R. Ravindranath Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court of India, while considering proceedings arising from a longstanding property dispute between R. Ravindranath and his sisters, directed the parties to explore an amicable settlement through mediation. The dispute involved building permission granted by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), its subsequent cancellation, and allegations that the petitioner had suppressed material facts relating to pending partition suits and an injunction order. The Telangana High Court had earlier dismissed the writ petition and writ appeals, finding that the suppression of material facts was relevant to GHMC’s decision. A subsequent review application was also dismissed because no error apparent on the face of the record had been established under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Before the Supreme Court, senior counsel appeared for the petitioner-brother, the respondent sisters and the developer, M/s. Orange Avenues. Observing that previous settlement efforts had failed but that an equitable resolution remained desirable, the Supreme Court appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia as mediator. The Court directed the parties to contact the mediator, provided for the mediator’s fees and modalities to be settled in consultation with them, and stated that the matter would be heard after receipt of the mediation report. Meanwhile, notice was issued and the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the nature, character and possession of the disputed property. The supplied Supreme Court order does not finally determine the merits of the building-permission dispute.
Related Case: In related proceedings concerning building permission and pending property litigation, the Telangana High Court examined the suppression of pending partition suits in proceedings concerning building permission.
Cases Discussed
- Malleeswari V. K. Suguna and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927 (Supreme Court) — Cited in the Telangana High Court’s review order for the principle that an error apparent on the face of the record must be evident without elaborate reasoning and that review cannot operate as an appeal in disguise.
- Karnail Singh V. State of Haryana (Supreme Court) — Referred to in the High Court’s review order in the context of the limited scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The supplied text does not establish its complete citation or decision date.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-brother, and Mr. Devadatt Kamat, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2-4, respectively (sisters).
3. We also heard Mr. Navin Pahwa, the learned senior counsel appearing for the developer, i.e., the respondent no.6, namely, M/s. Orange Avenues.
4. This is a long drawn legal battle between brother and sisters. Although in the past the parties did try to reach to an amicable settlement, yet we are informed that the settlement failed.
5. We are still of the firm view that the parties should sit, talk and reach to an equitable settlement; otherwise, this is going to be a long drawn legal proceedings.
6. We appoint Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, former Judge of this Court, to act as a Mediator between the parties.
7. The fees of the learned Mediator along with other modalities, shall be fixed in consultation with the parties.
8. The parties shall contact the Learned Mediator.
9. The Registry shall also inform about this order to the learned Mediator at the earliest.
10. Once the report of the Mediator comes on record, we shall proceed to hear the matter.
11. In the meantime, issue notice.
12. Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, the learned advocate on record waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent nos. 2-4 (sisters), respectively. Other respondents be served directly.
13. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, the learned advocate on record appearing for the respondent no.6, also waives service of notice.
14. Parties to maintain status quo as regards the nature, character and possession of the property in question.
