Ms.T.V Sudha, learned counsel represents Sri v. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing

,| The State of Telangana, Rep. by its, Principal . Secretary to M-u-nicipal Ad; i nl;i;;tio; a nu U r"oin oeue r6pm6nt, Secreta riat, Hvderabad' 500022' The Hvderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep' by its Metrop-olitan d;;t il;;;, 's*i,,i, iJv*ti-C,irpt"*' sanjeeva^ Reddv Nasar Road' Sriii,ui.i lt"sjr, Ameerpet, ityderabad', Telangana - 500082' 2 l l:...'.., , J The Greater -lyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Cornmissioner, CC 9gnplq, Tank Bund Road, Lower Tank Bund, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad - 500063.

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad. Circle No. 20, cHMC, Serilingampally, 5- The Zonal Commissioner, Circle No: 20, GHMC, Serilingampally, Hyderabad. 6. The $gsistant City Planner, Circle No. 20, GHMC, Serilingampqlly, Hyderabad

7. M. Yadaiah, ,S/o. Late Kondaiah, Aged about 52years, Occ Agriculture, Fl/0. Gachibowli V,llaoe, Serilingampally lVandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...REQPOIIDENTS IA O:2O 24 Fet(iqn under Section 151 CPC praying that in lhe circumstanQes stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pieqsed to direct the Learned $ingle Judge to pass the similar order that vyas passecl in similar Writ Petitions. IANO:1OF 2O25 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 pleased !o stay the Pending Writ Appeal demolition of the existing structures iO thO plotS in the layout ordered to be regularized in Sy. Nos. 51, 52 a;d s3(partl of Gachibowli Village to an extent of Ac 36-26 Gts. and decide all the connected batch of clvil Revision Petitions and writ Petitions while taking into consideration of all the factual gspegls and legal issues including the non-existing claim U/s. 37,A of the Tenq!9y Act ta the 7th respoldent or any of the respondents pending disposal 9f the Writ Appeel and pass such other order or orders. counser ror lhe Apperra"" ' iS1,";HiU.VEiUIXfiTir"' Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA counsel for the Respondent No.3to6 ' :t'."#t?#juDHAN REDDY, counser for the Respondent No'7 :fl.:3s,T3i5i"r[r.1fl',i i'i8B1l*, The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.332 of 2024 JUDGMENT (Per tle Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paut): Sri C. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel represents Sri K. Venumadhav, Iearned counsel for the appellants; Ms.T.V Sudha, learned counsel represents Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), for respondent No.2; Sri G Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), for respondent Nos.3 to 6 and Sri Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel represents Sri D. Jagan Mohal Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.7. 2 Heard on admission

3. In the present appeai, the subject matter of challenge is the order of learned Single Judge dated 22.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.8474 of 2023, which reads thus: "The petitioners in this Writ Petition have called in question the speaking orders passed by respondent No.3 dated 28-02-2023, 27-O2- 2023, 06-03-2023 and 27-O3-2O23 directing for removal of alleged unauthorized constructions in respect of petitioners' plot bearing Nos. 168, 212, 233, 234, 243, 25O, 253, 260 ar.d 423 in the layout in Sy.Nos.51, 52 and 53 part of 2 Gachibowli village, Serilingampally I\4anc1al, Ranga Reddy District.

2. t)uring the course of hearing on admisslon on iL8-O3-2O23, this Court, having noted that respondent No.3 had issued individual spee.king orders to the petitioners directing remove the unauthorized consrtnrctions, observed that the petitioners, instr:ad of filing a @mmon Writ petition. are required to file individual Writ petitions rgainst thc individual speaking orders passe,l- The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners on the said date informed the Court the petitioners would be taking appropriate steps for questioning the impugned orde rs.

3. Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appeanng on behalf of 7ff respondent inlbrmecl this Court today that subsequent to the aforesaid direction/observation by this Court, somer of the petitioners have filed separai_e Writ Petit:ons vlde W.P.Nos.10140 of 2023, 70764 of 2023, 76629 of 2023 and 10151 of 2023 rrvhereby the speaking orders passed were callerl in question.

4. Having regard to the submissions mzrcle as abovr: and also taking note of the facL that some ol the petitioners have called in qu estion the s,peaking order passed in their reipective cases, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petitron as hled collectivelv bv the petitioners challenging the individual spi:aking orders passed cannot be proceedecl *ith a.rJ the same has Llecome infructuous. 5. Ac cordingly, the Writ petition is closed as infrur:tuous. No costs. 6. It is made clear that this expressed any opinion on the matter. Court has not merits of the 7-. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pencling if any shal1 stand closed. No costs.,,

4. During the course of hearing, it is pointed ,rut that , . -appeuapt Nos.1l, 3, 4 and 6 of the instant w_rit apr,eal filed I .,=.d W.P.Nos.76629, 10151, 10164 & 10140 of 2023 respectively, which were decided by the learned Single Judge on 71.03.2024, 3

19.02.2024, 19.02.2024 & 01.02.2024 respectively on similar lines. One such order in W.P.No.10140 of 2023 reads thus: "This Writ Petition is hled for issuance oI Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in particular the 3'd respondent, in passing the speaking order dt.27.03.2o23 vide Proc.No.7776/UC 12022 directing removal of the alleged unauthorized constructions, as being illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development respondent No. 1, Sri appearing for V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel respondent No.2, Sri appearing for M.A.K.Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents No.3 to 6, Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7, and with their consent the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without delving into the merits of the matter, since the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Sections 654 and 655 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act), against the impugned proceeding; that admittedly, the petitioner did not avail the said remedy; and that as it is not shown to this Court of the said remedy of appeal is ineflicacious, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be relegated to avail the remedy of appeal under Sections 654 and 655 of the Act. 4. Since this Court is now relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is to be granted three (O3) weeks time to avail the remedy of appeal before the concerned authorigr.

