Telangana High Court: A Deemed Sanction Decree Cannot Stop GHMC on Stilt Parking
The Telangana High Court held on October 6, 2026 that a 1987 ex parte decree declaring deemed sanction cannot, by itself, stop GHMC from acting on disputed ground floor construction at Mehta Towers, Ashok Nagar, and directed a reasoned decision within eight weeks. Here is what the ruling decided, what it left open, and seven checks for Hyderabad buyers.
On October 6, 2026, Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao of the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition that had been pending since 2012. The petitioner was the Association of the Apartment Owners of Mehta Towers in Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, a society registered in May 1988. Its complaint was about the ground floor of its own building. Under the building permit issued in 1981, the court recorded, the areas marked A, B and C on the ground floor were to be converted into covered parking. The association says ground floor flats were later built in parking space that belonged to everyone. The owners of those flats say they are authorised structures covered by the sanctioned plan.
The court did not decide who is right. What it did decide matters to every Hyderabad flat buyer who looks at a stilt floor, a cellar or a ground floor unit and wonders whether it is really what the brochure says it is.
The short answer. In Writ Petition No. 2783 of 2012, decided on October 6, 2026, the Telangana High Court held that a 1987 ex parte civil court decree declaring "deemed sanction" for ground floor and cellar construction cannot, by itself, prevent the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation from exercising its statutory powers. It directed GHMC to examine the original sanctioned plan, the alleged revised plan and the deemed permission claim, hear all sides, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks of receiving the order. The trade-off: the ruling restores the civic body's power to act, but it gives no final answer, so owners on both sides still wait for GHMC's decision after a dispute that began in the 1980s.
What happened at Mehta Towers?
The judgment records that the promoter obtained building permission from the municipal corporation under Permit No. 120/72. The endorsement on that permit, extracted in the judgment, reads in part: "Flats marked 'A', 'B' and 'C' at G.F. may be converted into covered parking space" and "Parking space should be formed with the asphalt or cement concrete."
According to the association, the promoter sold all the flats with their undivided shares in the land, and the sale deeds provided for common enjoyment of common areas, including car parking. The association alleged that the promoter then dealt with portions of the parking area, which were sold to other parties who raised constructions there. The promoter's case, as recorded by the court, was different. It said an application for a revised plan was submitted, that it was neither rejected nor considered, and that construction proceeded under the deemed permission provision of the municipal law.
In 1987 the promoter filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the revised plan had acquired statutory deemed sanction. The corporation, the only defendant, did not contest, and an ex parte decree was passed on March 16, 1987. The association's own suit challenging that decree was later dismissed for non-prosecution after the death of its president. In 2006, after earlier High Court orders, the corporation issued a notice under Section 636 of the municipal act against the ground floor construction. The corporation told the court it could not proceed because of the civil decree; an owner said it dropped the notice after seeing the sanctioned plan and tax assessments.
What did the High Court actually decide?
The court framed two questions: whether the construction in the parking area is in accordance with the sanctioned plan, and whether the 1987 decree can prevent the corporation from exercising its statutory powers under the GHMC Act, 1955.
On the second question it was clear. The court said "a Civil Court decree cannot be understood as taking away the jurisdiction conferred upon a statutory authority by the statute itself." It concluded that the decree "cannot, by itself, prevent respondent No.1 from exercising its statutory powers under the GHMC Act, 1955."
On the first question, the court declined to decide on rival assertions. It said the application, its date, the documents filed with it, the statutory period, the construction actually raised and the notice given to the Commissioner all need examination by the competent authority before the benefit of deemed permission can be extended. It also said it was not necessary to record a final finding of fraud or collusion in these proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of with directions and no order as to costs.
What is "deemed permission" and why did it not settle the matter?
Deemed permission is a rule that treats a building application as approved if the authority does not respond within a set time. The judgment quotes Section 437 of the GHMC Act, 1955. If the Commissioner does not intimate disapproval within thirty days after receiving the notice or plans, the applicant may proceed within one year, "but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of this Act or any bye-law made thereunder."
That last clause was decisive for the court. It held that deemed permission, even if attracted, "is not an absolute or unrestricted permission to proceed with any kind of construction." The construction must still comply with the act and bye-laws. So the fact that an application was not rejected in time does not, on its own, show that what was later built was lawful.
For a buyer, the lesson is practical. A seller who says a floor or unit was built under deemed approval is describing a legal claim, not handing you an approval document. The question that matters is whether the construction matches the sanctioned plan and the bye-laws, and only the civic body's records can answer that.
How does this compare with the other claims in the case?
