The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 o1 lhe 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 or writ more particularly one in the nalure of Writ of [t/andamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly of Respondent No.4 who rejected the Review Petition vide order daled oB-11-2024 passed in File No. 255768t GWMC/TP/ CnJ| I 2023-2024 refusing to review impugnedorderdated3l-08-2023videproceedingsNo..E-255768/ GWMC/TP/Cir )lt2o23-2)24as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of tho Telanqana Municipalities Act, 20'19 and rules thereunder and also against the principles of natural justice and coNSEQUENTLY set aside the order dated 08- 11-2024 passed by the 4th Respondent herein in File No. 255768/GWIVICl-l.PlCtr' llt2o23-2024 and also quash impugned order 31-08-2023 vide proceedings No E- 255768/ GWMC/TPICir-lll2c23-2024 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 receive the Additional Affidavit and Material Papers as exhibits in the above writ petition lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 grant Stay of operation of the impugned Order dated 31-08-2023 vide proceedingsNo.E-255768/GWMC/TP/Cir-llt2O23-2024passedbythe2nd Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition including demolition process .1 IA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: 1 Ladella Ravinder, S/o L Narasaiah E*ptoy"" PresentlY residing at D Hanumakonda District. Aoed about 65 Years Occ Retired Ni,o" 212241 lFZ Vidyaranyapuri colony ....PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.8 AND 1 2 Smt. Thunrula Sulochana' Wo. Thumula Sai. Baba Aged 50 years' Occ' E;;.;';if;: R b- z-s-tottt'."neaav- Cqtonv, Hanakonba Town and citv Hanamkonda District - 506001 (80'1951990i ) iil;;'5;iE;ri, slo sammjian, aged 57 vears' occ Govt Emplovee' '-'Rl"- 5s 1bt tl , n"oov cbro-nv, Hahakonda Town and city' ai" Hanamkonda District - 50600'1 ...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS Hanumakonda.

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Municipal Adminir;tration anO Ur6'an'-b"Gtopn1"nt bepartment.- Secretariat Buildin(rs. Hvderabad 2. i;ii ii:;i,;;li JJiiibi'."tor cum Appellate comm issioner' Municipal -Urorn- Development, KUDA ' Complex' - noi,inii;irjtion and 3. G;;;"r Wirangat Municipal Corporation' Warangal Rep by its + Ei"ui"."wr[ngal Municipal corporation, Kazipet circle-ll, warangal 5. th'5 Xt;[;n[titv prrnn"i itl, razipet Circle-ll' Greater Warangal - 6 il;'C;;rnitt[""i or eotici Warangal Commiisionarate at Warangal HSnumakonda Police station at T irre Rep bY its DePutY Commissioner' lriiunicipal Corporaiion, Kazipet Circle-ll, Warangal' - btation uouse Commissioner. -oniber, Hanumakonda. R8 is impleaded as per c.o.dt24l12l2024inlA212024' ...RESPONDENTS No' 1to7 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 02 12.2024 in l.A No 1 of 2024 in W'P No 33921 of vacate the order dated 2024 IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: --j.-6i"ut",. warangal Municipal corporation, warangal Rep by its commissioner. i c;;;i;; waranlal rvrunilipat coiporation. Kazipet circle-ll. warangal Rep by s i"h""x.;ltrni cii,, a"nn",. 1t, Kazipet circte-1, creater warangal Municipal .l..perlrtoueR/RESPoNDENT No.3to5 Corporation. Kaziiet Circle-ll, Warangal its Deputv Commissioner. --.-. ^. AND 5

1. Smt. Thumula Sulochana, Wo. Thumula Sai Baba Aged 50 years. Occ House wife, Rio. 3-9-107/1 , Reddy Colony' Hanakonda Town and Crty, Hanamkonda District - 506001 2. Tumula Sai Baba, S/o. Sammaiah, aged 57 years' Occ. Govt Employee' R/o. R/o. 3-9-10711 , Reddy Colony, Hahakonda Town and City, Hanamkonda District - 506001 ,.,PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

3. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary,. It/unicipal Admrnistration and Ur6an Develbpm'ent Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

4. Tlie Regional Joint Director cum Appellate ^Commissioner, Administiation and Urban Development. KUDA Complex, Hanumakonda' 5. The Commissioner of Police, Warangal Commissionarate at Warangal 6 The Station House Officer, Hanumakonda Police Station at 7 Ljdella Ravinder, S/o L Narasaiah Aged about 65 years Occ Retired Employee presently residing at D No 2122411F2 Vidyaranyapuri colony Hanumakonda District. Hanumakonda. Municipal ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted in l.A.No.1 of 2024 in w.P No,33921 of 2O24. dt 0211212024 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. BHANU MURTHY BALA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI R. CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3to5:SRl PASHAM MOHITH' SC FOR GWMC Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6&7: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No'8: SRI RAVI CHANRA BEJJARAM REP Ms. G. BHANU PRIYA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER l- ) a ,/ HON'BLE SRI JLISTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PIiTITIO N Nos.5l97 OF 2023 AND 3392 I OP 2024 COMMON ORDT]R: Heard Mr. Ravi Chandra Bejjaram, leamed counsel rcpresenting Mrs. G. Bhanu Priya, leamed counsel for the petitioner in W'P' No'5197 of 2023 and rcspondent No.8 in W.P. No'33921 of 2024, Mr' Bhanu Murthi Bala, leamed counsel for respondent No'4 in W'P' No'5197 of 2023 andpetitioners in W'P. No.33921 of 2024 and Mr' Pasham Mohith' learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation (GWMC) appearing on behalf of respondent Nos'1 to 3'

2. Iis involved and parties in both the writ petitions are one and the same. Therefore, both the writ petitions were heard together and they are being disposed of by way of common order'

3. However, for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred as they are arrayed in W.P. No'5197 of 2023 '

4. CASE OF THE PETITIONER iN W.P.No.5197 OF'2023: i) He is a retired employee of S.C- Corporation and belongs to S.C. Community. ii) He has purchased an old building bearing D.No'3-9-107, admeasuring 200 square yards, situated at Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda r ( Z w.p N*.srsrt?iozl a 33q21 ot2o24 from one Mr. Muralidhar Sharma' under a registered sale deed' dated

18.12.1995. iii) Since the aforesaid building was in dilapidated condition' he obtained building permit dated 02'08'2018 for construction of Ground Floor + 2 Floors. iv) Respondent No'4, wilc of Mr' Saibaba' claims to be the owner of his adjacent buildhg bearing D'No'3-9-107i I of the very same locality. On enquiry, it was lound that originally the said building betonged to one Mr' Raurla Lakshmi Narayana and others' who entered into an agreement of sale with one Ms' Jangala Lalitha on 30 '12'1992' Pursuant to the same, Ms' Jangala Lalitha entered into an agreement of saleinfavourofMs.GhousiaBegum,whoinumenteredintoan agreement of sale dated 30'01 '2005 with the husband of respondent No'4 to an extent of 99 square yards out of 200 square yards and remaining extent of l0 1 square yards is with Mr' Rapolu Purushotham' v) Thus, none of the aforesaid transactions right from 1992 is valid as there are no registered sale deeds executed' However' the husband of respondent No'4' Mr' T' Saibaba' Head Constable' executed a registered Gift Deed dated 16' 12'2015 in favour of his wife' respondent Nq4 to an extent of 108'47 square yards as against 99 square yards' on I , I KL.., W P. Nos 5197 of2o2l & 33921 of2024 the strength of the same, respondent No'4 applied for building permit on

30.10.2018 i.e.. subsequent to the building permit order of the petitioner' showing the total extent of 108.47 square yards and obtained building permit order dated 16.12.2018 for construction of Ground + 2 Floors' vi) The building permit order granted to respondent No'4 is in utter violation of Building Rules framed vtde G'O'Ms'No 168' dated

