G. Parvathi, W/o. G.N v. Srinivasa Rao, Aged

1 5. Smt. Maro j Ir/ilhila Devi, D/o. Late tvl. Sulochana, aged li6 years, Occ- Househoid, R/o Kalyans Priyadarshini Towers, Plot No.314 and 315, Flat No. 201, tt/arket, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Puppalguda , lvlanikonda Hyderabad 16.Smt. Kashe Bhagya Devi, D/o. Latd-Bhongir Ananth Rao, aged 65 years , .Occ- Househol<i, Rl/o. Kalyan's Priyadarshini Towers, Plot Nc. 314 and 315, Flat No. 20.1 , Ir/arket, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Puppalgucla, Manikonda, Hyderabad

17.Smt. Bhonagiri Yadamma, W/o. late Satyanarayana, aged about 81 years , Occ- Householc, Rl/o. H.No.22-6l A, V V Nagar, Dilsikhrragar, F) and T Colony, Hyderabad

18.Smt. Bhonagirr Rekha, W/o. Late B. Vinod Kumar, agecl about 5'l years, Occ- Household, R/:. H.No.22-6l A, V V Nagar, Dilsikhnagar, P and T Colony, Hyderabad

19. Smt. [\,4uthr:ju '/asantha, D/o. Late Satyanarayana, ;aged {i8 years, Occ- Household, Fl/o Flat No.501, Goodwin Ace Apartments;, Roacl No.13, behind Bhavans Colleg e, Sainikpuri, Hyderabad

20. Smt. R. Vijaya Lakshmi, D/o. Late Satyanarayana, ,Aged lil' years, Occ- Household, R/ o. H.No.11-2-1 11, Street No. 1, Vylar Gadda, Seethaphalman li, Secunderabad. 21 . Smt. Bhonagir Radhika, D/o. Bhonagiri Vinod Kumar, Aged 27 years, Occ- Household, R/0. H.No.22-6l A, V V Nagar, Dilsikhnagar, P and T Colony, Hyderabad

22.Sri. B.lt/ahesh. S/o. Late B. Prakash, aged 32 years, Occ- tloldsmith, Rl/o. H.No.1-6-20, Nlusheerabad, Hyderabad (Present address 1-5-3571 1 T october, Rcad ltlo.9, New fVaruthi Nagar, Chaitanyapuri Kothapet, Hyderabad 23. Sri. B. Rajesh, S/o. B. Vinod Kumar, Aged 27 yearc, Occ- System Operator ltrlatruqi Enginee ring College, Saidabad, Hyderabad

24. Sri. B. Naresh, li/o. B. Prakash, aged 30 years, Occ- Goldsmith, Rli o. H.No.1- 6-20, [\/usheer:rbad, Hyderabad. (Present address 1 -5-357,'1, Road No.9, New Maruthi Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Kothapet, Hyderabad)

25. Sri. B. Narender', S/o. B. Ramakrishna Rao, Aged 34 years, O:c- Gold Smith, R/o. H. No. 2-3-645141 A/27, New Patel Nagar, Hyderabad. (Fresent address 1-5-35711, Roac No.9, New fVlaruthi Nagar Kothapet, Hyderabed) 26- Sri- B. Naresh Kumar, S/ o- B. Rama Krishna Rao, Aged 28 years, Rt/o. H.No.2-3. 645141 A127, New Patel Nagar, Hyderabad.

27. Sri. Bonagiri Abhishek, S/o. B. Bhasker Chary, Aged 27 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H. No. 1E-3-463111102, Shivaji Nagar, Near St IVlari;r High School, AIiabad, Hyderabad. All the petitioners 1 to 27 are represented by their GF'A Holders Petitioners vide registered SPA document No. 552M 12021 dated 01l09l?-021 registered at Joint S ub-Re1y istrar-ll Hyderabad. Sri. Edugula Sr nivas Goud, S/o. Edugula Narayana Goud, t\ged 48 years, Occ- Business Rl/o. H. No. 8-4-367134, Vinayak Rao l.Jagar. Cpp. Out Post, Borabanda, Hyderabad. AND 1 State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secr6tariat, Hyderabad. ..,PETITIONERS

2. Greater Hyderabad lvlunicipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Tank, bund Road, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad-Municipal Corporation, Tank bund Road, Hyderabad, Telangana.

4. City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Town Planning Section, Kukatpally, Circle No.24, Hyderabad.

5. Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Zone, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

6. Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

7. G. Parvathi, W/o. G.N. V. Srinivasa Rao, Aged 52 years, Occ- Housewife, Rl/o. H. No.5-1 -'l 66/4, Poojala Basthi, Jambagh, Hyderabad. B. Sri Lingamboney Rajesh, S/o. Late L Yadagiri, Aged 46 years, Business, Rl/o. 2-1-23i69, Indira Nagar, Shamshiguda, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a writ or, order or direction more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 6 in not considering the complaint submitted by the petitioners herein on 1011212024 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, violative of provision of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, violative of Articles 14,21 and 300 - A of Constitution of lndia and consequently cancel the building permission sanctioned by the respondent corporation vide permit No. 6156/GHIt/C|KPL|2O24-BP, daled 1210812024 granted for construction of multi storied Building over land admeasuring 913.5 Sq. yds.' in Sy. No.38 of Block 1, at Shamshiguda Village, Kukatpally Village, I\/edchal lVlalkajgiri Mandal. lA NO: 2 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 direct the respondents 1 to 6 from passing necessary orders on the complaint submitted by the petitioners on 1011212024. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under {iection 151 CPC plaus, that in the circumstirnces stated in the affidavit filed in s;upport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to restrict the respondents 7 and I from making any construction pursuant to the building permission s;anctioned by the respondent corporation vide permit No. 6156/GHMC/KPLI2OZ -BP, dated 12108t2024 for construction of multi storied Building over land a,jmeasuring 913.5 Sq. yds.' in Sy Nlo. 38 of Block 1 , at Shamshiguda \/illage, Kukatpally Village, Medchal lt/alkalgiri IVand al' Counsel for the Petit'oner : SRI G.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the ResF,ondent No.'l : GP FOR MCPL ADMN ITRBAN DEV Counsel for the Res6,ondent No.2to6 : SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Res6rondent No.7&8 : -' The Court made the t'ollowing: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.L9\2 0F 2025 oRAL ORDER: Heard Sri G. Kalyn Chaakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for N{unicipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.1 and Sri K. Ravi Mahender, learned Stand.ing counsel appearing for respondent Nos'2 to 6' Perused the record.

2. Petitioners herein are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors o[ land admeasuring 1827 sq.yds., in Sy.No-38 (olcl No'24) of Shamshiguda Village, Kukatpally. According to them, respondent Nos'7 and 8 created registered Deed of Exchange bearing document No.65O4 of 2023, dated 03'OB'2O23 Petitioners hled suit vide O.S.No'68 of 2024 against respondent Nos.7 and B and others seeking perpetr.r'al injunction and also for declaration to declare the I i I i 2 register(-'cl sr1[e deeds as null and void and rlot binding on the plaintif [s. They have also filed Inte:1ocutory application in the said suit seeking interim in ur-rction The saicl [A and the said suit are pending.

3. Dr-trlng the pendency of the said suit and I.A, petition,:rs have submitted a represcntatiol dated lO.l2.2t)'"24 1.o respondcnt No.3 stating that res;pondent Nos.7 ai'rrl 8 ,:reated the aforesaid document ancl also sale deeds bezrring documcnt Nos.4528 of 2O0C anrl 4529 of 2000, bc,th dated i 1.10.2000 and obta-rned Building permit crder. Petitioners requested resporLdent No. 3 to take erction against respondent Nos.7 and B. Despite rcceivin;g :rnd acknowledging the said rcprest:ntation, respondcr-rt \o.3 did not act upon the samc. Agglieved by the said inaction of respondent No.3, petitioners filed the present u,rit ltetition

4. Whercar;, Sri I(. Ravi Mahender, learned r;tanding counsel appearing for respondent Nos.i2 to 6 has 3 produced the written instructions of respondent No.4 stating that there is dispute between petitioners and respondent Nos.7 and 8. A suit vide O.S.No.68 of 2024 is pending. Therefore, they cannot pursue parallel remedies. On obtaining order from the civil court, they have to approach the respondent corporation seeking implementation of the same. The said written instructions are placed on record.

5. As discussed supra, a suit vide O.S.No.68 of 2024 hled by the petitioners against respondent Nos.7 and 8 and others for perpetual injunction and to declare the registered sale deeds as null and void, is pending. It is the specifrc contention of the petitioners that respondent Nos.7 and 8 in collusion with their vendors created three registered sale deeds vide document Nos.2052 of 2OOO dated 04.O9.2000, 4528 of 20O0 dated 11.10.2O00 and 4529 of 2OOO dated 11.1O.2O00 and a Deed of Exchange bearing document No.165O4 of 2023 dated 03.08.2023- 4 i aiat;a: Therefore. they sought for declaration of the said documents as null and void. They have also hled an Interlocutory. Application in the said suit seeling ad- interim injunction. The same was also pend:Lng b<:fore the Trial Court.

6. Aforesai 1 facts would revea-l that there are rlisputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 an,i 8 with regard to thr, title of the subject property Respondent No.3 cannot consider the said title disputes. Pelitioners have to pursue the aforesaid suit and a_lso I.A and on obtaining orders, they have to approach the res.pondent corporation rvith a request to implement the: same. Instead of doing so, they have submitted a represr:ntation dated 1C). L2.ilO24 to respondent No.3 w.ith a re<1uest to take action a61ainst respondent Nos.7 and 8 and ihled the present writ petition alleging non-consider.ation of the said represen tation. Petitioners cannot pursue parallel remedies. Viewed from any angle, this wr:Lt petition is 1 5 liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to pursue the aforesaid suit and I.A and on otltaining order, they have to approach the respondent corporation for implementation of the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ANT REGISTRAR AS //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, I\/unicipal Administration and Urban Development, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad [\/unicipal Corporation, Tank bund Road, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank bund Road, Hyderabad, Telangana_

4. The City Planner, Greater Hyderabad tVlunicipal Corporation, Town Ptanning Section, Kukatpally, Circle No.24, Hyderabad.

5. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal CorpoiStion, Kukatpally Zone, Kukatpally,. Hyderabad.

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad [r/lunicipal Corporation, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

7. One CC to SRI c.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate. [OPUCI B. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADIVN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

9. One CC to SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC. [OPUC] 10. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP2' HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 ORDER WP.No.1912 ot 2025 3 iHE \- ..ir^'\. i).. e i, 03 ns zW .<. ,t -.:-__ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,/3 /4 /,r3,ft t