Supreme Court: In a Special Leave Petition (SPL) arising out of a long-standing property dispute between a brother and his sisters concerning a prime property in Hyderabad, a Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., appointed Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, former Judge of the Supreme Court, to act as Mediator between the parties and oversee the settlement.
The petitioner-brother had obtained a building permit for disputed property from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) through the developer, M/s. Orange Avenues. Subsequently, the GHMC revoked the building permission invoking Section 450 of the GHMC Act, alleging material misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
The cancellation was founded on the premise that an undertaking furnished in 2020 failed to disclose the pendency of a partition suit filed in 2016 and existing injunction orders affecting the property. The Telangana High Court upheld the revocation of the permit, holding that the non-disclosure was fatal and justified the action taken by the municipal authorities.
The petitioner contended that his original application in 2014 preceded the filing of the partition suit and, therefore, could not be faulted for suppression. It was further submitted that construction had already been completed and third-party rights had been created by the developer, and that the subsequent family dispute ought not to invalidate the building permission.
The Court noted that the matter represented “a long drawn legal battle between brother and sisters.” Although attempts had earlier been made to reach an amicable settlement, the Court was informed that “the settlement failed.”
The Court expressed that it was “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.”
Accordingly, the Court passed the following directions —
-
Delay in filing was condoned.
-
Appointed Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, former Judge of the Supreme Court, to act as Mediator between the parties. The Registry to inform the Mediator at the earliest.
-
The fees and modalities of mediation were to be fixed in consultation with the parties.
-
The parties were directed to maintain status quo as regards the nature, character and possession of the property in question.
-
Once the report of the Mediator comes on record, the Court shall proceed to hear the matter.
[R. Ravindranath v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 69099/2025, Decided on 02-02-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Sr. Adv. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Adv. Nina Nariman, AOR B. Shravanth Shanker, Adv. Neeli Rishi Kumar, Adv. Jayant Bhatt, Adv. Prerna Robin, Adv. Grahita Agarwal, Adv. Ira Mahajan, Adv. Kumar Saumitr, Adv. Varad Kolhe, Adv. Udit Sidhra, Adv. Padmja Mishra, Adv. Svarit Uniyal Mishra, Counsel for the Petitioner/ R. Ravindranath
— Sr. Adv. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Sridhar Potaraju, AOR Abid Ali Beeran P, Adv. Sarath S Janardanan, Adv. Saswat Adhyapak, Adv. Namita Kumari, Adv. Niharika Singh, Adv. Chamundeswari Pemmasani, Adv. Arlene Noronha, Counsel for the Petitioner/ M/s. Orange Avenues
Sr. Adv. Devadatt Kamat, Adv. Pankhuri Bharadwaj, Adv. Shiv Rohan Singh, Adv. Revanta Solanki, Adv. Sathvik Makunur, Adv. Ajay Desai, Adv. Arpit Linda, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 to 4