Writ Petition No. 36324 of 2021 · High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the orders passed in WP.No.36909 of 2021 dt.30.11.2022 pending disposal of the above writ appeal. lA NO: 4 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 permit me to delete writ petition numbers i.e., WP.No.36324 of 2021, WP.No.24184 oI 2023, since the said writ petitions are no way concern to the above Writ appeal and the reliefs are not same in connection with the claiming of the lands in question. The subject of those writ petitions is only for non- registering of the sale deed and also cancellation of the development agreement by the HUDA by issuing show cause notice, without any direction the said matters are not tagged with the above writ petition, since the appellant counsel is not agreed to post the said matters in the above writ appeal which is going to be listed on 04.07.2024. 1A NO: 6 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 permit the Petitioner to file the additional documents as per the list of material papers annexed here with in the above Writ Appeal No.834 of 2022, in lhe interest of justice. lA NO: I oF 2024 , PetitionunderSectionl5'lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Review of the orders passed in l'A No'04 of 2024 in W'A'No B34 of 2022' daled zgt1Ol2O24, in the interest of justice' IA NO:2OF 2025 PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto permit me to delete the above WP' no 9805 of 2023 not to the cumulative absenceanydirectionbythisHonbleCourtthesaidmatterstobedetaggedwith theaboveWA.noS34of22,sincetheappellantcounselisnotagreedtopost the aid matters in the 05.o2.2025. above writ aPPeal which IS going to be listed on IA NO: 50F 2024 Between:

1.M/s.RamkylntegratedTownshipLimited'(Sp^gcialPurooseVehicle)'Rep'by its Authorized signrL"ry,J.vi'ii[nt riiir,"i, slo. sri T.Sathyanarayana, Ased ffi ;i 56'y;;;s; O'tnli.i6t,'nl*iv brinoiose' Gachibowli' Hvderabad' 2. M/s. Ramky lnfrastructure Limited' rep by.its. Authorized Siqnatory' T'Vamshi Krishna, s/o. sri r d:it;""#fi'il'"igdo io"i Co vears'-eth Fioor' Ramkv Grandiose, Gachibowli, HYderabacl 3. M/s. Ramky Estares and Farms Limited' rep bv its Authorized Signatory' T.Vamshi Krishna, 6io. bri T.Sathyanarayani, hgeo about 36 years, gth i6;,'R;.i, G ta-nd iose, Gach ibowl'r' Hvd erabad ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 1 . Paluri Ravi Shankar, S/o Late P V' Krishna Rao' Aqed' 53 years' Occ' Business, nvo. rlui"r.ril"r+Ti ianiprivi Apartmentsl Balapui X Roads' MeerPet, HYderabad-79' 2. Yatam Murali, S/o. Y Yadaiah' Aged about 45 vears' Occ' Agriculture' Rl/o' Mamidipallv villase, dr.l3'#s;i'ffi"noiL ni'igi Reddv Diitrict' State of Telangina.

3. The Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram' Ranga Reddy District' Telangana' 4. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District' Telangana at Hyderabad' 5. The State of Telangana, rep'. qy. its Secretary; Revenue (Stamps and " R;; ist-r;6 ni o"pur.tmtnt, S ecietariat' Hvderabad' ' : r-n -- r 4 6 7 The Hvderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, (HMDA)' Rep' by its Commissioner, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary', ]!ylJ"lg'l Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretarlat' Hyoeraoao. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmirybepleasedto vacate the interim order dated 10.01 .2023' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI SHERI PRASAD counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATIoN Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A.SUDARSHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE GENERAL REP. FOR SMT D.MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.S: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.6 to 8: SRI K.PRITHVI REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO | 270 0F 2023 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 30111t2022 in\N P No 36909 of 2021 and pass on the file of the High court. Between: The Hvderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), rep' by its CommGsioner AmeerPet, HYderabad. ...APPELLANT AND

1. 2 Ittl/s Ramkv lnteqrated Township Limited, (Special Purpose \/ehicle) rep by its Director Tiraka-Rajesh Dasari s/o D.V. Ramana Rao Aged.about 40 years' gtfr ftoor, Ramky Giandiose, Ramky Towers, Gachibowli' Hyd' Mis Ramkv lnfrastructure Limited, rep. by its Authorized Signqtory, Taraka niieiiio"6rii slo o.v. Ramana Rao, aged about 40 years, 9th Floor, Ramky Gr6ndiose, Ramky Towers, Gachibowli, Hyd

