R. Ravindranath Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation & Ors. (Telangana High Court )
Summary: The Telangana High Court dismissed a review application challenging the Division Bench order dated 30.04.2025, which had upheld the dismissal of a writ petition concerning cancellation of building permission by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). The review applicant had originally challenged GHMC’s letter dated 20.06.2023 cancelling building permission granted on 21.04.2020. The learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.No.16141 of 2023 on 21.04.2025, finding that the petitioner had misrepresented and suppressed material facts. Subsequently, W.A.Nos.512 and 525 of 2025, filed by the petitioner and the builder, were dismissed by the Division Bench. The Court found that the petitioner had failed to disclose pending partition suits involving family members and an injunction order dated 31.10.2018 while furnishing an undertaking to GHMC on 28.02.2020.
In the review proceedings, the applicant did not dispute the suppression recorded in the earlier judgment but argued that the prescribed undertaking did not provide an opportunity to disclose the relevant information. The applicant also relied on building application forms to support this contention. The High Court held that the undisclosed partition litigation, in which the petitioner’s title was itself under challenge, and the subsisting injunction were material considerations for GHMC when deciding whether to cancel the building permission. Since the suppression was admitted and no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated, the Court found no justification to reopen the Division Bench’s conclusions.
Applying the principles governing review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court held that review proceedings cannot be converted into an appeal against an earlier judgment. Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in Malleeswari Vs K. Suguna and Another and Karnail Singh Vs State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that review is confined to correcting an apparent error and does not permit rehearing or reconsideration of matters already decided. Finding no such error in the order dated 30.04.2025, the Court dismissed Review I.A.No.3 of 2025.
Related Case: In a connected Hyderabad family property dispute, the Supreme Court referred the family property dispute to mediation and directed maintenance of status quo. The proceedings provide related context to the litigation concerning the disputed property.
Cases Discussed
- Malleeswari Vs K. Suguna and Another (Supreme Court); 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927; 2025 INSC 1080; decided on 08.09.2025 — Relied upon for the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and the distinction between review and appeal.
- Karnail Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors. (Supreme Court); 2024 INSC 424; Review Petition (Civil) No. 526 of 2023; decided on 16.05.2024 — Referred to in connection with the principles governing review of judicial orders.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
1. This is a review application filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner/unsuccessful writ appellant of an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench dated 30.04.2025.
2. The Co-ordinate Bench consisted of one of us (Smt. Justice Renuka Yara).
3. By the order under review, two Writ Appeals viz., W.A.Nos.512 and 525 of 2025 were filed by the review applicant and the same were dismissed. Both the writ appeals arose of an order dated 21.04.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by dismissing W.P.No.16141 of 2023 filed by the review applicant.
4. We are only concerned as to whether the order dated 30.04.2025 warrants the review within the general principles
2 under Order XLVII Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’).
5. The brief facts as submitted by learned counsel appearing for the review applicant/appellant/writ petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are as follows:
6. The review applicant/writ petitioner filed the writ petition for declaring the proceedings undertaken by the respondent No.1/GHMC by way of letter dated 20.06.2023 for cancelling the building permission granted to the petitioner dated 21.04.2020 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also prayed for setting aside of the said cancellation of building permission. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 21.04.2025 on the ground that the writ petitioner has caused misrepresentation and suppressed the material facts. The learned Single Judge found the impugned order to be a well reasoned order.
7. The writ petitioner as well as the respondent No.6 (builder) filed two Appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench dismissed both the Appeals by the order under review i.e., order dated 30.04.2025.
8. The Division Bench dismissed the Appeals primarily on the ground of suppression of material facts while submitting the undertaking given by the writ petitioner before the GHMC on 28.02.2020. The Division Bench found that the suppression was not only in relation to pendency of the Civil suits between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 to 5 (who are brother and sister, respectively) but also an order of injunction suffered by the writ petitioner on 31.10.2018. The Division Bench was accordingly of the opinion that pendency of the Suits for partition filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 5 where the petitioner’s title itself is under challenge, suppression of such fact would indeed be material to the GHMC in passing any orders of cancellation of the petitioner’s building permission.
9. During the course of arguments in the review application, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not contradict the fact of suppression on the petitioner’s part as recorded by the Division Bench in the order dated 30.04.2025. All that counsel submitted was that the petitioner did not have a scope to bring material facts on record in the undertaking before the concerned authority. Counsel also sought to rely on certain building application forms to buttress the aforesaid submission.
10. Since admittedly the petitioner has caused suppression of material facts in his undertaking including pendency of the Civil Suits for partition and injunction, we are of the considered view that there is no error whatsoever on the face of the record in the order under review.
11. Hence, this Court holds that the question of a review under the principles delineated in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC does not arise. It is evident that the petitioner seeks to treat the review application as an Appeal from the order passed by the Division Bench rejecting the Writ Appeals filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.6. We need not elaborate on the principles on which the review may be allowed. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Malleeswari V. K. Suguna and another1 reiterates that an error apparent of fact or law on the face of the record should be evident as first blush and detailed reasoning is not warranted. Thus the power of review is strictly limited to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC and is not an appeal in disguise. This decision does not help the review applicant in I.A. (Review) since there is no error at all in the order under review. We may also refer to the recent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Karnail Singh V. State of Haryana2. Even otherwise, the Review Application does not satisfy the general principles warranting Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.
12. We accordingly find no merit in the review application.
13. Review I.A.No.3 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed in terms of the above.
Notes:-
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927
