Hearing by one Authority and passing orders by another Authority is impermissible: Telangana High Court
Facts would reveal that one Commissioner of GHMC had conducted a hearing and on his transfer, his successor had passed the impugned order. Hearing by one Authority and deciding the matter or passing the order by another authority is impermissible. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court before Hon’ble Justice K. LAKSHMAN in the matter of  Sri Mohammed Jahangir &amp; Anr vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation [WRIT PETITION No.2879 OF 2020] 
The fact of the case was that Petitioner No.1 claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.226 and Plot No.227 under a registered sale deed dated 16.05.2016 and has obtained LRS proceedings dated 27.03.2017 and building permit dated 05.10.2017. Whereas it was the contention of the respondent that the reserved public utility area space as per the Gram Panchayath Layout was converted into plots by encroaching the layout open space, designing the false plot numbers, and executing the sale deeds. Based on the said sale deeds, the petitioners have also obtained a building permit by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts. Respondent No.1 had conducted a hearing and on examination of the explanations and documents, canceled the above-said proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have filed a writ petition, and this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 25.01.2019 holding that the impugned order is a cryptic order and ordered a fresh hearing of the matter. The Commissioner heard the petitioner and was transferred and his successor pronounced the order by which he canceled both LRS proceedings dated 27.03.2017 and the building permit dated 05:10.2017. Aggrieved by such an order this present appeal is preferred by the petitioners. 

The Hon’ble High Court referred to the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao. V. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation AIR 1959 SC 308 &amp; G. Laxmi v. Sri Somesh Kumar, IAS Common Order dated 24.01.2020 in C.C. Nos.815 &amp; 822 of 2019 in which it was held that hearing by one Authority and deciding the matter or passing the order by another authority is impermissible.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the instant appeal in view of the above cases without going into the merits of the case and remanded the matter back to GHMC with a direction to pass orders afresh by putting the petitioners and respondent No.5 on notice and by affording them an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, a direction was also given to the petitioner not to proceed with construction pursuant to the building permit dated 05.10.2017 till the passing of orders by respondent No.1 as indicated above. 
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The fact of the case was that Petitioner No.1 claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.226 and Plot No.227 under a registered sale deed dated 16.05.2016 and has obtained LRS proceedings dated 27.03.2017 and building permit dated 05.10.2017. Whereas it was the contention of the respondent that the reserved public utility area space as per the Gram Panchayath Layout was converted into plots by encroaching the layout open space, designing the false plot numbers, and executing the sale deeds. Based on the said sale deeds, the petitioners have also obtained a building permit by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts. Respondent No.1 had conducted a hearing and on examination of the explanations and documents, canceled the above-said proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have filed a writ petition, and this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 25.01.2019 holding that the impugned order is a cryptic order and ordered a fresh hearing of the matter. The Commissioner heard the petitioner and was transferred and his successor pronounced the order by which he canceled both LRS proceedings dated 27.03.2017 and the building permit dated 05:10.2017. Aggrieved by such an order this present appeal is preferred by the petitioners.  
The Hon’ble High Court referred to the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao. V. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation AIR 1959 SC 308 &amp; G. Laxmi v. Sri Somesh Kumar, IAS Common Order dated 24.01.2020 in C.C. Nos.815 &amp; 822 of 2019 in which it was held that hearing by one Authority and deciding the matter or passing the order by another authority is impermissible.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the instant appeal in view of the above cases without going into the merits of the case and remanded the matter back to GHMC with a direction to pass orders afresh by putting the petitioners and respondent No.5 on notice and by affording them an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, a direction was also given to the petitioner not to proceed with construction pursuant to the building permit dated 05.10.2017 till the passing of orders by respondent No.1 as indicated above. 
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble High Court referred to the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao. V. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation AIR 1959 SC 308 &amp; G. Laxmi v. Sri Somesh Kumar, IAS Common Order dated 24.01.2020 in C.C. Nos.815 &amp; 822 of 2019 in which it was held that hearing by one Authority and deciding the matter or passing the order by another authority is impermissible. 
Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the instant appeal in view of the above cases without going into the merits of the case and remanded the matter back to GHMC with a direction to pass orders afresh by putting the petitioners and respondent No.5 on notice and by affording them an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, a direction was also given to the petitioner not to proceed with construction pursuant to the building permit dated 05.10.2017 till the passing of orders by respondent No.1 as indicated above. 
