Case at a Glance
Flat owners of Mehta Towers in Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, complained that the promoter sold portions of the ground-floor parking area earmarked in the sanctioned plan, where structures were then built. GHMC issued notices in 1996 and 2006 but stopped acting, citing an ex parte 1987 civil decree that declared deemed sanction for a revised plan. The Telangana High Court held that a civil decree cannot take away a statutory authority’s jurisdiction or by itself regularise construction. It directed GHMC to examine the sanctioned plan, the alleged revised plan and the actual construction, hear all sides and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.
The petitioner is the registered association of owners of Mehta Towers, an apartment complex in Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad. According to the association, the sanctioned plan earmarked the ground floor for parking, with flats on the upper floors. After selling the flats and undivided land shares, the promoter allegedly sold portions of the parking area to other respondents, who raised structures there. The promoter had filed O.S. No. 2639 of 1987 seeking a declaration of deemed sanction for a revised plan; the Corporation remained ex parte and a decree was passed, without the association being a party. The association’s own 1989 suit was dismissed for non-prosecution after its president died, and a 1998 injunction suit by one respondent against the association was decreed.
GHMC issued notices under Sections 636, 450 and 452 of the GHMC Act, 1955 in 1996 and 2006, including a final demolition notice, but took no effective action, saying it was held back by the civil decree and documents submitted by one respondent. GHMC’s standing counsel said permission was granted for three flats (G-11, G-12, G-13) at the rear with the front reserved for parking. The respondents who own those flats said the flats were authorised and that earlier civil litigation barred the issue. The association sought a mandamus directing GHMC to act.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can an ex parte civil decree declaring deemed sanction stop a municipal corporation from exercising its statutory powers against alleged construction in an apartment’s sanctioned parking area?
No Estoppel Against Law: The Corporation Must Decide
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao framed two issues: whether the construction in the parking area conformed to the sanctioned plan, and whether the 1987 decree could prevent the Corporation from exercising its powers. On deemed permission under Section 437 of the Act, the court said that even if it applied, it does not permit construction that violates the Act or bye-laws; the mere failure to reject an application in time does not settle whether a construction is lawful. The permission required areas A, B and C on the ground floor to be converted into covered parking, and whether the construction conformed to the plan had to be examined by the competent authority. The court found relevant the principle in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., (2010) 08 SC CK 0124, (2010) 9 SCC 536, that common parking cannot be an independent unit for separate sale, though that case arose under a different apartment law.
On the decree, the court held that a civil court decree cannot take away the jurisdiction conferred on a statutory authority and cannot by itself regularise a construction, quoting the principle that “there can be no estoppel against law.” Since GHMC had already issued notices under Section 636, it was not without jurisdiction merely because an ex parte decree existed. The court noted that a decree passed without proper adjudication of statutory requirements may be void, but did not make a final finding of fraud or collusion. Equally, because the flat owners relied on deemed permission, their claim could not be rejected without examining the records. Precedents cited by the petitioner included S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1993) 10 SC CK 0035, M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhe Shyam Sahu, (1999) 07 SC CK 0012, Dr. G.N. Khajuria v. Delhi Development Authority, (1995) 08 SC CK 0115, K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, (1974) 08 SC CK 0019 and Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, (2024) 12 SC CK 0038.
What the Court Actually Held
- The ex parte decree in O.S. No. 2639 of 1987 does not, by itself, stop GHMC from exercising its statutory powers under the GHMC Act.
- Deemed permission, even if available, cannot authorise construction that violates the Act or bye-laws.
- GHMC must examine the original sanctioned plan, the alleged revised plan, the deemed-permission application and its date, the construction actually raised in the ground-floor/stilt parking area, and the effect of the decree.
- After hearing the association and respondents 2 to 5, GHMC must pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law within eight weeks; no costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Sale of parking areas by promoters is a frequent grievance of apartment owners; this order puts the burden back on the civic body to decide.
- It confirms that civic authorities cannot shelter behind private civil decrees to avoid statutory duties.
- It leaves the final factual decision to GHMC after hearing both sides, so flat owners in the disputed units also get a hearing.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Apartment Owners
- Obtain the complete sanctioned plan; the court noted the association had filed only part of it.
- Press the civic body for a reasoned decision; inaction after notices can be challenged by writ.
For Counsel
- Rely on Nahalchand on parking as a common area and on the principle that there is no estoppel against law.
- An ex parte decree, to which the association was not a party, did not by itself bar statutory action here.
Key Takeaways
- A civil decree cannot regularise an unauthorised construction by itself.
- Deemed sanction does not cover breaches of the Act or bye-laws.
- Parking shown in the sanctioned plan is central to deciding legality.
- GHMC must decide within eight weeks after hearing everyone.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a builder sell the stilt or ground-floor parking area of an apartment?
The court treated the Supreme Court’s Nahalchand principle — that common parking cannot be sold as an independent unit — as relevant, but left GHMC to decide whether the construction here conforms to the sanctioned plan.
Did the High Court order demolition?
No. It directed GHMC to examine all records and the actual construction, hear the parties and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.
Does an old civil court decree protect the construction?
Not by itself. The court held a civil decree cannot take away a statutory authority’s jurisdiction or regularise construction on its own, though GHMC must consider its effect.
Conclusion
After fourteen years, the writ ends with a clear message that municipal powers survive a private civil decree, and with a timeline for GHMC to finally decide what was built in the parking area and whether it is lawful.
Practical takeaway: Apartment associations facing sale or occupation of parking areas should collect the full sanctioned plan and push the municipal body for a reasoned order; a civil decree between the builder and the corporation does not end the matter.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com