‘Sit and talk’: Supreme Court stops years of sibling warfare over Hyderabad property, appoints former judge to end the feud

Although in the past the parties did try to reach an amicable settlement, yet we are informed that the settlement failed, the Supreme Court noted. (Image enhanced using AI)

Key Observations

• This is a long drawn legal battle between brother sisters.
• Although in the past the parties did try to reach an amicable settlement, yet we are informed that the settlement failed.
• Parties to maintain status quo as regards the nature, character and possession of the property in question.
• We appoint Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, former Judge of this court, to act as a mediator between the parties.
• The fees of the mediator along with other modalities, shall be fixed in consultation with the parties.
• The parties shall contact the mediator.
• The registry shall also inform about this order to the mediator at the earliest.
• Once the report of the mediator comes on record, we shall proceed to hear the matter.

The Supreme Court appointed former apex court judge, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, to act as a mediator between the parties. (Image enhanced using AI)

Background

• The roots of the litigation lie in the revocation of a building permit by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) under Section 450 of the GHMC Act.
• Section 450 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Act, 1955, empowers the commissioner to revoke or cancel building permissions if they were obtained through material misrepresentation, fraud, or false information provided under sections 428 or 433 of the Act.
• It necessitates a proper enquiry, and a final order cannot be passed without first giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard.
• The civic body cancelled the permission on the ground that material facts had been suppressed and misrepresented at the time of obtaining approval.
• According to the petitioner, R Ravindranath, his original application for the building permit was submitted in 2014, at a time when no family litigation concerning the property was pending.
• He has argued that subsequent disputes between family members should not invalidate a permit lawfully granted years earlier.
• However, the Telangana High Court took a different view upholding the cancellation, pointing out that a mandatory undertaking furnished in 2020 failed to disclose a partition suit filed in 2016 by family members, as well as subsisting injunction orders affecting the property.
• This non-disclosure, the high court held, went to the root of the matter and justified the municipal authority’s action.
• Adding another layer of complexity to the case is the role of the developer- M/s Orange Avenues.
• The petitioners have maintained that by the time the permit was cancelled, construction had already been completed and third-party rights had been created.
• According to them, undoing the project at that stage would cause grave prejudice not only to the developer but also to purchasers and investors who are not party to the family dispute.
• It was this combination of family discord, regulatory action and commercial fallout that prompted the Supreme Court to search for a solution beyond strict legal adjudication.

Arguments

• During the hearing, the court heard extensive submissions from senior counsel representing all sides.
• Senior advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Nina Nariman, along with advocate-on-record B Shravanth Shanker, appeared for Ravindranath, pressing for a resolution that balances legal technicalities with ground realities.
• On behalf of the developer, senior advocates Navin Pahwa and Sridhar Potaraju, assisted by AOR Abid Ali Beeran P, highlighted the commercial stakes involved and supported the idea of a structured mediation process.
• Senior counsel representing the sisters and other respondents were also heard, following which the court concluded that the dispute warranted the intervention of a neutral and authoritative mediator.