07.04.2012,G.O'Ms.No.7,dated05'01'20l6andprescribedsetbacks' The setbacks prescribed in both the building permit orders are as under: Buildin Total Floors Front Rear Sidel Side-ll Permit of the Petitioner l(,5.55 meters c+2 2.36 meters (about 8 ft) l.r (4 ft) l.l 4ft l.l (4 ft) I Buildin Permit ol Res 90.5 meters G+2 1.55 meters 5ft o.ss (l % rt) I t/z l1) 0.5 5 I V, t7l

0.5 5 dent No.4 I vii) The husband of respondent No'4 is working in Police Department started troubling the petitioner even before he started construction on the ground that he betongs to SC Community and the husband of respondent No-4 does not like SCs to be his neighbour' Accordingly, he got issued a notice dated 24'05'2018 to the petitioner &omrespondentNo.2asifthepetitionerwaSmakingunauthorized construction of RCC Pitlars without taking prior permission from GWMC. The petitioner had submitted explanation on 04.06'2018 to the said notice stating that his neighbor, husband of respondent No'4 had i I l l I 4 KL,J W P. No6.5197 of2023 & 33921ot2024 laid a drainage pipe touching his compound wall without providing any gap, and thereby his portico and steps got fully damaged- Therefore, in order to protect his property from untoward incidents and to reconstruct the wall, he dismantled the steps and portico and started reconstruction. viii) The husband of respondent No.4 also got issued another notice dated 26.09.2018 with an altegation that he was constructing ground floor RCC pillars in deviation to the sanctioned plan' He has . also submitted explanation dated 05.10.2018' Thereafteq without considering the same, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated

26127.11.2018 under Section 452 (2) of the HMC Act stating that his explanation dated 05.10.2018 was rejected and action would be taken' ix) Thereafteq respondent No-4 filed a writ petition vide W'P' No.22457 of 2019 to declare the action of GWMC in not initiating action pursuant to notice dateA 27.11.2018 against the petitioner as illegal' Vide order dated 16.10.2019, this Court directed GWMC to take necessary steps to ensure that no construction is made by the petitioner in deviation of sanctioned plan' Pursuant to the said order, the GWMC has issued notice 04.11.2019 to the petitioner to directing him to remove the deviated portion of construction or else the same would be removed b GWMC. Challenging the said notice dated 04.11'2019, the petitioner -5 KL.I wP Nc 5 r 97 of 2o2l & )3921 ot 2024 filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.24476 of 2019, wherein this Court granted interim orders. Again, respondent No.4 hled a writ petition vide W.P. No.65l3 of 2021 seeking to take action against the petitioner herein as if he was making illegal construction of pent house over and above 2nd floor. Vide commonjudgment dated 15.07.2022 this Court disposed of all the said three writ petitions directing the GWMC to remove the deviations within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of said order. Challenging the said common judgmenl dated

15.07.2022, the petitioner had preferred appeals vide W.A. Nos-552, 546 and 549 of 2022. Vide common judgment, dated 26.08.2022' a Division Bench of this court disposed of the said appeals directing the GWMC to examine the matter in terms of Rule - 26 (d) of the T-S. Building Rules, 2012 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.l68, dated 07.04.2012 which contemplates compounding of any setback in violation up to l0%- x) Pursuant to the said judgment dated 26.08.2022, the petitioner made a representation dated 09.09.2022 along with map- Thereafter, he has also submitted several representations to GWMC against permission obtained by respondent No.4 illegally by submitting fabricated documents and illegal construction etc. However, on 26.04 -2022, the GWMC issued a notice to respondent No.4 to produce her ownership r l I I i 6 KL.J w P Nos.5l97 of2023 & 33921 ot2024 documents etc. She did not produce the same and GWMC has not taken any action despite the District Collector's instructions vide letters daled