The table sets out the main positions recorded in the judgment and what the court did with each.
| Claim recorded in the judgment | Who made it | What the court did |
|---|---|---|
| Ground floor areas A, B and C were to become covered parking under the 1981 permit | Association, and the court's extract of the permit endorsement | Extracted the endorsement and treated parking as the sanctioned use for those areas |
| Flats G-11, G-12 and G-13 are authorised under the sanctioned plan | Promoter and ground floor flat owners | Did not accept or reject it; sent it to GHMC for examination on original records |
| The 1987 ex parte decree binds the corporation | Promoter | Held the decree cannot, by itself, stop GHMC exercising statutory powers |
| The decree was obtained by suppression and collusion | Association | Found it unnecessary to record a final finding of fraud or collusion |
| The promoter could not sell stilt parking separately | Association, relying on the Supreme Court's Nahalchand ruling | Called the principle relevant; left the final decision to GHMC |
Why does the Supreme Court's parking ruling matter here?
The association relied on the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. The High Court summarised that case as holding "that a promoter has no right to sell stilt parking spaces, as such spaces do not constitute a flat and are not capable of being separately dealt with in the manner of a flat."
The High Court was careful about its reach. It noted that Nahalchand arose under a different apartment ownership law, but said the principle that parking space forming part of the common areas cannot be treated as an independent unit for separate sale is relevant when examining the claim in this case. It did not hold that the Mehta Towers ground floor flats are parking. That remains for GHMC to decide.
What happens next, and what should owners watch?
GHMC has been directed to examine the original sanctioned plan, the alleged revised plan, the application said to have been submitted, its date, the deemed permission provisions and the construction actually raised in the ground floor and stilt parking area. It must also consider the effect of the 1987 decree in light of its statutory powers. Before passing orders, it must hear the promoter, the other respondents and the association. The exercise is to be completed within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.
The order was uploaded on October 7, 2026, but the eight weeks run from receipt of a copy, and that date is not stated in the judgment. Anyone with a stake should follow the GHMC proceedings directly.
What should a Hyderabad buyer check before buying a ground floor or stilt level unit?
The case is a reminder that the sanctioned plan, not the sale deed alone, tells you what a space was approved for. PropNewz has explained how to read plan deviations in our guide to sanctioned building plan deviations, and the same logic applies in Hyderabad. It also helps to understand what you co-own; see our explainer on common areas and the association handover.
- Ask for the full sanctioned plan and permit endorsement, not a single page, and check what use is marked for the ground floor, stilt and cellar.
- Compare the unit you are buying with the plan's floor marking and flat numbering.
- If the seller cites deemed permission or a revised plan, ask for the application, its date and any civic body record of it.
- Ask whether any notice under the municipal act has ever been issued for the building or the unit.
- Search for civil suits or writ petitions involving the building, its association or the promoter.
- Ask the association in writing whether it disputes the status of any unit or parking area.
- Have a lawyer read the parent sale deeds for the clauses on common areas and parking before you pay any advance.
For new projects, the same discipline applies at an earlier stage. If you are evaluating a recent launch such as My Home Vyoma in Nanakramguda, ask to see how the approved plan allocates parking and whether the parking assigned to you is shown in the plan and the agreement. This is a general check, not a finding about the project.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Telangana High Court decide in the Mehta Towers case?
On October 6, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 2783 of 2012, it held that a 1987 ex parte civil court decree declaring deemed sanction cannot, by itself, prevent GHMC from exercising its statutory powers, and directed GHMC to examine the disputed ground floor construction and pass a reasoned order.
Did the court say the ground floor flats are illegal?
No. The court did not decide whether the flats conform to the sanctioned plan. It said the deemed permission claim, the application, its date and the construction actually raised must be examined by GHMC on the original records, and it found it unnecessary to record a final finding of fraud or collusion.
What does deemed permission mean under the GHMC Act?
As quoted in the judgment, Section 437 lets an applicant proceed within one year if the Commissioner does not intimate disapproval within thirty days, but not so as to contravene the act or bye-laws. The court held deemed permission is not an unrestricted permission to build anything.
How long does GHMC have to decide?
The court directed GHMC to complete the exercise within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after hearing the promoter, the other respondents and the apartment owners association. The receipt date is not stated in the judgment, which was uploaded on October 7, 2026.
Last updated 2026-11-01. PropNewz Team.
Contact Us
Stay updated with latest news and new projects!
Tell us what you want, We'll do the rest.
Share your budget and where you're looking. An advisor who has actually walked the sites will shortlist a handful of RERA-registered projects and tell you which to skip.