Municipal authorities must hear affected parties before deciding objections to sanctioned building permissions.

Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.14286 of 2023 challenging the building permission dated 9 September 2022 granted in favour of the appellant in respect of the subject property.

The writ court directed the respondent-Corporation to consider respondent No.1’s representations/objections dated 10 May 2023 seeking cancellation of the permission, having regard to the observations in the impugned order, the Division Bench order dated 27 January 2025 in W.P. Nos.26223 of 2023 and 13064 of 2024, and the Supreme Court’s order dated 8 December 2025 in SLP (C) Diary No.60126 of 2025.

The Corporation was directed to complete the exercise within thirty days, while the parties were directed to maintain status quo concerning the existing structures on the properties described in Schedules “A” and “B”.

The appellant, impleaded as respondent No.4 in the writ petition, challenged those directions in the present appeal, contending that the dispute involved the validity of her title documents and could only be determined by a civil court.

Whether the writ court’s direction requiring the respondent-Corporation to consider objections to the appellant’s building permission was sustainable when the parties’ dispute allegedly involved questions of title pending before a civil court.

Whether the appellant was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the Corporation decided respondent No.1’s objections.

Whether the directions regarding the time-bound decision and maintenance of status quo required modification.

The Court applied the principle that a municipal authority must consider objections to a building permission in accordance with the relevant provisions of the applicable Municipalities Act or Municipal Corporation Act, particularly where material facts concerning litigation between the parties may not have been placed before the sanctioning authority.

Such consideration does not require the municipal authority or the writ court to adjudicate disputed title or determine the validity of title documents.

The Court further applied the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice by holding that both the objector and the beneficiary of the building permission must be given an opportunity of hearing before an adverse administrative decision is taken.

The Court held that respondent No.1’s objections were not required to be treated as a request for adjudication of title.

They concerned the grant of building permission in the context of the parties’ ongoing litigation and the alleged non-disclosure of relevant facts to the sanctioning authority.

Accordingly, the Corporation was competent—and required under the applicable municipal law—to examine those objections without deciding the parties’ competing title claims.

The pendency of civil proceedings did not prevent the Corporation from examining the legality and propriety of the building permission within its statutory jurisdiction.

The writ court’s direction therefore did not warrant interference on merits.

However, to ensure procedural fairness, the appellate court directed that both respondent No.1 and the appellant be heard before the Corporation reached its decision.

The Corporation was directed to hear both parties and, if the decision had not already been taken, decide the matter within thirty days from 17 September 2026.

The status quo concerning the existing structures was continued for the next thirty days.

The Court clarified that the exercise was confined to consideration of the building-permission objections and did not involve adjudication of the parties’ title disputes.

There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.