High Court · 2025

ir," patil.Llinu"High Corrt mav be pleased to direct the affidavit fited in supporl rli-.trl" si;ir: il; with^resiro to the land admeasurins 1210 ffi ffiiliil'i" sq.Yds in Lot No 10 i" iv'-il"iliand 12S"(described as Sy'No'26)' kacha Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy 5',i.iii.i, ,r"tioned vide co.nfirmation-cum-allotment letter [5]siiirirU,iiiliri*sii,v'a[":iiititii'torzzz, dated 01-05-2023' pendins disposal pf the main Writ APPeal "r IA NO: 20F 202t5 Between: 8;"SYj?'nlf-'i,l{?',31"^,?1[%il?,n1n?,t,f,3"fii,iunl83ili,g.-"u&,8,J.i"., AND ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER

1. The State :f Te,tan Administra tion irnd Hyderabac. ',?ir?,I33;3,r"i'il:;i3,$:ffi"#,,,ed,silfi f 3"",.u,,,,ur, 2. The Hyder,rOaO tvtg^t1ggol1tan DevetopmentA{!91ry, Rep by its Metrppotilan Swarha Jayanthi C.rpiur, nm"erpet. HyderatraO SOO biq, ^ ::rr,r.,.ner. ' 5,,Y[?x.?l]i',r,,,i, [o*53,{; Bis,#f ?.1i l, H,8,HT .rJ,l? 7, ; .' o. i" H,,, n o e ;, ...RE6PgNDENTS/R E$PONDENTq n secreta ry, Beve4 g s D i vis ion, i i[ fJ:r,: ! J;l][?fl?:rffJ;jJ,x' " 5. The District Co,r:ctor, nrig, *"Aiy District, Office of Co,ector & District ffi ?; :iH fft:i,1'Jillffi ]r# n Vi,as e, it i,-n, iit-c 6. The Tahsilarlar, llerilin"gamprf f y-fr,"nOrf , Ranoa Reddy District, plot No.16, 1"t [i"."JaTi:'i"#l;X'"1bJ[;d1';;;;;'rdffi '';;;iff ;'l'u'i'i''" Petition und,:r St-.cti^or 1g1,cpC praying that in the circumstarlces atatqd in the affidavit filed ir suooort of the peiiti"i,,'ih" iigt, Court may be pleased to implead the proposed Fiespondents; b b-ilr;;; a.J xespondent Nos.4 to 6 in the main Writ Appeat a,id alt other ;";;e;;;i;-;ri.rlo"ry nppti"rtion, Qounsql for the Appellant: Ms. A SATyAStRt Counsel fo1 fhg Resporldent No.1: Gp FOR MCpL ADMN URBAN DEV Coqnsel for the Re:;pond:nl sRr v. NARASTMHF GouD sc ronirvrof, !tt9.?i SRt STDDHARTHA VORUGANTT REp,, FOR Counsel for the Res;pondent No.3: _- Coynsel for the proposed Responde4ts: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ,l THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.281 OF 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sm| Justice Renuka Yara) This is an intra-court appeal preferred, aggiieved by the order d,ated. 19.02.2O25 passed in W.P.No.36415 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein the appellant sought to declare the action of respondent No.2 in selling arr extent of 1210 square yards as a stray bit in Lot No.1O situated in Sy'Nos '124 and 1'25 (described as Sy.No.26 by the Government) Kancha Gachibowli' Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondent No.3 uide confirmation- cum-allotment letter dated 01.o5.2023 including the road of 30 feet situated on the southern side of plot No.8 belonging to the appellant, as arbitrary and illegal and to direct respondent No'2 to leave the road of 30 feet situated on the southern side of plot No'S of the petitioner while disposing of the stray bit at any point of time in future.

2. Heard Ms. A.Satyasiri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Siddhartha Voruganti, learned counsel representing Sri V'Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, for respondent No'2'

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on three grounds. The hrst ground is that the case involves serious \ 2 disputed questions of fact which cannot be considered in u,rit petition lrled under t\rticle 226 of the Constitution of India. 'lhe disputed questions of factr; inciude identihcation of the property i -r Sy.Nos.124 and 125 as con1.t:nded by the appellant ald in 51 .No.26 as contended by responcle nt hlo.2, boundaries of the plots in the sale deeds, existence of a public road, etc. The second ground cited by the learned Sing. e .hrd ge for dismissing the writ petition is that there is failure to alriry 1he District Collector, Ranga Reddy Distrir:t as party to the writ petir.ior . Lastly, the contention of the u.rit pet itioner abolrt failure of reripordent No.3 to pay the complete sale ,.:onsideration within the s,tipu lated timeline is described as an lsriue between respondent No.2 rlnd respondent No.3.