05.07.2022 and 30.07.2022. I-herefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.43014 of 2022 and the same was disposed of directing GWMC to consider the representation of the petitioner' Despite the same, the GWMC did not proceed further- xi) While so, by referring the judgment, dated 26.08'2022.passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ appeals, the GWMC issued a notice dated 12.10.2022 asking the petitioner to remove deviation as the same is exceeding 10%o deviation in respect of every side of setback. Therefore, GWMC issued proceedings, dated

28.0I.2023, directing respondent No.3 to seal the subject premises and keep a board to that effect. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition'

5. CONTENTION SOFRESPONDENT No.4: Respondent No.4 filed counter denying the claim of the petitioner and further contended as follows: i) Her husband purchased the land from Ghousia Begttm vide agreement of sale dated 04.01.2003 to an extent of 108.47 square yards, bulnot SS square yards as alleged by the petitioner. 4 7 KI- J W P Nos 5197 of2023 &13921 of2024 iD The petitioner is trying to grab her land and accordingly misrepresenting the facs to gain sympathy of this Court' iii) It is denied that her husband being employee in Police Department is managing the Municipal Authorities'

6. CONTE NTIONSFO RESPONDENT No.4 (PE,IITIONBRS IN W.P. No.3392 1oF 2024: Whereas, W.P. No.33921 of 2024 is filed by respondent No'4 in W.P.No.5lgTof2023andherhusband,challengingtherejectionorder dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of GWMC in review petition against the impugned order dated 3 1'08'2023' contended as lollows: i) She is the owner and possessor of the residential house bearing D.No.3-9-107/1. She has obtained building permit order dated t6.12.2018 ii) The petitioner in W.P' No'5197 of 2023 is their neighbour' There are some disputes among them' Therefore' they made a complaint to the GWMC. As a counter blast, the petitioner in W-P' No'5197 of 2023 made multiPle comPlaints' iiD Both the parties filed writ petitions against each other as mentioned above. t-r---- / / I I 8 w P Nos 5197 of2023 & 33921 ofZO24 KL-J iv) Pursuant to tle complaint made by the petitioner, the GWMC had issued a show-cause notice dated 13.02.2023 to respondent No.4. She has submitted her reply to the said show-cause notice. Having dissatisfied with her reply, the GWMC passed impugned order dated

31.08.2023, revoking her building permit order dated 16.12.201g. Challenging the same, she filed a writ petition vide W.p. No.l203 of 2024 before this Court. Vide order dated 16.02.2024, the same was disposed of granting liberty to avair remedy of appear under Section - 252 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Instead of preferring an appeal, her advocate advised her to wait till receipt of another notice lrom GWMC v) While so, GWMC has issued notice dated 05.06.2024 stating that despite granting liberty to avail remedy ofappeal, so far, she has not filed such appeal and, therefore, the order dated 31.0g.2023 held good and accordingly directed her to vacate the premises and remove unauthorized construction. She has submitted reply dated 07.06.2024 to the said notice and, thereafter, her advocate prepared the appeal and sent the same through registered post on 12.06.2024. Thereafter, she has fifd another writ petition videw.p. No.r56g2 of 2024 and the same was dismissed on 08.07 .2024. ,-I I 9 KI-,J WP Nos 5197 of2023 & 33921of2024 vi) Subsequently, the GWMC passed order dated 31.08.2023 dismissing the said statutory appeal and, thereafter, served a notice of eviction dated 12.09.2024 and for removal of unauthorized construction within two (02) days from the date of receipt of said order. She made an application for grant of time to vacate the premises. vii) She has also filed a review petition under Section - I 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to review the order dated 31.08.2023 dismissing her statutory appeal. Vide order dated 08.1 1.2024, the GWMC dismissed the said review petition on the ground that .the rcview petition filed by her under Section - I 14 of C.P.C. is not maintainable. viii) Challenging the said order dated 08.11.2024, respondent No.4 in W.P. No.5197 of 2023 and her husband filed W.P. No.33921 of