3. Mis Ramky Estates and Farms Limited, .rep' by^ its Director, Taraka Rajesh - Oaiari slo' O.V. Ramana Rao, aged about 40 years' 9th Floor, Ramky, Grandiose, Ramky Towers, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

4. The Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram, R.R'District, Telangana 5. The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana at Hyderabad' 7/ 5

6. The State of Telangana, reP: 9Y if ,99-T:!utv' Registration) Department Secretariat, HyderaDao' 7. The State of Telangana, rep' by its Secretary' Municip.al Administration and ', iiirn' ii"r"]ip*J"t"o"p"ttilent, Secreta riat' Hyd erabad Revenue (Stamps and ...RESPONDENTS IANO:2O F 2023 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 suspend the operation of the order dt' 30/1 1t2O22 passed in W'P No'36909 of 2021 , pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal' IA NO:2OF 2O24 Between:

1. M/s. Ramky lntegrated Township Limited' (Sp^gcial Pumose Vehicle )' Rep by its Authorized sign"L;1vi'ii[ni riiin"i' Slo' Sri T'sathvanaravana' Aged ;ffii 56 v;;;s;dtr, i"rott,'n;rniv b'inoio'e' Gachibowli' Hvderabad'

2. M/s. Ramky lnfrastructure Limited' rep by.its Authorized Siqnatory' T Vamshi Krishna, S/o. Srir.dlitv"'#iJii'il'"Ag'io iooui Co vears'-eth Floor' Ramkv Grandiose, Gachibowli, HYderabad 3. M/s. Ramky Estares and Farms .Limited' rep bv its Authorized Signatory' T.Vamshi Krishna, slo. s'l i'Sathyanarayan-a' hgeo about 36 years' 9th ii#;, il"d Gtriidio.e, Gachibowli Hvderabad ...APPELLANT AND 1 2 3 4 5 The Hvderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA)' rep' by its comml'siioner Ameerpdt, Hyderabad' The Sub-Registrar, Maheshwaram, R'R District' Telangana The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District' Telangana at Hyderabad' The State of Telangana, rep' by its Secretary' Revenue (Stamps and ri"ta ri dt, H vd e ra bad' n"E i rirl'tio "" The State of Telangana, rep' by its Secretary' Municipal Administration and r}i;r;6;;d"pti"nt-o"ph'til"n1, Secretariat' Hvderabad ib" pi ttr6ii S " 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 vacate the interim order dated 06'03'2023' ...RESPONDENTS 7/ 6 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.SUDARSHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE GENERAL REP. FOR SMT D.MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI S.NIRANJAN REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI RUSHEEK REDDY.K.V. Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 6: GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATIONS Counsel for the Respondent No.7: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. WRIT PETITION NO: 36324 OF 2021 Between: '1 . M/s. Ramky lntegrated Township Limited., (Special Purpose Vehicle), Represented by its Director; Mr. Taraka Rajesh Dasari. S/c;. D.V Ramana Rao, Aged about 3B Years, O/o. 9th Floor, Ramky Gandiose, Ramky Tower, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -500032.

