1. Smt. K. Shailaja v. The State of Telangana

M/s. Chandra Groups, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Avula Reddy, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, Oa. Business, R/o County, Bachupalli, Medchal - Malkajgiri District. Chandra Shekar Flat No. 10A, Hill ...PETITIONERS AND a J 4 E 6 1 Smt. K. Shailaja, Wo. P. Ram Gopal Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ.,House Wife , R/o. Plot No.33, Senor Valley,Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Smt. B. Radhika, D/o. Late Sri. Ravindranath. Aged about 60 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-5-322, Venkateshwara Nagar, Surya Nagar, Old Alwal,Secuderabad. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Corporation and Urban Development Departmept, Secretariat, Hyderabad- Hyderabad l\/etropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its [Vlanaging Director, Hyderabad. The Diskict Collector, IVledchal Malkajgiri District. The Tahsildar, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dismiss the present writ petition with costs, thereby vacating the Interim Order of Status Quo dated 0710212023 in WP No.67212023. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI B.MAYUR REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SR: K.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mrs. D.MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: Ms. TEKURU SWETCHA, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI J.RAMACHANDRA RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM The Court made the following: ORDER a OR,DER: HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE TC LAIGHMAN WRIT PETITION No.672 OF 2023 Heard Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, leamed Senlor Counsel representing Mr. K.V. Raman, leamed counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. D. Madhavi, leamed Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, Ms. Tekuru Swetcha, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, Mr. J Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Pillix Law Firm appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS: i) The land admeasuring Acs.5.18 guntas in Survey No.617 of Turkapally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, was being cultivated by one Mr. Bandi Ananthaiah from 1950 onwards as per Khasra Pahani. ii) Upon the death of Mr. Bandi Ananthaih, his two sons, Mr. Bandi Yellaiah and Bandi Bikshapati applied for succession of Tenancy Rights in the year 1975 and accordingly, they were granted ownership certificate under Section - 38E of the A-rdhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) z KL,J W.P. No 672 of2023 Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'Act, 1950') to an extent of Acs.3 .24 gntas. iii) Thereafter, the petitioners herein purchased the said extent in Survey No.617 from the said Mr. Bandi Yetlaiah and Mr. Bandi Bikshapathi represented by their GPA Holder, Mr. P. Ram Gopal Rao in the ratio of Acs.4.00 to petitioner No. 1 and Acs. 1 . I 8 gutnas to petitioner No.2 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6723 of 2001, dated 03.09.2001. Since the date of purchase, the petitioners have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same iv) It is not known to the petitioners that some unknown persons registered the said extent of Acs.5.18 guntas of land in favour ofone Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin under a registered sale deed bearing document No.141l of 1993 fraudulently and also subsequent rectification deed bearing document No.4681 of 2002. Then, the petitioners filed a suit vide O.S. No.l367 of 2003 seeking cancellation of the said sale deed bearing document No.14l l of 1993 and ratification deed bearing document No.4681 of 2002 in favour of Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin and for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, leamed I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar granted interim ininction and the same is in subsistence. 3 KL.J W.l'. No.672 of 2021 v) Even Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin filed a suit vide O.S. No.12g5 of 2003 seeking perpetual injunction, while Mr. Bandi yellaiah and Mr. Bandi Satyanarayan filed asuitvide O.S. No.g423 of 2003. All the said suits are pending and transferred to the Medchal Court. vi) While so, without any notice to the successors of the protected tenants in respect of the land to an extent ofAcs.5.l8 guntas, respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, illegally incorporated the name of Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin in revenue records by deleting the name of protected tenant, Mr. Bandi Ananthaiah and his successors and the same is in violation of Section - 19 of the Act, 1950. Challenging the same, Mr. Bandi yellaiah and Mr. Bandi Bikshapathi filed an appeal No.F2/7498/1995 before the Joint Collector, and the same was allowed vide order dated. 12.12.2002 ordered to delete the names of original pattadar, Smt. Azizunnisa Begum, her legal heirs and subsequent purchaser, Smt. Rubina Faizuddin from revenue records for the pahanies from the year 1976-77 till date by incorporating thp names of appellants therein. As regards remaining extent of Acs.1.34 guntas in Survey No.6l7 of Turkapally Viltage, it was held that Mr. Bandi Ananthaiah was the protected tenant for the entire extent of Acs.5.18 guntas in the said survey number and accordingly directed to issue grant of Section - 38E Ownership Certificate to the said i' E',- '. -:1c-i*j:- g-EI*.--:.i :,effi 4 KL,J W P. No 672 of202l extent of Acs.1.34 guntas also to the appellants therein. The said order dated 12.12.2002 has attained finality. vii) Despite the said order, dated 12.12.2002, respondent No.4 did not comply with the said order. Therefore, petitioner No.l filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.47437 of 2018 before this Court, and vide order dated 21.01.2019, this Court directed to dispose of the representation dated 28.06.2018 submitted by the petitioners within four (04) weeks from the date of the said order. Even then, respondent No.4 did not comply with the said order viii) While so, in Crime No.23/ACB-CR-1U2008, the ACB Officials seized various properties of petitioner No.1 herein including Acs.4.00 in Survey No.6l7 of Turkapally Village and, thereafter, upon an application moved by the ACB Officials vide Crl.M.P. No.189 of 2012 in Crl.M.P. No.468 of 2010 in the said crime, leamed Principal Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, ordered for attachment of the properties including the aforesaid property. ix) As stated above, despite the Joint Collector declaring the sale deed bearing document No.141l of 1993 vide order dated 12.12.2002, Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin sold an extent of Acs.l.l0 guntas in Survey ritr6T7 along with other extents making a total extent of Acs.l1 .12 a 5 KL,J W P No 672 of2023 guntas to one Mr. Y. Vara Prasad Reddy under a registered sale deed bearing document No.l820 of 2018, dated 03.02.201g. The said Vara Prasad in tum sold an extent of Acs.l.l0 guntas to respondent No.5. In view of the order dated 12.12.2002 of the Joint collector, respondenr No.5 has no right, title or interest in respect of the said extent of Acs.l.lO guntas. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.5 made an application for grant of layout permission in respect of the rands including the aforesaid land and accordingly, respondent No.2 vide proceedings 05.01-2021 granted layout permission to respondent No.5. Therefore, the petitioners gave a compraint dated 07.04.2021 and the sarne was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 25.09.202r. challenging the same, the petitioners fired a writ petition vide w.p. No.28459 of 2021 and the same is pending. x) Despite of the above, respondent No.l vrde G.O.Ms.No.l 14, dated 25.07 .2020 issued proceedings and the consequential Notification No.l60, dated 06.08.2020 for conversion of the subject land fiom conservation zone to residential zone. challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. ,.t ' ,, : ,|i :: ii# ":ij l :#i -:.1 i ;:ii l 6 KL,J W.P No 672 of2023

3. CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT No.2 - HMDA: i) HMDA received proposal for change of land use from agricultural use/conservation use zone to residential use zone in Survey Nos.594P, 595P, 596, 597, 613,614,615,616 & 6l7P of Turkapally Village to an extent of 214483.399 square meters applied by one Mr Tirupathi Reddy and others through Online dated 02.05.2018. The same was examined by its office and the land Section was verified the ownership documents submitted by the layout applicant and cleared the prima facie of title. Subsequently, the site was inspected by concemed Scrutiny Officer and observed that it was vacant land and the approach is by 60 meters wide BT Road on eastem side. The said proposal for change of land use was examined and the same was approved by M.C., HMDA. The fachral report was forwarded to the Govemment through its office letter, dated 10.08.2018. ii) Consequently, the Govemment vide Memo, dated 16.03.2020 directed is Authority to publish a Notice, and accordingly the same was published on 09.05.2020 in English Newspaper 'Hans India' and Telugu Newspaper 'Namaste Telangana' in respect of the subject land calling for the objections and suggestions. No objection or suggestions were received either from General Public or from the petitioners. The same 1 7 KI.J W P No 672 of202l was informed to the Govemm ent vide letter dated 30.05.2020- Pursuant thereof, the Govemment issued instruction through letter dated

01.06.2020 to collect the charges as per G.O.Ms.No.223 MA, dated

30.08.2016. iiD Accordingly, the applicant remitted the requisite fee and, therefore, respondent No. I issued G.O.Ms.No. I 14, dated 25.07 .2020 and the same was published in the Gazette Notification No. 160, dated

06.08.2020. The said notification was also published on 07.10.2020 in the aforesaid English and Telugu Newspapers. Thus, having kept silent for about more than two (02) years, the petitioners filed the present writ petition and, therefore, they are not entitled to seek any relief on the ground of laches on their part.

4. CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT No.5: i) The sale deed bearing document No.6723 of 2001, dated O3.Og.20Ol under which rhe petitioners said to have purchased the subject land is under challenge in O.S. No.842 of 2003 hled by Mr. Bandi Satyanarayana and Mr. Bandi Bikshapathi against their GpA Holder, Mr. P. Ram Gopal Rao, who allegedly executed the said sale deed in favour of the petitioners. This fact was suppreyied by the petitioners. ..i { ".j iln'i ):it.i ,li ( E KI-.J W.P No 672 of2023 ii) The interim order granted in O.S.No.l367 of 2003 hled by the petitioners seeking cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.1411 of 1993 got expired long back in the year 2004 itself. iii) The order of Joint Collector dated 12.12.2002 is of no consequence as Mr Bandi Yellaiah and Mr. Bandi Bikshapathi executed a Ratification Deed in favour of Smt. Ribuna Faizuddin. He denied the allegation that the sale deed bearing No.14l I of 1993 executed in favour of Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin was held to be invalid. iv) The purchase of extent of Ac.l.10 guntas by it from Mr. Y Vara Prasad Reddy is legal and valid. v) The layout was rightly sanctioned by respondent No.2 in its favour including the extent of Acs.l.l0 guntas in Survey No.617. vi) The petitioners have no knowledge of G.O.Ms.No.1l4, dated 25-07 .2020 and the consequential Notification No.160, dated 06.08.2020 issued in its favour in respect of total extent of Acs.53.00 guntas including'the subject land of Acs.l.10 guntas in Survey No.617. Th"y never challenged the said G.O. and the consequential notification. vii) The petitioners filed a suit vide O.S. No.614 of 202l against it and its Vendor, Mr. Y. Vara Prasad Reddy in respect of Acs.l.10 guntas t. I I KL,J W.P No.572 of2023 in Survey No.6l7 of Turkapally Village. They have also filed Interlocutory Applications videI.A. Nos.1690 of 2021 and 1691 of 2021 seeking ad interim injunctions and the same were dismissed by a common order dated 15.07.2022. The said fact was suppressed by the- petitioners in the present writ petition viii) The present writ petition is purely a speculative in nature and, therefore, it sought to dismiss the same.

5. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT: i) In view of aforesaid rival submissions, the specific contention of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the property to an extent of Acs.5.18 guntas in Survey No.617 of Turkapally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District having purchased the same under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6723 of 2001, dated

03.09.2001. Since the date of their purchase, they have been in peaceful possession a4d enjoyment of the said property. While so, some unknown persons registered the said extent of land in favour of one Mrs. Rubina Faizuddin under a registered sale deed bearing document No.141l of 1993 fraudulently and the consequential rectification deed bearing document No.468l of2002. Therefore, the petitioners have filed a stit vide O.S. No.1367 of 2003 seeking cancellation of the said sale ( l0 KL,J w.P. No.672 of2023 deed and the rectification deed. The said suit is pending. Likewise, the said Rubina Faizuddin also filed a suit vide O.S. No.l285 of 2003 for perpetua[ injunction. The said suit is also pending ii) Whereas, it is contended by HMDA that on receipt of application submitted by one Mr. Tirupathi Reddy and others, having examined the prima facie title and after following due procedure laid down under the HMDA Act and the Rules made thereunder and on receipt of requisite fee, it has issued Notification converting the subject land from conservation zone to residential zone and thereafter from residential zone to commercial zone. There is no error in not. iii) It is contended by respondent No.5 that the sale deed bearing document No.6723 of 2001. dated 03.09.2001 under which the petitioners claim to have purchased the subject property is under challenge in O.S. No.842 of 2003. iv) Perusal of record would further disclose that Mrs. Shailaja and another also filed a suit vide O.S. No.614 of 2027 against iWs. Chandra Groups and Mr. Varaprasad Reddy. O.S. No.l62 of 2022 is filed seeking cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.3387 of 2018, dated 11.05.2018 executed by the said Mr. V. Varaprasad Reddy in KI-.J W P No 672 of2023 favour of M/s. Chandra Groups. The said suits are also pending foi adjudication. v) As discussed above, the present writ petition is fited challenging G.O.Ms. No.l14, dated 25.07.2020 and consequential Notification dated 06.08.2020. Though the said G.O. and the Notification are of the year 2020, the petitioners filed the present writ petition only in the year 2023. Thus, there is abnormal delay in filing the present writ petition vi) As discussed above, the aforesaid suits i.e., O. S. No.614 of 2021 and 162 of 2022 are pending. There are serious disputed questions of fact with regard to title of the property. vii) This writ petition came up before this Court on 07.02.2023 on which date, leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite injunction order granted in favour of the petitioners, pending consideration . of their representation seeking correction of entries in revenue records, the respondents are trying to interfere with their possession over the subject property. Considering the said submissions, this Court, vide order dated,07.02.2023, granted status quo obtaining as on that day shall be maintained by the parties in all respects. In fact, as on that date, there was no statw quo. The trial Court vacated the said f a \ ': a: i t2 KIJ w P No.672 of202l status quo order. Therefore, the petitioners obtained the said interim order dated 07 .02.2023 by way of misrepresentation. viii) In view of the above, it is clear that there are civil disputes pending before various Civil Courts in respect of the subject property. Thus, there are serious/complicated questions of fact which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner cannot seek adjudication of serious disputed/complicated questions of fact in the present writ petition. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ehsanr. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain present writ petition on the aforesaid grounds.

6. CONCLUSION: The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In thc circumstances. of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the t \ To, writ petition shall stand closed. \ 1DD flr,r el-a,,: qs() 88* //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI EPUTY REGI SECTION OFFICER OPUC SRI K.V.RAMANA, Advocate I l One CC to PUcl 1 ate [O PILLIX LAW FIRM, Advoc One CC to M/s 2 One CC to Mrs D,MADHAVI. SC FOR HM DA [O PUC] 3 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, Hig h Court for the State of 4 erabad [OUT] Telanoana at HVd FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 5 Two dcs to GP Hyderabad [OUT] 6 Two CD CoPies ilBko, BSR 14-- HIGH COURT DATED:0110412025 t I I I ORDER WP.No.672 of 2023 ,: I-4 1 1q ,} o t) o -,, 2 B A P f, 1rfr -\oa\i-.- 'f /' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS Lq('A \o F"w