattern shows that even in case the case of petitioners to condone delay is considered on the basis of merits, there is little scope for prima facie case of fraud or misrepresentation."

The Bench particularly rejected GHMC's reliance on election duties to explain the subsequent delay. It observed:

"Even assuming that all the aforementioned sequence of events are sufficient cause for delay, the time period thereafter allegedly was taken up on account of entrustment of Special Election Duties for the State Telangana Assembly Elections followed by Parliament Elections. This reason seems far-fetched, as the staff of petitioner-corporation may be engaged in election duties, but the Zonal Commissioner can always take a decision about filing the Writ Appeal. The City Planner also could have sought necessary instructions for filing Writ Appeal or not.

The staff being busy with election duty does not seem a convincing reason for the simple reason that while the staff are busy with election duties, the decision makers could have always decided whether or not to file a Writ Appeal and inform the same to the Standing Counsel, who were appointed by proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.517 dated 10.10.2022. Even in case the staff are busy, the Standing Counsel would not be engaged with election duties and therefore they could have always prepared the grounds of Writ Appeal. Further, the petitioners waiting to seek legal opinion from the Standing Counsel till the culmination of elections does not seem convincing"

The appeals arose from two writ petitions filed by Siri Constructions and Darshinee Infra Projects against GHMC's July 23, 2018 revocation notices concerning Plot Nos. 22/A and 19/A respectively. A Single Judge had, by a common order dated April 25, 2022, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the revocation notices. GHMC filed appeals against this order after delays of 820 and 794 days.

Explaining the delay, GHMC said that the zonal official dealing with the matter, M. Narsimha Ramulu, had been apprehended by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on April 21, 2022 in a disproportionate assets case. Another City Planner was thereafter placed in additional charge, followed by the appointment of a regular City Planner in August 2022. GHMC's Standing Counsel were also changed in October 2022.

GHMC further submitted that when the respondents subsequently sought restoration of their building permissions, the file was put up in November 2023. However, officials were then occupied with the Telangana Assembly elections and subsequently the Parliamentary elections, delaying the process of obtaining legal advice on whether an appeal should be filed.

The developers opposed condonation. They pointed out that they had submitted representations on May 24, 2022 and March 7, 2023, along with copies of the Single Judge's order, seeking restoration of their building permissions and grant of occupancy certificates. They argued that GHMC therefore had full knowledge of the judgment but failed to challenge it within time.

The Division Bench agreed that the reasons offered by GHMC did not explain the entire delay. It said that even if the ACB case against the concerned official justified some initial delay, a regular City Planner had been appointed by August 2022 and a decision on filing an appeal ought to have been taken within a reasonable period thereafter.

Similarly, while a change of Standing Counsel could require some time for the new counsel to take over, the Court noted that no action was taken for more than a year. It found that GHMC "did not take up any initiative to file the Writ Appeals" until the developers sought implementation of the earlier judgment.

The Court also considered GHMC's argument that the merits should not be shut out merely on limitation because public interest was involved in preserving open spaces. However, it found that the Corporation had complete knowledge of the location of the plots when it granted regularisation.

Since GHMC had collected penal and pro-rata charges for the shortfall in open space, the Court held that there could be no question of the vendors having concealed this fact from it. It therefore found "little scope for prima facie case of fraud or misrepresentation" even if the merits were considered while deciding the applications for condonation.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed GHMC's applications seeking condonation of delays of 820 and 794 days. Consequently, both writ appeals were also dismissed.

Case Title: Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Siri Constructions; Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Darshinee Infra Projects

Case Nos.: I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in/and W.A. No. 1028 of 2024; I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in/and W.A. No. 1033 of 2024

Appearance: A. Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate General, for GHMC and the other appellants; K. Durga Prasad for the respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order