The Supreme Court’s recent intervention in a prolonged family property dispute from Hyderabad highlights a growing judicial preference for mediation over adversarial litigation, particularly in emotionally charged inheritance conflicts. In a case marked by years of hostility between siblings, regulatory complications, and commercial fallout, the Court has paused legal hostilities and asked the parties to do something far simpler — sit down and talk.
By appointing former Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia as mediator, the Court has signalled that not every dispute, even one involving statutory interpretation and municipal law, must end in a binding judgment. Sometimes, reconciliation may serve justice better than precedent.
The Dispute Before the Supreme Court
The matter reached the Supreme Court through two connected special leave petitions arising from judgments of the Telangana High Court. At the heart of the litigation lies a property in Hyderabad, jointly linked to members of the same family, now locked in a bitter dispute spanning several years.
While the immediate legal trigger involved the cancellation of a building permit by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), the deeper issue was a fractured family relationship, with siblings fighting over control, possession, and development of the property.
Recognising this, a Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi observed that continued litigation would only prolong bitterness and uncertainty, both legally and personally.
“Sit, Talk, and Settle”: Court’s Key Observation
During the hearing, the Supreme Court made its position unambiguous. It stated that unless the parties attempted a genuine dialogue, the case would turn into a long-drawn legal battle with no real winners.
Despite acknowledging that earlier settlement attempts had failed, the Court maintained that mediation remained the most equitable path forward. Importantly, the Bench did not force a settlement but created a structured environment for dialogue by appointing a neutral and authoritative mediator.
This approach reflects a broader judicial philosophy that views courts not merely as arbiters of legality, but as institutions of conflict resolution.
Appointment of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia as Mediator
To ensure credibility and fairness in the mediation process, the Supreme Court appointed Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, a former judge of the apex court, as mediator.
The Court directed:
- That parties directly approach the mediator
- That the mediator’s fees and modalities be fixed in consultation with all sides
- That the property’s status quo be maintained during mediation
- That further judicial proceedings would depend on the mediator’s report
This appointment is significant. By selecting a former Supreme Court judge, the Court ensured that mediation would be taken seriously and not treated as a procedural formality.
Legal Background: GHMC’s Cancellation of Building Permission
The dispute gained legal complexity due to the involvement of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, which revoked a building permit under Section 450 of the GHMC Act, 1955.
This provision empowers municipal authorities to cancel building permissions if they were obtained through:
- Material misrepresentation
- Fraud or suppression of facts
- False disclosures during application
The civic body argued that crucial information — particularly ongoing family litigation and injunctions — had not been disclosed while furnishing mandatory undertakings related to the property.
Conflicting Positions Before the Courts
The petitioners contended that:
- The original building application was made in 2014
- At that time, no family litigation was pending
- Subsequent disputes should not retrospectively invalidate a lawful permission
However, the Telangana High Court took a stricter view. It held that a later undertaking submitted in 2020 failed to disclose:
- A partition suit filed in 2016
- Existing injunction orders affecting the property
According to the High Court, such non-disclosure went to the root of the permission, justifying cancellation.
The Commercial Angle: Developer and Third-Party Rights
Adding to the complexity was the involvement of a private developer and multiple third parties. By the time the building permission was cancelled:
- Construction had reportedly been completed
- Flats or units had been sold
- Investors and purchasers had acquired interests
The petitioners argued that undoing the project at this stage would cause irreversible harm to parties who were not involved in the family dispute at all.
This intersection of family law, municipal regulation, and commercial consequences made the case particularly unsuitable for a narrow legal resolution.
Why the Supreme Court Chose Mediation
The Court’s decision to push for mediation instead of immediate adjudication reflects several considerations:
- Nature of the Dispute
At its core, the conflict was between siblings — a category of disputes where emotional resolution often matters more than legal victory. - Multiplicity of Stakeholders
A judgment favouring one side could adversely impact developers, buyers, and investors. - Judicial Economy
Protracted hearings would consume years of court time without necessarily healing the underlying conflict. - Possibility of Equitable Settlement
Mediation allows solutions beyond binary outcomes, including compensation, restructuring, or agreed development terms.
A Broader Trend in Supreme Court Jurisprudence
This order fits within a broader pattern where the Supreme Court has increasingly encouraged alternative dispute resolution, especially in:
- Family property disputes
- Succession and inheritance conflicts
- Commercial matters with ongoing relationships
Rather than viewing mediation as a sign of judicial retreat, the Court is framing it as a mature and pragmatic exercise of judicial discretion.
What Happens Next?
The mediation process will now unfold under Justice Dhulia’s supervision. Once his report is submitted:
- The Supreme Court will decide whether the dispute stands resolved
- Or whether adjudication must resume on unresolved legal questions
Until then, all parties are bound to maintain the existing state of affairs concerning the property.
Conclusion: Law with a Human Face
By asking estranged siblings to “sit and talk,” the Supreme Court has reminded litigants that courts exist not only to decide rights, but also to restore peace where possible. The Hyderabad property dispute demonstrates how rigid legal battles can sometimes deepen divisions, while dialogue — even facilitated dialogue — can offer closure.
Whether mediation succeeds or not, the Court’s intervention underscores an important message: justice is not always about winning a case; sometimes, it is about ending a war.
Also Read