5. Accordingly, petitioner is granted three (O3) weeks time, from the ciate of receipt of a copy of ,1 l l I l 4 thrs Court, to avail the remedy of appeal under Sections 654 and 655 of the Act, and on the petitioner filing such appeal before the concer;red authority within the aforesaid period, the appeal shall be taken on record b1, the ;n16 aurhorify wirhout raking objec.ion as to li:rritation. Further, since this Court is now releg,atrng the petitioner to avail the rerrredy of appeal, the respondents-authorities shirll not give effect to the impugned order ti1l the expirv of tirne as granted by this Court.

6. S'rbject to above observations and granting liberty to the petitioner as aforesaid, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

7. It is also made clear that this Court has not exprr:ssed any opinion on the ments of the clainr o[ the petitioner.

8. C.onsequently, miscellaneous petitions, if an\', pending in this wrrt petition shall stand closed.''

5. Durinp; the course of argument, it is not disputed that the speaking orders which became subject matter of chrellenge in case of appellrrnt Nos.3, 4 and 6 in W.p.Nos. LO1S1, 10164 & 10140 of 202.f are same / similar which have becom,: subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.8474 of 2023 filed by the present appellants.

6. I-earne I Single Judge although held that the W.P.No.8474 of 2023 has rendered infructuous, for all practicai pu{poses, the orclers passed in W.p.Nos. 16629, 101Si, i0164 & 10140 of 2023 must govern their fate because subject matter of challenge rvas the similar speaking orders passed bv the competent autfrority. In W.P.Nos. 16629, 1Ol5I, 10164 & 10140 of 2023, the 5 appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 were granted three weeks time to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 654 and 655 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Sri Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel for respondent I No.7 informed that in furtheralce thereof, the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos. 10151, 10164 & 10140 of 2023; who are appellant Nos.3, 4 and 6 herein, have already preferred appeals

1. e. M.A.Nos.52, 51 & 50 of 2024 respectively which came to be dismissed on 19.O9.2024.

8. Appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6, in all fairness, should have filed an additional affidavit in this writ appeal to apprise the Court that they filed different writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.16629, 10151, 10164 & 10140 of 2023 whidn came to be disposed of by orders dated 11.O3.2O24, 19.O2.2O24, 19.O2.2O24 & 07.O2.2O24 respectively. 9 . Since the appellants herein are similarly situated and appellant Nos.2,3,4 and 6 have already tested the speaking orders in W.P.Nos. 16629, IOLSI, 10164 & 10140 of 2023, we are only inclined to observe that the impugned order of learned Single Judge whereby W.P.No.8474 of 2023 was held to be infructuous shall stand modified by orders passed in W.P.Nos. 16629, 10151, 10164 & lOl4O of 2023. No further relief is due to the aPPellants. I I I 1 l

10. Accorctingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. Nr costs. t\ 6 Interbcutory applications, if any pending, ,,;ha11 also stand closed //TRUE COPY// S D/.T. KRISHNA KUMAR TY REGISTRAR }TION OFFICER R{y )\et o U rb a n D evero pm e nt' To,, Ii,",i:if 5 3 1 3ff::'sy...B,y,:t ",1?tL##il iH33 3! 11 " 2. The Metrocolitan Commissioner' Hyderabad- lvletrooolrtan Development ' i:,e",,rdB.Eil:i ;ffi [fs,TJl* ;a:titt nzl d v N a g a r R oad' s ri n iva sa 3. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corooratirln' CC Qpmplex' Tank Bund noao, r_ow"JtE;l Li,;i, AJ.;n tlligar,'Hv'd"rabad - 500063. 4. The Deputy Commtssioner, Circle No 20' GHMC Serilingampally' 5. The Zonal (lommissioner, Circle No 20' GHMC Serilingamprally' Hyderabad' Qity Planner, Ciicle No. 20, GHMC' SerilingamPally' 6. The AQsistant Hyderabad Hyderabad T.Thesectionofficer,writnonServieesectiqn,Highqggrtforthestatetelangana 8. Qne CC to SRI V.VENUMADHAV, Advocate' IOPUCI g Two CCs t'r GP FOR MCPL ADMN'URBAN DEV' High Corrrt for the State of Telangana [OUT] 10 One QC to SRIV NARASIMHA GoUD' SC FQR HMDA' [OPUql 1'1. One QC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' SC FgR GHMC' [OPUCI 12.OneCO to SRI D JAGAN MOHAN REDDY' Advocate tQPUCl 13.Two CD CcPies C} BSK BS I , HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 JUDGMENT WA.No.332 ot 2024 I I -i2: , 4:' ;i\14 14 /6' t ,/, ,7,.:. l,') ol' \ .'. \\.' .\\-l-..^. )t 20fr o( t' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS D n *{w