4. Learnerl cc,trnsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge er-,rd in dismissing the writ petition on tlre ground of involvemenl. of rierious disputed questions of fact. The Hon,ble Supreme Cot rt ir-r several decisions has held that dispuled questions of fact are rrc t a bar to maintainability of the writ petitions, more so, when the facts ar: largely documentar5r and matter involvr:s public law element. Ac<:or<l ng to the appellant, there is no seriou,s or genuine factual dispu !e .rith reference to Sy.No.26 as claimed bv respondent No.2 or Sy.Nos. 721 and 125 as claimed by him. This corrl ention of the appellant is no1 tenable for the reason that not on1.1 the survey 3 numbers a-re different as claimed by the rival parties, but the very existence of 30 feet road on southern side of plot No'8O of the appellant is also in dispute' Mere production of documents ranging from 1984 to till date will not sufhce, as contents of said documents have to be proved. There is a dispute about the validity of the lay out which is sanctioned by the Gram panchayat and the validity of the building sartction accorded by GHMC' Respondent No'2 contends that thyout issued by Gram Panchayat has no validity ' Per contra' the appellant contends that the disputed lay out is under the process of regularization subject to Lay Out Regular rzatiorr Scheme (LRS) ulde proceedings No. LRS / 2076 / G/ CG- I 1 / West Zone / GH MC I 2OO8' as said proposal was submitted prior to his purchase from his erstwhile vendor. The fate of said LR application which was allegedly submitted in the year 2OO4 is not revealed by the appellant' Such disputed questions cannot be decided under the purview of a writ petition under Article 226 of t]ne Constitution of India'

5. There is an issue about non-joinder of ttre District Collector' Ranga Reddy District or the Tahsildar' as held by the learned Single Judge. To overcome the same, the appellant has Iiled I'A' to implead the State Government of Telangana, District Collector and Tahsildar of Ranga Reddy District as respondents' The said application was filed 4 belatedly anrl arraying them as parties would not factlit ate in solving the serious firctual disputes.

6. Accord ng to the appellant, respondent No.2 is errtrusted with the authorit. of planning and development anrl the srlid authority cannot se1l orr a roacl u,hich is existing from severar crecades for a stray bit and thzLt public cart-tract cannot be extingr-ris;hed by an administrative action. It is a point to be noted that the r,ery existence of a road is <lisp,ted by the HMDA with a serious allegation that the iay out sanctioned by Gram panchayat has no sanctitrr in the eye of law. Respon<[ent No.2 took a categorical stand that au.tioned land is a Governmen, lard and no approach road will be given to private lald lay outs. Further, it is alleged that the appellalt apprehcnds that his building perrr: issirn would be cancered if the rocar boaies are arrayecl as parties i.t'. r)istrict colector, Tahs dar and the GHMC. The appeliant rn,h le asserting existence of the road, clid not seek to estabiish thr: r;anr': by impleading the District colector, Trrhs dar a,d GHMC. The (}HMC, though not a necessary party, woulcl be a proper party to throu, light on the fact of grart of building permisriion and the existence of road on the southern side of plot No.g of the appellant. For the reasons best known to the appellant, he dirl not array them as necessary ald proper parties as respondents. Even otl.Lerwise, the existggce of p rblir: road in the alleged private lay or-rt, * hich is the i i I I I I i t I I I I ".' 5 subject matter of LRS, cannot be established by mere pleadings of the appellant. 7 . The appellant asserted that pursuing the civil suit will cause irreparable hardship to him and other owners, ald in the meantime' respondent No.3, who was the successful bidder, could proceed to take possession and block the road, rendering the very relief nugatory' This ground does not seem reasonable as the appellant cal always seek interim relief to prevent respondent No 3 from taking possession or blocking the road by frling appropriate application before the civil Court.

8. The appellant would contend that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not address the broader public interest dimension, as a 30 feet road is not a private right of way of the appellant but is the public road for the entire lay out and that selling a public road through an auction offends public policy and subverts the planning framework of HMDA- We do not see any force in this contention of the appellant, inasmuch as except the appellant' none I t others have challenged the sale of the piece of land by the Government as a stray bit. g. Lastly, the appellant referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reporte d' irt Popatrao Vgo:nkatraon Patil rt' : I 5 - Str::te of Maharashtrat, wherein it was held that writ petitions are maintainable even though the fact based controversv in'rolves patent iilegality, puklic cluty or documentary evidence sufficientlr.' establishing the right in lut,s;tion. When the appellant hirnself is c laiming right over a plot u h ich is unauthorized and which is s()ught to be regularized u'de zrforesaid proceedings dated O7.03.2O09 ,hat too from the year 200) vfiose fate is not yet revealed, the allegat ion of patent illegality on t re rart of the respondents or offence to pubiic policy does not seem tenable. In view of the foregoing discussion, w: do not hnd any reason tt i,'rterfere with the order passed by the iearned Single Judge.

10. In the restLlt, the Writ Appeal is dismissed Therr: sha1l be no order as to cc sls. MiscellzLnecus applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand close<1 //TRUE COPY" '.,3,R'i^.33[i=."jil / )j irclou orrl CER .)\. To,

1. One CC o [Is A SATYASIRI Advocate TOPUC] 2. one CC io St{l V NARASIMHA GoUD SC F?LftYDA toPUCl 3. Two ccr; to '3P Fo- #il;i-u*to* brv Hlgn cot rt for the state ot Telangarta .uu I I renue' High Court for the St rI'Y --- , ly;.?uc;;|"r8[+i'*"uo""r' ate of Telangana at i 5 KKS BS Two CD Copies (r- HIGH COLIRT DATED:19 t03t2025 JUDGMEN'T WA.No.Z81 of 2025 (hr sT4 or' -) (.) I 1t AFE M t a,E.ser,1; crrE0 t -::- ( a j DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS (+ L) 4 .5 ,