2. M/s Ramky_lnfrastructure Limited., Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Taraka Rajesh Dasari S/o. D.V Ramana Rao, Aged about 38 Yeais. 0/6. 1Sth Floor, Ramky Gandiose, Ramky Tower, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -500032. 3. M/s. Ramky Estates and Farms Limited., Represented by its .Director Mr. Taraka Rajesh Dasari, S/o. D.V Ramana Rao, Aged about 38 years, O/o.9th Floor, Ramky Gandiose, Ramky Tower, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -500032. AND 1 2 Thetlyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Represented by its Commissioner. Swama Jayanti Complex, Sahjeeva Reddy Nagar Rd. Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Telangana. 500038 The State of -lelangana, Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ. Order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of -Writ of Mandamus declaring, the action of the 1st Respondent contained in in Lr.No.01/Discovery City/HMDA/2021 , dated 30.08.2021 in unilaterally deciding that the Petitioners have committed a breach of contract of the Development Agreement dated 28.O1 .2008 as regards the project by name Discovery city - srinagar village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is arbitrary and illegal and consequently set aside the said Notice and direct the 'l st Respondent to abide by the dispute resolution mechanism (arbitration rbmedy) contained in Article 28 of the Development Agreement and await the 7/ 7 award which may be passed by the Arbitral Tribunal by setting aside the notice of the 1st Respondent dated 30'08 2021 lA NO: 1 oF 2021 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 directthelstRespondentnottotakeanycoerciveactionincludingstoppingof registrations or any other coercive action of whatsoever nature against the PetitionersinconnectionwiththeDevelopmentAgreementdated28.0l.2003 relating to the Township Project i'e'' Discovery City at Srinagar' Maheshwaram Mandal'RangaReddyDistrictpursuanttoNoticedated30.0s.202lpending disposal of the above writ petition' IANO:1O F 2022 "-"'-t:,n[ Between: Telangana Ui"'uu'j3;1."i33',.Xi'r3P",$,?'r"# *lJrT'.R"8,ff'#gili"tl'E?;,3:i ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 5 tvt/s. Ramkv lntegrated Township Limited ' (Special Purpose Vehicle)' Reoresented bv its Directoi"r"rii"f"arJ ngrbsh blsarl s/o' D'V Ramana sif ii;;"', nhm*v canaiose, Ramkv rower' H[mSet1ff]:;gif_TB,SJS tvt/s. Ramky lnfrastructure Limited , Represented by its Authorized Signatory' Mr. Taraka Rajesh Dasari s[:'b:V R;ffiAC;;'Ased about 38 Years' o/o' 9th Floor, Ramky Ganctro""l'H'ilri' r;ii"i'-oa"nio"il'ti' Hvderabad -500032' M/s. Ramkv Estates and Farms Limited ' Represented bv its Director Mr' Taraka Raiesh oasari, slo' 6v R#;;;-i"' Aged about 58 Years' o/o' 9th FffiiHilli b;il k;;; Rt;kv r6wJi' ba Jr'i'uo'i'li' Hvd erabad -500032' TheHvderabadMetropolitanDevelopmentAuthority(Htr/DA).Reoresentedby its commission"r. s*urnJ'J"Jyl"ni"b.";Ipl;;' Sairleeva Reddv Nagar Rd' S?ini.-#i'"n:ig"i]e.""ip"iHvder.ioao'r6langana'500038 its Principal Secretary' Municipal The State of Telangana, Represented -by Ad ministration a nd U rban ilVt;16;i;;i d6pittt"nt' becreta riat' Hvderabad' ...RESPONDENTS 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 7/ 8 pass orders impleading the petitioner/ proposed respondent No.3 herein as party respondent No.3 in W.P.No.36324 of 2021 . lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between:

1. V.Narasimham, S/o. Jagannadha rao, aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.NO.39-8-79/3, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam, A.P. 2. Dr. V.Lrakshmi, W/o. Dr. J.P.Rao, aged about 65 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. H.l'1O.39-5-35/2, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam, A.P.

3. V.Shobha, Wo, V.Narasimham, aged about 56 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.NO.39-8-79/3, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam, A.P.

4. Smt. B.Subhadra, Wo. B.R.Rajyam, aged about 6'l years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.NO.1-2156, 57 & 58, Varanasi Building, Gaganmahal Road, DOmalguda, Hyderabad.

