While directing a fresh examination of constructions allegedly raised in a designated parking area of Mehta Towers, the High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad Bench has held that a claim of deemed permission or an ex parte civil court decree cannot automatically validate a structure that must otherwise comply with sanctioned plans and municipal laws.
The High Court clarified that an ex parte civil court decree declaring deemed sanction of a construction cannot prevent the municipal corporation from exercising its statutory powers to verify whether the construction complies with applicable building laws and sanctioned plans. The Court observed that the concept of deemed permission under the GHMC Act does not grant a blanket authorization to undertake any construction. Even where deemed permission is claimed, the construction must conform to statutory requirements, building bye-laws and the approved plan.
The Court noted that the sanctioned permission specifically earmarked certain portions of the ground floor as covered parking areas. Any subsequent construction in such areas must be scrutinized carefully to determine whether it violates the sanctioned layout and residents’ common amenities.
The Court held that Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) cannot avoid examining the legality of a structure merely because of an earlier decree. The authority remains duty-bound to scrutinize the original records, sanctioned plans and applicable statutory provisions before determining whether the construction is lawful. Accordingly, GHMC was directed to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the sanctioned plan, alleged revised plan, claim of deemed permission and the actual construction on site, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all affected parties.
Briefly, the dispute concerned the residential apartment complex ‘Mehta Towers’ at Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad. The Apartment Owners’ Association alleged that the builder/promoter had sold portions of the ground floor parking area and allowed constructions to be raised there in favour of certain purchasers, despite the sanctioned plan earmarking the area for parking. According to the Association, these constructions were unauthorized, violated the sanctioned plan, building regulations and apartment ownership laws, and deprived residents of common parking facilities.
The builder contended that the constructions were lawful and were covered either under the sanctioned plan or under a claim of ‘deemed permission’. The builder had earlier obtained an ex parte civil court decree in O.S. No.2639 of 1987 declaring that the construction under the revised plan had acquired statutory deemed sanction and restraining municipal interference. GHMC had previously issued notices regarding the alleged unauthorized construction but did not carry the proceedings to their logical conclusion after the civil court decree.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao observed that found that the sanctioned permission itself specifically stated that the ground-floor areas marked as ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ were to be converted into covered parking space and that the parking area had to be maintained as such. Therefore, whether subsequent constructions were legally permissible required careful examination with reference to the sanctioned plan.
The Court emphasized that the concept of ‘deemed permission’ under Section 437 of the GHMC Act is not an unrestricted licence to construct anything. Even where deemed permission is claimed, the construction must still comply with the Act, applicable bye-laws and the sanctioned building plan. Mere failure of the authority to reject an application within the prescribed period does not automatically validate every construction.
The Court further observed that the Supreme Court’s rulings regarding parking areas and unauthorized constructions indicate that parking spaces forming part of common amenities cannot ordinarily be treated as independent units for separate alienation and that unauthorized constructions cannot be protected merely because authorities remained inactive for a long period.
Importantly, the Court held that a civil court decree cannot take away or curtail statutory powers vested in municipal authorities. The ex parte decree obtained by the builder could not, by itself, prevent Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) from examining whether the construction was actually authorized and whether it complied with the law. A decree cannot confer legal validity on a construction that is otherwise contrary to statutory requirements.
The Court also observed that even if allegations of fraud, collusion or suppression were made against the earlier civil court decree, it was unnecessary in the writ proceedings to finally determine those allegations. The primary issue remained whether the construction was legally permissible under the sanctioned plan and statutory framework, which had to be examined by the competent authority on the basis of original records.
