Heard Mr. Mohammed Naseer Pasha, leamed counsel for the t v. Narsimha Goud, leamed standing

Judgment

1. 2 J 4

7. o ...pETr,oNERS The State of Telanoana Represented by_the principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and"Urban oi:veiop'ir-entb;b;'dil;t, s".reta.at, Hyderabad Hyderabad Metroooritan Deveropment Authority (HlvrDA), Represented by its Commissioner, Hyderabad, Teiins;;;'SI;i; "' " ""'"' The Commissioner and Director, Municipal Administration, Telangana, Hyderabad. ,L The Commissioner, Tukkuguda Municipal Corporation, at Tukkukuda. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. At Kongarakalan. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur Division. TheJahsildar cum Joint Sub Registrar at Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy The Sub Registrar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Il?rflis.rr," Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department, Ranga Reddy

10. Mr. Abdulla Bin Abdur Raheem Banaeem. S/o. Late Abdur Raheem Bin Salam Ba Naeem, Aged about 50 vears, Occ. Business, R/o. 1B-11- G7 1N45120, Barkas, Chandrangutta, Baridlaguda, Keshogori, Hyderabad. 1 1. M/s. Hymarque Constructions Pvt. Ltd.. havinq its office, at 6-2-271A, 422 Dow Town the Mall, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad, Telan-g ana-500004, represented b| its Managing Director, Mr. Masood Bin Saveed, S/o. Late Saeed Bin Ahmed, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Business', R/ o. 24-6611194, Gl lmperial .: ::1"',:l ="-:Y:llll_Y 3lljlry f f 'li :' R12. Smt. Asiya Begum W/o Mr Mohammed abdul rasheed . ' (D/o Late Mr li{ohd Yousuf khan) aged about 51 y"^rt,' Occupation Housewife, Residing at20-3-440, Moosa Bowli, Hussain alam, Charmihar, Hyderabad, Telangana. o l' /t R13. Smt. Sabiha Begum W/o Mr Mohammed Mahmood (D/oLate Mr Mohd Yousuf khan) aged about43 years, -- Occupation Housen"ife, Residing at 18-17482, Barkas, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, Telangana. R14. Smt. Zakiya KhanW/o Mr Asad Khan (D/o Late Mr Mohd Yousuf khan) aged about43 years, Occupation Housewife, Residing at L8-11482, Barkas, Chandrayangutta, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, Telangana. R15. Smt. Atiya KhanW/o Mr Amjad Khan (D/o Late Mr Mohd Yousuf khan) aged about 35 years, Oc cup a tion Housewif e, Re si ding at 78-1L- 67 /45fl9/8, B arkas, Chandrayangutta, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, Telangana. Respondents No 12 to L5 are represented by their GPA holder Sri. Syed Shafiq,, S/o Syed Azam, aged about 38 years, Occ Business, It/o.H-. No' 2- 60, Bahadurguda village, Shamshabad mandal, Ranga Reddy Dlsfrict Telangana State. 1 t RR12 to 15 are impleaded zs Per C.O. d1.30.07.2025 in IA. No. 3/2025 / - ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass an order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, holding that the inaction of the Respondent No.2 to 8, in not considering the representation fired by the petitioners dated 1110212025, which is illegal, arbitrary, motivated, malicious, u nconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and fair play and violative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia and may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to 8, to consider the representation, dated 11to2t2025, and to cancel the illegal Layout vide permit No.000069/Lo/plg/HMD N2024 dared. in respect of land in Sy.No.44g, admeasuring Ac.00_27 Gts, 07t12t2024 admeasuring Ac.2-29 Gts, Sy.No.486, admeasuring Ac.3_17 Gts, Sy.No.449, Sy.No.487, admeasuring Ac.1-32 Gts, and Sy.No.4gB, admeasuring Ac.3_39 Gts, totally admeasuring Ac.12-24 Gts, situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. IA 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 direct the Respondent No.6 and 7 to not to entertain the any documents in respect of Iand in Sy.No.448, admeasuring Ac.00-27 Gts, Sy.No.449, admeasuring Ac.2_29 Gts, Sy.No.4B6, admeasuring Ac.3-17 Gts, Sy.No.4g7, admeasuring Ac.1_32 Gfs, and Sy.No.4BB, admeasuring Ac.3-39 Gts, totally admeasuring Ac.12_24 Gts, situated at Mankhal village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District during the pendency of the writ petition. IA 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 direct the Respondent No.2 to B, consider the representation filed by the petitioners dated 1110212025 during the pendency of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMAD NASEER PASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1&3 : cP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : MTs.M.BHAGYA SRl, SC FOR MC Counsel for the Respondent No.Sto8:SRl M.SAHAS REDDY, GP FOR REVENUE Counset for Respondents No.10 & 11 :SRl D.ANIKETH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'l2to15 : SRI B.BALAJI The Court made the following: ORDER L o THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITI ON No.8353 OF 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare thc action of respondent Nos.2 to 8 in not considering the representation of the petitioners dated 11.02.2025 for cancelling the layour issued vide permit No.00006g/LolplgltlMDN2o24 dated

