M/s. Vander Bilt Group v. 'l . The State of Telangana

.....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the impugned show cause notice issued by 3rd respondent vide proceeding No.3462/Plg/SHZ/HMDA/2024, dt.6-01-2025 lor cancellation of draft layout permission vide L.P.No.00O132lLOlPlglFLVDAl2023 o'f the petitioner Villa Project land an extent of 12-11 guntas in Sy.No.6B(Part) of Sirigirpur village, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R.District is illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and violation of interim status quo orders granted in WP.No.4678/2O24. d1.21-02-2024 and set-aside the same. 7 |.A.NO:1 OF 202s 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 stay of all further proceedings pursuant to show cause notice issued by 3rd respondent vide Proceed ing No.3462/Pl g I SHZ HMD N 2024, dt.6- 1 -2025 for the petitioner Villa Project land an extent of Ac.12-11 guntas in survey No.68 of Sirigiripur village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District pending writ petition in the interest of justice. l.A.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 take W.P.No. 2447 o'f 2025 record this Additional Affidavit in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.MAYUR REDDY, SENTOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : AGP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SMT D.MADHAVI Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : AGP FOR IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following ORDER / HOIY'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN IVRIT PETITION No. 2447 of2A2s ORDER: Heard Sri B. MaSrr Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Gandyadapu Rajesham learned counsel for the petitioner; lea-rned Assistalt Government pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No. l; Mrs. D. Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Assistant Government pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner is claiming that it has entered into registered development agreement_cum_general power of attorney bearing document No.56l of 2023, dated Il.Ol.2O23 with land owners, with regard to the development of non-agricultural open land admeasuring 42,350 Sq.yds in different survey numbers situated at Sirigiripur Revenue Village and Gram panchayat, Maheshwaram Manda_l, Ranga Reddy District. As per the E iaa*r KL,J W.P.No.2447 of 2025 2 development agreement-cum-genera,l power of attorney, they have also obtained conversion proceedings converting the said land from agriculture to non-agriculture. They have already obtained draft layout, dated 03.07.2023 from respondent No.2. They have completed construction of some of Villas strictly in accordance with the draft layout, dated 03.07.2023. Even then, respondent No.2 has issued notice, dated 13.O2.2024 directing the petitioner to clear the fencing in the land in Survey No.68 of Sirigiripur Village contending that the same is in FTL. Challenging the said notice, petitioner herein filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.467B of 2024. Vide order, dated 21.02.2024, t}l.is Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the subject land in all respects pending consideration of representation/ objections, dated 19.O2.2O24 submitted by the petitioner to the said notice, dated 13.O2.2024.

3. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.4 addressed a letter, dated 18. ll.2O24 to respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner is proceeding with the corlstruction in FTL land and Buffer Zone of Kothakunta . _:_E_._z ../ KL,J W.P.No.2447 of 2025 3 tank in violation of the order, dated 2l 'O2'2O24 in W.P.No.4678 of 2024. Therefore, respondent No'2 issued a show-causenoticedated06.0l.2025topetitionertoshow cause as to why the draft layout permission shall not be cancelled and directed the petitioner not to carry out any further construction/development in the subject site' Challenging the said show cause notice' petitioner frled the present writ Petition.

4. Sri B. Ma5rur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions' would submit that petitioner will comply with the said order' dated 2I.O2.2O24 in W.P.No.4678 of 2024 and maintain status quo with regard to the subject property in all respects and it will not violate the said order'

5. He would further submit that on receipt of the aforesaidletter,datedLs'lL'2O24,withoutverifyingthe contents of the sarne and without conducting site inspection, respondent No'3 has issued show cantse notice' KL,J r- W.P-No.2447 of 2025 I dated 06.01.2025 to the petitioner. Therefore, the same is arbitrary and illegal.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development and Mrs. D. Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is proceeding with the construction in violation of the aforesaid order, dated 21.O2.2O24 in W.P.No.4678 of 2024. karned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development would further submit that frnal notification was also issued Notif,iing Kothakunta. Clentuu under FTL.

7. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No.3 carnot issue show cause notice, dated 06.01.2025 calling explanation from the petitioner as to why the draft layout issued to the petitioner cannot be cancelled on the allegation of violation of status quo order, dated 21.O2.2O24 t KL,J W.P.No.2447 of 2025 5 in W.P.No.4678 of 2024 that too without inspecting the site ald without ascertaining the said allegation.

8. In the light of the said submissions, show cause notice, dated O6.01.2025 issued by respondent No.3 is set aside. However, petitioner shall maintain status-quo in compliarrce with the order, dated 21.02.2024 in W.P.No.467B of 2024, failing which, liberty is granted to respondent Nos.2 and 4 to take action against the petitioner including frling of contempt case along with the photographs.

9. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. / //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SE OFFICER u To

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, T.S., Secretariat, State of Tel ana at Hyderabad e Commissioner, Hyde rabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) Office, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. I Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Lakidikapool, Redhills, Hyderabad Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. The Metropolitan Commissioner/Director, (planning)_ll, HMDA Office, 4. The Executive Engineer, lrrigation Division No.1, lnigation Circle. 5. Two CCs to GP FOR tucpl ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOpMENT, High 6, TWO CCS tO AGP FOR IRRIGATION AND COMT4AND AREA _ DEVELOPMENT, High court for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad. [our] - ' 7. TWO CCS tO GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN O-CVEr-OPrr,rrr.ri HiSii B. One CC to SRt cANDyADApU RAJESHAM, Ad'vocaie [OPUC] 9. One CC to SMT D.MADHAVI, Advocate (OPUC) 10.Two CD Copies Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] e t t ( c J (.) '$E STAr €- 1 O5IEB 2[25 i D F cp T 2 5 * HIGH COURT DATED:3010112025 I I ORDER WP.No.2447 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. a