5. Smt V.Kameswari, Wio. Mohan, aged about 63 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. H.NO.123, Mamaroneck, A.V. Avenue, The Ragatt;a, Unit No.109, New York, All are rep. by their GPA Holder, Sri D.Narasimha Reddy, S/o. D.Venkat reddy, aged about 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.NO.17-1-382/33, Press Colony, Champapet, Hyderabad. ...PROPOSED PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 4 5 l\//s. Ramky lntegrated Township Limited., (Special Purpose Vehicle), Represented by its Director, Mr. Taraka Rajesh Dasari. S/o. D.V Ramanb Rao, Aged about 38 Y.eqr9, O/9. 9th Floor, Ramky Gandiose, Ramky Tower, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -500032. M/s Ramky_lnfrastructure _Limited , Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Taraka Rajesh Dasari S/o. D.V Ramana Rao, Aged about 38 years. O/o. 9th Floor, Ramky Gandiose, Ramky Tower, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -500032. M/s. Ramky Estates a1Q farmg Limited., Represented by its Director Mr. Taraka Rajesh Dasari, S/o. D.V Ramana Rao, Aged about 38 years, Oio. 9th Floor, Ramky Gandiose, Ramky Tower, Gachibowli, Hyderabad -500032. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Represented bv its Commissioner. Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sahjbeva Reddy Nagar Rd. Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Telangana. 500038 The Stale of T'elangana, Represented _by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretarial, Hyderabail. Petition under Section'16-4 r/w 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavlt filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the proposed petitioners No.'l to 5 as petitioners No.4 to B in the above writ petition. ,,.RESPONDENTS 7/ 9 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A.VENKATESH, Sr. COUNSEL' REP' FOR SRI K.PRITHVI REDDY Counsel for the Pro. Petitioners: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.i: SRI A.SUDARSHAN REDDY' ADVOCATE GENERAL REP. FOR SMT D.MADHAVI' SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Pro. Respondent: SRt ASHOK KUMAR KOTAGIRI The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT ) THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SI,IJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL Nos.834 of 2022,27O of 2o23 and WRIT PETITION No.36324 of 2O2L COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per th,e Hon'ble the Acting C:hief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri Sheri Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appelLants in W.A.No.834 of 2022, Sri A.Sudalshan Reddy, learned Aclvocate General for the State of Telangana, appearing for Ms.D.Madhavi, Iearned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, appearing for r:he appellant in W.A.No.ll7O of 2023, respondent No.4 in W.A.No.B34 of 2O22 resprondent No.1 in WP.No.36324 of 2021, Sri S.Nira-rLjan Reddy, learned Senior Cotrnsel appearing for Sri Rusheel.: Reddy K.V., learned counsel appearing fc,r respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.A.No.27O of 2023 and Sri A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K. Prithvi Reddy, learned counsel appearing f<>r the petitioners in W.P.No.36324 of 2021.

2. On the joint request, the matters beinpl connected analogousll' heard and decided by this common order

3. W.A.No.27O of 2023 and W.A.No.834 of 2022 assatl the common order of learned Single Judge passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 irLland WP.No.369O9 of 2021 on 30.1 1.2022. I .i-'s.;e--:*r=t--. -'.,6i: . .,. j 2

4.W.A.No.2T0of2023isfiIedbytheHyderabadMetropolitan Development Authority (H'M.D.A.) by contending that the learned Single Judge was not justifred in allowing W'P'No'369O9 of 2O2l '

5. W.A.No.834 of 2022 is filed by those appellants' who filed implead petitions viz.,I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2022 before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge in para No'17 of the impugned order permitted them to avail other remedy available to them, while dismissing the I.As' Factual back ground: 6. The admitted facts before the Writ Court were that the H.M.D.A and respondent Nos'l to 3 in W'A'No'27O of 2023 entered into a Development Agreement' on 28'OL'2OO8' As per this agreement, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were required to pay "Development Premium amount" in certain stages' The relevant portion of the Development Agreement reads thus: Sl.No Payment Milestone 1 2 J Simultaneous with slgnlng ement. of Develo ment Within one (1) calendar month from the DeveloPer receiving written aPProvals HUDA for this DPR Within one (1) calendar month from the DeveloPer achieving the Financial Closure for the Pro ect. 1n Amount Rs.Crores 25.O

25.O

25.O \ L 7 J 4 'Within one (1) calendar .month from the Zero Date. 2s.0 Indisputerlly, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 only paid first stage 7 . amount of Rs.2|5.00 crores to H.M.D'A' and did not make the pa}.rnentofremainingthreeinstallmentsintotalRs.T5crores.

8. The H.M.D.A. by communication dated 05'll'2021 requested the rlommissioner and Inspector General o1' Stamps and Registration Department, Hyderabad, to take appropriate action to save the Government money. In this communication, it was also informed that the contract of respondent Nos' 1 to 3 stood terminated by notice dated 30.08.202 1' g. Upon re:ceiving the aforesaid communication from H.M.D.A., the office of Commissioner ard Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad by communication dated Og.ll.2O2l informed the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, to take necessary action for protecting the government interest in properties. The communication dated 30 'Oa'2O21 became subject matter of the cha'llenge before the Writ Court'

10. The sheet-anchor of the argument of learned counsel the petitioner before the Writ Court was that the only enabling provision under The Indian Registration I 4 Act, 19OB (for short "the Act") Section 22-A wtrich deals with prohibition of registration of certain documents" The reason on the strength of which the impugned order was passed does not fall within the ambit of Section 22-A I 1. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition for the reason that communication of H.M.D.A. dated 05.1I.2021 became foundation for not registering the properties is outside the ambit arrd scope of Section 22-A of the Act. Aggrieved, W.A.No.270 of 2023 is frled by H.M.D.A.