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Finally, the Hon’ble High Court allowed the instant appeal in view of the above cases without going into the merits of the case and remanded the matter back to GHMC with a direction to pass orders afresh by putting the petitioners and respondent No.5 on notice and by affording them an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, a direction was also given to the petitioner not to proceed with construction pursuant to the building permit dated 05.10.2017 till the passing of orders by respondent No.1 as indicated above. 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD CORAM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2879 OF 2020 Delivered on: 25 11 2021 Sri Mohammed Jahangir & another .. Petitioners The Greater Hyderabad Municipal CorporationRep.by its Commissioner Hyderabad & others .. Respondents For Petitioners Lr. Counsel rep. Mr.Nikhil Khadkikar Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy Mr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy Lr. Standing Counsel for GHMC Lr. Govt. Pleader for MA & UD Mr. Srinivas Chitturu. For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 For Respondent No.4 For Respondent No.5 Gist Head Note Cases Referred 1. AIR 1959 SC 308 2. Common Order dated 24.01.2020 in C.C. Nos.815 & 8219. KL J W.P.No.28720 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2879 OF 2020 ORDER: Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy learned counsel representing Mr. Nikhil Khadkikar learned counsel for the petitioners learned Government Pleader for MA & UD appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 Nr. Sampath Prabhakar Reddy leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 3 and Mr. Srinivas Chitturu learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the proceedings dated 23.12.2019 cancelling the LRS and Building Permit of the petitioners and to direct the official respondents not to interfere with the construction of petitioners on Plot Nos.226 and 227 admeasuring 335 square yards in Survey No.179 of Maruthi Nagar Saheb Nagar Kalan Ranga Reddy District as per the building permit dated 05.10.2017. 3. Petitioner No.1 claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of Plot No.226 and Plot No.227 admeasuring 35 and 110 square yards respectively making a total extent of 145 square yards in Survey No.179 situated at Sahebnagar Kalan Revenue Village under Ward No.5 Block No.2 of L.B. Nagar Circle No.3 of GHMC Hayath Nagar Revenue Mandal Ranga Reddy District under a registered sale deed bearing document No.115916 dated 16.05.2016. Petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner of Plot No.227admeasuring 190 square yards in the very same survey number under a registered sale deed bearing document No.116016 dated 15.05.2016. Thereafter they have obtained LRS proceedings dated 27.03.2017 and building permit dated 05.10.2017. 4. Respondent No.5 association has filed a Public Interest Litigation vide W.P. No.191 of 2018 complaining that the reserved public utility area space as per the Gram Panchayath Layout was converted into plots by encroaching the layout open space designed the false plot numbers and executed the sale deeds. Basing on the said sale deeds the petitioners have also obtained building permit by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts. 5. In view of the above the GHMC Authorities have issued a show cause notice dated 04.08.2018 under Section 450 of the GHMC Act 1955 to the petitioners as to why the building permit and the LRs proceedings cannot be revoked on the ground of suppression and misrepresentation of facts. Accordingly the petitioners have submitted their explanations dated 06.08.2018 and 09.08.2018. They have also requested for personal hearing. 6. Respondent No.1 had conducted hearing and on examination of the explanations and documents cancelled the above said proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by the same the petitioners herein have filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.12419 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 25.01.2019 holding that the impugned KL J W.P.No.28720 order is a cryptic order. Paragraph Nos.1 and 2 relate to previous history in brief particularly the direction of this Court in PIL No.191 of 2018. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had constructed the house in the area earmarked as open space. Further there is no reference with regard to the explanation submitted by the petitioners. The order impugned does not inspire confidence that respondent No.1 therein had dealt with the matter in accordance with law. Therefore by reproducing the relevant portion of the impugned order this Court set aside the impugned order therein remanded the matter back to respondent No.1 with a direction to pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners: 7. Thereafter in compliance of the said order dated 25.01.2019 in W.P. No.1248 of 2019 respondent No.1 had conducted hearing and passed the orders dated 23 24.12.2019 cancelling both LRS proceedings dated 27.03.2017 and the building permit dated 05:10.2017 issued in favour of the petitioners herein. Challenging the same the petitioners filed the present writ petition raising various grounds including the ground that the Commissioner of GHMC conducted hearing and on his transfer his successor has passed the impugned order. Hearing by one Authority and passing orders by another Authority is impermissible. The petitioners herein have also raised several other grounds. 8. With the above said contentions the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to set aside the impugned order. KL J W.P.No.28720 9. In the impugned order dated 23 24.12.2019 passed by respondent No.1 there is specific mention about filing of PIL No.191 of 2018 issuance of show cause notice submission of explanations and passing of orders by this Court in W.P. No.1248 of 2019. It is also mentioned that in compliance of the said order respondent No.1 has proposed hearing on 16.03.2019 and subsequently the same was postponed to 20 04.2019. During the course of hearing the then Commissioner heard the petitioners and examined the explanations submitted by them and scrutinized their case. Another hearing was conducted on 15.06.2019 with due intimation to the petitioners and also instructed them to call the Colony Association to attend the hearing with their claims and objections. 10. In the impugned order it is also further mentioned that hearing was conducted in the Chamber of the then Commissioner GHMC on 15.06.2019 and during the course of hearing the then Commissioner has considered the explanations and the documents submitted by the parties and in the said documents it is clearly mentioned as Temple& Park towards eastern side. Hence the decision taken by Commissioner vide proceedings dated 29.12.2018 holds good and once again it is informed the petitioners that the LRS proceedings dated 27.03.2017 and the building permit dated 05.10.2017 were cancelled. 11. The above said facts would reveal that one Commissioner of GHMC had conducted hearing and on his transfer his successor had passed the impugned order. Hearing by one Authority and deciding the KL J W.P.No.28720 matter or passing the order by another authority is impermissible. The said principle has also held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao. V. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation1 and this Court in G. Laxmi v. Sri Somesh Kumar IAS2. 12. In view of the above said principle and the discussion the impugned order dated 23 24.12.2019 is set aside on the said ground itself without going into merits and demerits of the case and also the rival contentions of the parties. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 with a direction to pass orders afresh by putting the petitioners and respondent No.5 on notice and by affording them an opportunity of hearing. Respondent No.1 shall complete the said exercise within one 01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the said order to the petitioners and respondent No.5. However it is contended by the GHMC and respondent No.5 that in the sale deeds dated 12.08.1982 there is specific mention about the temple and park towards eastern side. In view of the same the petitioners are directed not to proceed with construction pursuant to the building permit dated 05.10.2017 till passing of orders by respondent No.1 as indicated 13. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The interim order granted by this Court and extended the same from time to 1. AIR 1959 SC 308 2. Common Order dated 24.01.2020 in C.C. Nos.815 & 8219 time stands vacated. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no KL J W.P.No.28720 As a sequel the miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ K. LAKSHMAN J order as to costs. petition shall stand closed. 25th November 2021 Note: L.R.copy to be marked. B O.) Mgr 