ORAL) Mr v. Satyam Reddy, leamed standing

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T.V.KALYAN SINGH Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN E URBAN DEV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI V.SATYAM REDDV SC FOR MPCL The Court made the following: ORDER a) To 3 4 PSK TKS ,rJf TEE IIONOTJRABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9578 OF 2021 ORDER: (ORAL) Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, leamed standing counsel for respondent No.2 - Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, submitted that in view of the common order dated 29.10.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 15996 of 2020 and batch, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition, and is tlre same is not opposed by M.. T.V. Kalyan Singh, teamed counsel for the petitioners.

2. Recording the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. sD/- M. OSMAN ALI ASSISTANT REGI //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFTCER

1. One 2. Two CCs to SRI T.V.KALYAN SINGH, Advocate to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN D of Telangana, at HYd erabad REDDY One CC to SRI V.SATYAM IXi:."ff,"fl"3opv ot the common order dated 2s'1o'2o2sir. U0i.ii6.issso ot 2620 and batch) , sc FOR MPCL [oP C rs Court for the State EV, HIGH COURT DATED:03111l,2025 ORDER WP.No.9578 of 2021 f, I l SI,T /a, ti..) .) ,\t 3 l(]26 EI 1 \,* '.-\Dn. \---t.-' \--:. .CHFO CLOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I I I I I i l i {tt"' I HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY wRlTPE TION Nos.l5996 0F 2020 ANO 13 289 ot 2023 AND CONTEMPT CASE NO .1'117 ot 2021 COMMO ORD ER :(ORAL) Since common issue is involved in these matters' with the consent of both sides, these matters are being disposed of by this common order. W.P. Nos.15 996 0F 2O2O AND 13289 ot 2023

2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are aggrieved by the actionoftherespondentauthoritiesinseekingtodispossessthemfrom the land in Survey No.1093/2 and 109412 situated at Nizamabad Revenue Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District'

3. The case of petitioner No'19 - Nizamabad Goat and Sheep Market Association is that its members, who are conducting business of selling sheep and goat, were allotted land in Survey l'1o"1093/2 and 1O9412 ot Nizamabad Town by respondent No 2 Municipal Corporation (erstwhile Municipality) and they had been doing business since 1972' Respondent No.2 has been collecting licence fees from the members of petitioner No.19 Association from time to time' While so' separate notices dated 20.08.2020 were issued to the petitioners directing them to vacate from the above referred sub'ject premises, within 30 days, on 2 the ground that respondent No.2 intends to build a I lew Meat Market Complex in the said premises.

4. ln W.P.No.15996 of 2020, interim suspensi: r, as prayed for, was granted on 28.09.2020. ln W.P.No.13289 ot 202i sfafus guo was granted on 11.05.2023. lnterim orders in both the rv it petitions have been extended from time to time.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter in both the 'r'it petitions. lt is stated that in the year 1972, vide Council Resolutic n No.608 dated

29.09.1972, respondent No.2 passed resolution to ,llot the land at Mustaidpura, Nizamabad, for the benefit of shegrl erds for doing business in goats and sheep. The resolution of the then Municipal Council was followed for a period of three years ani subsequently it was not extended. However, the petitioners had been rr possession of the site allotted to them for more than 25 years. The retitioners have not paid licence fee for the year 2018-19, 2019-20 arr 1 2020-21, thus they are treated as illegal occupiers and encroachers. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.159 dated 1 1 03 2017 and G.O.Rt.No.'191 dated 28.03.2017 and accorded technic,rl sanction with estimated value of work of Rs.5.00 crores for constr- :tion of Market yard in the same premises. Accordingly, the Market 1t rd construction was taken up for setting up vegetable and meat market 3

6. Heard Mr. T.V. Kalyan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2; and perused the material available on record.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners have been allotted new sate as per proceedings vrde lefter No.G1/TMSl645l202O dated 21 .10.2025 of respondent No.2 and possession was handed under cover of panchanama dated

24.10.2025.

8. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the new site allofted to the petitioners is not in usable condition and it is covered by bushes and wild growth and is uneven land. As and when wild growth is removed and the land is made in usable condition, the petitioners will shift from the subject premises.

9. ln view of allotment of new/alternate site to the petitioners vrde lefter No.G1lTMSl36/iSl2020 daled 21 .10.2025 and possession being handed over under cover of panchanama dated 24.10.2025, which is not disputed by the leamed counsel for the petitioners, the interim order dated 28.09.2020 in l.A.No.1 of 2O2O in W.p.No.15996 of 2020 and the interim order dated 11.05.2023 in W.p.No.13289 of 2023 are vacated 4

10. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dis6 rsed of directing respondent No.2 to remove the wild growth in the r:w site allotted to the petitioners and ensure that it is in usable condi':i )n within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this r rder. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicatior;, if any, pending in these writ petitions stand closed. C.C.No.1 117 ot2021: ln view of the order passed in the above writ pt titions, no further orders are necessary to be passed in this contempt c. se. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. No or,j lr as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications f any, pending in the contempt case stand closed. Date 29.10 2025 B. VlJr\ /SEN REDOY, J