2024. Thev also sought to set aside the order dated 31.08.2023.

7. The petitioners in W.P. No.5197 of 2023 and respondent No.8 in W.P. No.33921 of 2024 filed her counter reiterating the conrenrions made in her writ affidavit in W.P. No.5l97 of 2023. / l l0 KL,J W P. Nos 519? or2023 & 33921of2024

8. CONTE NTIONS OF GWMC: i) Respondent No.4 in W.P. No.5l97 of 2023 filed building application to grant permission for her proposed construction over the house bearing D.No.3-9-107l1 as if it was constructed in the year 1984 and created the property tax assessment record in Form-B for the assessment year 1984 and 1993 with the help of false assessment to avoid payment of LRS charges and obtained building permit order dated

16.12.2018. ii) The husband of respondent No.4 gifted the house bearing No.3-9-107ll to an extent of 108 square yards to his wife, respondent No.4 vide gift settlement deed bearing document No.804l of 2015, dated

16.12.2015. In the said gift settlement deed, the age ol building is mentioned as 11 years, whereas respondent No'4 filed building application as if it was constructed in the year 1984. Thus, she obtained building permission by misrepresenting the facts and using fraudulent methods. She is also liable for criminal prosecution. Accordingly, vide order dated 31.08.2023, revoked the buitding permission dated f O.IS.ZOf S by directing respondent No.3 to lodge a complaint before the Station House Officer, Hanamkonda Police Station against her and the / Police registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2024 for the offences under W P Nc 5f97 of2o2l & 13921 of2024 KL.J Sections - 420. 467, 468, 47 l, 47 4 and 120-8 read with 34 IPC iii) The appeal fi[ed by respondent No.4 under Section - 252 of the Act, 2019 was dismissed vide orders dated 05.06.2024 by the Appellate Authorit_v confirming the orders dated 31.08.2023 iv) In view of revocation order dated 31.08.2023 and considering reply dated 29.01.2024, GWMC passed orders dated 05.06.2024 directing respondent No.4 to vacate the premises by removing unauthorized construction within fifteen (15) days. Challenging the said order dated 05 06 2024, respondent No.4 filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.15682 ol 2024 and the same was dismissed r.,de order dated

08.07.2024. Once again, she filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 28.06.2024 challenging building permit revocation order dated 31.08.2023 and its consequential order dated 05.06.2024, and the same was dismissed on 30.08.2024. v) Respondent No.4 instead of complying with the orders dated

12.09.2024. ljled a review petition or.28.10.2024. However, the said review petition was also dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and maintainabilitv i I I t2 KL.J WP No6 5197 of2023 & 33921 ol2024 vi) On the complaint made by the petitioner with regard to filing of such false assessment certificate, the GWMC took the action by cancelling permission. vii) Thus, there is no error in issuing notices as well as orders passed by GWMC.

9. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT: i) W.P. No.5f97 OF 2023: a) The afore-stated facts would reveal that it is the specific contention olthe GWMC and respondent No.4 that the petitioner proceeded with construction in deviation to the building permit order 02.08.2018 and such deviations are specifically mentioned by GWMC in a tabular form in the impugned proceedings dated

28.01.2023. Therefore, after issuance of notice dated 04.11.2019 and proceedings dated 12.10.2022 and also considering the orders of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions and writ appeals and the explanation submitted by the petitioneq respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 28.01 .2023. According to the petitioner, there is no deviation and she has proceeded with construction strictly in accordance rvith building permit order dated 02.08.2018, whereas, according to (i'i\MC and respondent No-4, the petitioner proceeded with construction in deviation to the aforesaid building permit order dated 02.08.2018. I t t3 wP No6 5197 of2023 & 3f921 of 2024 KL,J ( I I 'I The same are factual aspects, which this Court cannot consider in a writ petition filed under Section - 226 of the Constitution of India. b) Admittedly, the impugned order is an appealable order in terms of Section - 252 (l) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. It is not the case of the petitioner that GWMC has passed the said impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure laid down under the Telangana Municipalities Ac! 2019, to maintain present writ petition despite availability of altemative remedy ofappeal. ii) W.P. No.33921 OF 2024: a) Respondenr No.4 in W.p. No.5 197 of 2023 and her husband are the petitioners in this writ petition. They filed a review petition under Section - 114 of the CpC challenging the order dated i1.08.2023. The same was rejected by GWMC vrde order dated 08.11.2024 holding that it lacks jurisdiction. b) In the light of the above, it is relevant to extract Section - I 14 of the CPC and the same is as under: "l 14- Review.-Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but liom which no appeal has been preferred, / I l t4 KI,.J w.P Nos.5197 of2023 & 33921 ot2024 (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Court, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes' ' ' may apply for a review of judgment to the Cowt which pasied ihe decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit'" c) Thus, a review in terms of Section - 114 of the CPC is maintainable under the aforesaid three (03) circumstances' But' in the present case, respondent No.4 and her husband filed the aforesaid review petition under Section - 114 of CPC to review the order dated

