Ramesh Rao T, S/o. T v. N. Rao, Age

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action the respondent No.3 in issuing impugned Fee lntimation letter vide application No. 000269/LO/HMDA/006SlcHTl2OZ3, dt. 06.02.2023 to the 7th respondent with regard to Layout Permission of land in Sy. No. 204 and 208, at Kuntloor (V), Abdullapurmet (M), R.R. District which is iilegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the Fee lntimation Letter in vide Application No. 000269/LO/HMDA/0065/GHT/ 2023, dt.06.02.2023. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Fee lntimation Letter vide Application No.000269/ LO/HMDA/0065/GHT/ 2023, dt. 06.02.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 with regard to layout permission of Sy. No. 2O4 and 208, at Kunfloor (V), Abdullapurmet (M), R.R. District pending disposal of above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI BOGGULA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : Ms.D.MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA o)' - Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : SRI S.RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR HMDA\ Counsel for the Respondents No.5&6 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.7TO'|0 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.4O2 OF 2O2S ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Boggula Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel lor the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Ms. D Madhavi, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.3, Sri S. Ravinder Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue lor respondent Nos.S and 6. Perused the record.

2. Petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of total land admeasuring lO16 sq.yds. 1n Sy.No.2O4, situated at Papaiguda, Hlo. I{untloor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Pedda Amberpet Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. They herve hled lour suits vide O.S.Nos.625 of 2023, 640 of 2023, a3O of 2023 2 aled 274 ol 2024 against respondent Nos.7 to 10 seeking injunction. l-earned Jur-rior Civil Judge-cum-XIV Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar granted interim inlunction vide order datecl 3O.10.2023 in I.A.No.832 of 2023 in O.S.No.820 of 2023. Sri Madugula Anjan Kumar Goud filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.28677 ol 2OO9 against Gaddam Narsaiah and others challe nging the order dated 05. L2.2OO9 in File No.F1/2538 /2OO9 passed by the Joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District. According to the petitioners, there is an interim suspension ol the said order. They have not filed copy of the said order. They have not stated the said facts in the reprcseirtittion datecl 23.L2.2024 submitted to respondent No.3. According to the petitioners, respondent Nos.7 to l0 sultrr-rittecl an application dated 06.02.2023 with respor-rdent No.3 seeking layout permission. On receipt of the said application, respondent No.3 has issued Fee lntirnation l.etter dated O6.O2.2023. Therefore, according (o thc pctitioncrs, respondent No.3 has ,/ -//I ( I J obtair-red thc said Fee Intimation Letter by way ol suppression of pendency of aforesaid suits. Vide representation dated 23.12.2024, petitioners requested respondent No.3 to withdraw the said Fee Intimation Letter. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent No.3 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.3, petitioners hled the present writ petition.

3. Perusal of record would reveal that all the aforesaid four suits were filed after issuance of Fee Intimation Letter dated O6,02.2023. Therefore, petitioners cannot allege that respondent Nos.7 to 10 obtained the said Fee Intimation Letter from respondent No.3 by suppression o[ pendenc-y of the aforesaid suits' They cannot submit the aforesaid representation and request respondent No.3 to withdraw the Fee Intimation Letter dated O6.O2 -2023. .+ \

4. As pcr Scction 22 of the HMDA Act, 2OOg, respondent No.3 has power to cancel arry layout permission on making any false sl_atement or misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact or rule, if any, made by the applicants.

5. In the light of thc aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that there is no suppression or misrepresentation of facts by respondent Nos.7 to 10 while obtainir-rg Fee Intimation Letter dated O6.02.2023. Petitioners have to pursue the said suits and on obtaining orders/decrees, etc., they have to approach respondent No.2 u'ith a requcst to implement the sarne. They cannot seek a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 23.12.2024 submitted by them requesting respondent No.3 to withdraw the Fee Intimation Letter dated 06.O2.2023. Therefore, the present writ petition is misconccived, it is liable to be I To, 5 dismissed and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. I //TRUE COPY// SD/-L.VIJAYA LAKSHMI T REGISTRAR ASSIST S ON OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Rural Development Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning, State of Telangana, A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad rep. by its Director

3. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, HMDA, Ameerpet,

4. The Commissioner, Pedda Amberpet Municipality Ranga Reddy District at Pedda Amberpet,

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahimpatnam Division, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District

6. The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet Mandal Ranga Reddy District 7. One CC to SRI BOGGULA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate. IOPUC] B. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

9. One CC to Ms.D.MADHAVI, SC FOR GHMC. {OPUCI 10.One CC to SRI S RAVINDER REDDY, SC FOR HMDA. IOPUC] 1 1 . Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

12.Two CD Copies. BSK ?t- HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 ORDER WP.No.402 of 2025 1:\ EJ i4r€ ./ .: '') k 1 I ttB ?[?5 U 1 i I -f esr',11c DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS pA- . \t "FT";