12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in W.A.No.27O of 2023 at the outset submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are ready to pay remaining Rs.75 crores within thirty days from today and a written undertaking is provided to the Court to that effect and a copy of cheque No.24O483, dated 04.04.2025, for the said amount is also enclosed therewith.

13. Learned Advocate General fairly submits that only short coming of non-payment of Rs.75 crores which became reason for non-registration is now over and therefore, he has no objection if the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is not interfered with and secondly, the cancellation of contract t 5 which became the subject matter of challenge in WP.No.36324 of 2O2L can be interfered with.

14. l,earned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.834 of 2022 submits that the question of title and other civil disputes are involved ald therefore, the order of learned Single Judge is not correct whereby he did not allow the implead petitions and instead permitted the present appellants to avail other remedies.

15. No other point is pressed by the parties

16. We have heard the parties

17. So far W.A.No.834 of 2022 is concerned, it is arisirrg out of para No.17 of the impugned order of learned Single Judge, whereby his applications for impleadment was not entertained.

18. It is notevvorthy that /is before the learned Single Judge was limited to the singular question whether for non-payment of Rs.75 crores and on the strength of commnnication dated 05.11.2027 of H.M.D.A., the Inspector Genera-l of Registration was justified in issuing the communication dated 09.11.2021 ald whether such 6 ( communication can be reason to invoke power under Section 22-A of the Act.

19. The question of title and other civil disputes etc-, were not the subject matter of writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has not allowed the implead applications and permitted the implead petitioners to avail other remedy available to them under the Law. No fault can be found in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. In other words, in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Moninder Singh GiII v. Chief Electioa Commissionerr, the validity of an order or an action must be judged on the basis of the reasons mentioned therein. The same cannot be improved by filing a counter affrdavit in the Court. Admittedly, before the learned Single Judge, the singular reason for not undertaking the exercise of registration was non-payment of Rs.75 crores by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the communication of the H.M.D.A. dated 05. l),.2021, which became the singular reason for issuance of impugned communication dated Og.ll.2O2l. The lis before the learned Single Judge was not related to aly title/civil dispute. Hence, the learned Single Judge has confined '(rgzt) r scc +os \ i { 7 himself to the question of non-registration an d perm.itted the appellants to avail remedies available to them.

20. As noticed above, the offer and undertaking of paying Rs.75 crores by respondent Nos.l to 3 is duly accepted by the H.M.D.A. Thus, as agreerl, the singular reason for non-registration does not survive and therefore, inaction of registration was rightJy interfered with.

21. In W.P.Nc,.36324 of 2021, the cancellation of the contract is I subject matter of challenge and admittedly, singutar reason for such cancellal.ion was also non-payment of Rs.lz5 crores. In view of t.he aforesaid undertaking arrd upon showing satisfaction by the learned Advocate General appearing for H.M.D.A., as aEgeed we deem it proper to set aside the impugned notice dated 30 08.2021 in W.P.No.36324 of 2021.

22. In view of the forgoing discussion, the Writ Appeal Nos.270 of 2023 and 834 of 2022 are dismissed. The question regarding the ambit and scope of Section 22-A of the Act will remajn open to be decided in an appropriate case. However, it is made clear that the appellants ln W.A.No.834 of 2022 can avail all the possible remedies availabie to them regarding grievarces Lrighligh ted before I I I l 8 the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition No.36342 of 2O2l is allowed and the impugned notice dated 3O.O8.2O21 is set side. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if aly pending, shall also stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.SHYLESHI UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Swama Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Rd., Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500038

2. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 3. One CC to SRI RUSHEEK REDDY.K.V., Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI K.PRITHVI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SMT D.JYOTHI, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI SHERI PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI ASHOK KUMAR KOTAGIRI, Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUC] 9. ONEICC tO SMT D.MADHAVI, SC FOR HMDA [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTj 'l 1.Two CCs to ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] \

12.Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

13.Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACOUISITION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

14.Two CD Copies BS o- u HIGH COURT DATED: 0310312025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.834 of 2022,270 ot 2023 and W.P.No.36324 of 2O21 ( HE ST4 /6 o\.. A. 1 / r'1AB 2[25 * ,":|, 9O DISMISSING BOTH THE W.A's & ALLOWING THE W*P.No.36324 ot 2021, WITHOUT COSTS u'