The Supreme Court of India has taken a decisive step to halt years of bitter legal warfare between siblings over a property in Hyderabad, appointing a former judge to mediate and urging the parties to engage in dialogue for an equitable resolution. This move aims to bring an end to a protracted dispute that has involved complex legal and commercial dimensions.
Court's Directive for Amicable Settlement
A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, while hearing two connected special leave petitions arising from judgments of the Telangana High Court, emphasized the need for the siblings to sit down and talk. On February 2, the court stated, "We are still of the firm view that the parties should sit, talk and reach an equitable settlement; otherwise, this is going to be a long drawn legal proceeding." The bench expressed hope that this approach would resolve what it described as a "long drawn" property dispute.
Appointment of Mediator
To facilitate this process, the Supreme Court appointed Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, a former judge of the apex court, to act as a mediator between the warring parties. The court directed that the fees and other modalities for the mediation be fixed in consultation with the parties involved. Additionally, the registry was instructed to inform Justice Dhulia about the order at the earliest, and once the mediator's report is submitted, the court will proceed to hear the matter further.
Background of the Litigation
The roots of this sibling feud trace back to the revocation of a building permit by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) under Section 450 of the GHMC Act. This section empowers the commissioner to cancel permissions if obtained through misrepresentation, fraud, or false information, provided a proper enquiry is conducted and the applicant is given an opportunity to be heard.
In this case, the civic body cancelled the permit on grounds that material facts were suppressed and misrepresented during the approval process. The petitioner, R Ravindranath, argued that his original application was submitted in 2014, when no family litigation was pending, and subsequent disputes should not invalidate a lawfully granted permit. However, the Telangana High Court upheld the cancellation, noting that a mandatory undertaking in 2020 failed to disclose a partition suit filed in 2016 and existing injunction orders, which justified the municipal action.
Commercial Complexities
Adding to the complexity, the involvement of developer M/s Orange Avenues has introduced significant commercial stakes. The petitioners contended that by the time the permit was cancelled, construction was complete, and third-party rights had been created, making undoing the project prejudicial to developers and investors not party to the family dispute. This blend of family discord, regulatory actions, and commercial fallout prompted the Supreme Court to seek a solution beyond strict legal adjudication.
Key Observations and Arguments
The Supreme Court noted that although the parties had previously attempted an amicable settlement, it failed. The court has directed the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the nature, character, and possession of the property in question.
During the hearing, senior counsel representing all sides presented extensive arguments. For Ravindranath, senior advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Nina Nariman, along with advocate-on-record B Shravanth Shanker, pushed for a resolution balancing 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 and supported a structured mediation process. After hearing from all respondents, the court concluded that a neutral and authoritative mediator was necessary to resolve the dispute.
This intervention by the Supreme Court underscores its commitment to fostering settlements in family disputes, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases involving property and commercial interests in India.