31.08.2023 passed bY GWMC. Therefore, the said revierv application filed by resPondent No.4 and her husband is not maintainable' Moreover, GWMC cannot review its own order dated 3l '08'2023 on the aforesaid grounds mentioned by respondent No'4 and her husband' It is not a reviewable order. If respondent No'4 and her husband are aggrieved by the said order, they have to take steps in accordance with law. Instead of doing so, they filed the aforesaid review application in terms of Section - I 14 of cPC before GWMC and the same was rejected by GWMC, vide ordet dated 08.11.2024' As rightly held by GWMC' it tacks jurisdiction. There is no error in it' Respondent No'4 and her husband failed to make any ground to interfere with the order dated 0S.\1.2024. Therefore, this writ petition fails and the same is liable to be \ dismissed Ilowever, during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, I I I l5 KL,J W P No6 5197 of2023 & 33921 of2o24 d) However, leamed counsel for respondent No.4 and her husband submitted that during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, respondent No.4 came to know the fraud played by the petitioner in collusion with GWMC Authorities. Fraud vitiates everything at any stage. He has also placed reliance on the decision in A.V. papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.r. There is no dispute with regard to principle laid down by the Apex Court that fraud vitiates everything at any stage. But, respondent No.4 and her husband have to take proper legal steps to establish such fraud- They cannot file a review application in lerms of \ Section - 1 I 4 of CPC before GWMC and plead .fraud,.

10. CONCLUSION: ( ( i) W.P. No.5l97 of 2023 is disposed of granting liberry to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of Section - 252 (l) of the Telangana Municipalities Act,2019 belore the Regional Director - cum _ Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration concemed, and it is for the appellate authority to consider the same in accordance with law. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner, GWMC and respondent No.4 to raise all the contentions and grounds which they have raised in the present writ petitions before the appellate authority. '. lzooz; + scc tzr I o l6 KLJ W.P. Nos.5l97 of2023 & 33921 ot 2074 ii) W.P. No.33921 of 2024 is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners therein to initiate appropriate legal steps pleading and establishing' fraud'. iii) In the circumstances of the case' there shall be no order as to costs in both the writ Petitions. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both writ petitions shall stand closed- //TRUE COPY// SD/-M OHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGIS TRA SECTIOI{ OFFICER \ U The Commissioner' Greater Warangal Munrcipal Corporation' Warangal ffi$$q'---ff,m$ffi*il:::: [fJ"%. to Gp FoR HoME, Hish court for the state of relangana' at iitlpjl"Jltls[$,],:i:thtBl'llyf,Hfl',!?]#P#,[3Ai,drou, 0.Two CD CoPies \ To,

2. 4 5 o 7 B I 1 'rY W I \ I J 7 YT HIGH COUR DATED:1110312025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.S19'7 OF 2023 AND WP.No.339211 OF 2024 rr^* ) I I .,.) Sre14, ? 7 fiAB 7$?5 i * Ditr, A( t .{\ DISPOSING OF THE WPNo. 5197 OF 2023 AND DISMISSING THE WP No. 33921 ol 2024 WTTHOUT COSTS @