Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Zaheer Ahmed Khan, acting as the Mutawalli of Dargah Kho-e-Moula Ali, challenged the building permission granted by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) in favour of Respondent No.7 for construction over land situated at Old Safilguda, Malkajgiri. The petitioner contended that the property formed part of a notified Waqf property, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, and that the construction permission had been granted without considering the rights of the Waqf Board. It was alleged that the private respondent obtained the building permission by suppressing material facts and that the authorities failed to consider the petitioner’s repeated representations.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the building permission granted by GHMC over the disputed property was illegal because the land was claimed to be a notified Waqf property.
  2. Whether GHMC authorities were required to examine the petitioner's objections under Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 before granting or continuing the building permission.
  3. Whether the alleged suppression of material facts by the private respondent warranted interference with the sanctioned building permission.

 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner submitted that he is the Mutawalli of Dargah Kho-e-Moula Ali and that the land in Survey Nos. 438 and 439 is a notified Waqf property published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette.
  • It was argued that Respondent No.7 obtained building permission dated 25.07.2022 and a work commencement letter dated 28.07.2022 without disclosing the true status of the land.
  • The petitioner contended that several representations were submitted to the authorities objecting to the construction, but no action was taken.
  • It was further argued that since the land belongs to the Waqf Board, GHMC ought to have examined the matter in accordance with Section 450 of the GHMC Act, 1955, instead of granting permission mechanically.

 

Respondents’ Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that although the petitioner had submitted representations, they did not contain specific boundaries or complete details necessary to identify and verify the disputed property.
  • It was contended that without adequate particulars, the municipal authorities could not effectively examine or verify the petitioner's claim regarding the property.

 

Court Order / Findings

The Telangana High Court observed that the petitioner expressed willingness to furnish all necessary documents establishing his claim over the disputed property.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

  • The petitioner shall submit all relevant documents before the respondent Corporation within one week from the date of receipt of the order.
  • Upon receipt of the documents, the respondent Corporation shall issue notice to Respondent No.7.
  • Thereafter, the Corporation shall examine the matter and take appropriate action within four weeks in accordance with law.
  • No order was passed as to costs.

 

Important Clarification

  • The High Court did not cancel or set aside the building permission granted by GHMC.
  • The Court ensured that the municipal authorities first examine the petitioner's claim after receiving supporting documents.
  • The judgment reinforces that where a dispute regarding Waqf property is raised, municipal authorities should consider the relevant documents and follow due process before taking further action.
  • The decision emphasizes procedural fairness by directing GHMC to hear both parties before arriving at a decision.

 

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955
  • Waqf Act, 1995
  • A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams (Amendment) Act, 1994
  • Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908


Link to download the order -
https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782981319_135compressed.pdf

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.