11.02.2025 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.00-27 gunras in Survey No.448, Acs.2-29 guntas in Survey No,449, Acs.3-17 guntas in Survey No.486, Acs.l-32 guntas in Survey No.487, Acs.3-39 guntas in Survey No.488, total admeasuring Acs.l2-24 guntas, situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, 2l and 300-4 of the Constitution of I ndia. 2 Heard Mr. Mohammed Naseer Pasha, leamed counsel for the t petitioners, Mr. V. Narsimha Goud, leamed standing counsel for HMDA, appearing for respondent No.2, Mrs. M. Bhagya Sri, learned standing counsel for respondent No.4, Mr. M. Sahas Reddy, .--.--..+ 1 i 2 leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 8, Mr. D' Aniketh Reddy, leamed counsel lor respondent Nos.tO and t1, and Mr' B' Balaji, leamed counsel for respondent Nos. 12 to I 5.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they are legal heirs of late Mr. Yousuf Khan S/o. Mohd. Khan, who was the absolute owner and possessor of the tand admeasuring Ac'0-27 guntas in Survey No.448, Acs.02-29 guntas in Survey No'449, Acs'03-17 guntas in Survey No.486, Acs.0l-32 guntas in Survey No'487' Acs'03-39 guntas in Survey No.488, total admeasuring Acs' l 2-24 guntas situated at Mankhal Vittage, Maheshwaram Mandal' Ranga Reddy District.Duringhistifetime,lateMr'YousufKhanandtwo(2) others have jointly purchased the agricultural land admeasuring Acs. l0- 13 guntas in Survey No'486 and Acs'05-17 guntas in Survey No.487 total admeasuring Acs. t 5-30 guntas situated at Mankhal tMaheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' Revenue Village, under registered sale deed bearing document No'2845 of 1984 dated

02.05.1984. They also purchased another piece of land admeasuring Acs.02-00 guntas in Survey No'448/Part' Acs'08-08 guntas in I *., J a Survey No.449/Part and Acs. I l-36 guntas in Survey No.488, total admeasuring Acs.22-04 guntas situated at Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed bearing documenr No.2908 of l9g4 dated 07.05.19g4. Out of the said land, Mr. Yousuf Khan S/o. Mohd. Khan, had share of Acs.l2-24 guntas i.e., Ac.0-27 guntas in Survey No.448, Ac.2-29 guntas in Survey No.449, Acs.03-17 guntas in Survey No.4g6, Acs. I -3 2 guntas in Survey No.487, Acs.03-39 guntas in Survey No.488

4. It is stated that respondent No.7 the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, after due enquiry issued mutation proceedings No.24ll89 in favour of late Mr. yousuf Khan S/o. Mohd. Khan, and he was also issued pattadar passbook vide patta No.323. The name of late Mr. Yousuf Khan was recorded in the Pahani as pattadar and possessor. Respondent No.7 also issued separate mutation procgedings in ROR No.240 and 241 of 1989 in favour of other two (2) owners namely, (1) late Mr. Sayeed Bin Salam Bin Maquashin S/o. late Mr. Salam Bin Maquashin, (2) late Mr. Abdul Raheem Bin Salam Ba Nayeem S/o. late Mr. Salam Ba .1 ..1 4 Nayeem (father of respondent No'10), and separate pattadar passbooks were also issued to three (3) of them'

5. It is submitted that all the aforesaid lands have been jointly purchased by Mr. Yousuf Khan and two (2) others, and during their lifetime Mosque and Madarasa, under the name and style of' Jamia Ellahia was constructed. Mr. Yosuf Khan S/o' Mohd' Khan, died on

02.08.2007, and the GHMC authorities issued death certificate on 28.09.2007 vide regisrration number 681' After the death of Mr. Yousuf Khan, respondent No. 10 regularly approached the petitioners regarding the subject propefty' Respondent Nos'10 and 11 colluded with each other and approached respondent No'2 and obtained layout vicle permit No.000069/LOlPlg/HMD N2024 dated 07.12.2024 by playing fraud. Respondent Nos'10 and ll in collusion with respondent No.7 created forged and fabricated affidavit dated 09.07.2006 in favour ofrespondent No'10 and on the basis of the said affidavit, the name of tate Mr' Yosuf Khan was deleted from the revenue records and got entered the name of respondent No.10 fraudulentty. Thereafter, respondent No'10 by colluding with respondent No.7 created a fake and fabricated )7 5 3 registered Development Agreement_cum_General power of Attorney (DAGPA) bearing document No.l6g4 of 2023 dated, 14.0g.2023, in favour of respondent No.l l, which was registered by respondent No.8 without verif,ing the legality of the document. Respondent No. l0 obtained fake and fabricated document in the name and style of Jamia Ellahia, and subsequently got registered Supplementary Agreement (Sharing Agreement) to the DAGpA dated, 14.0g.2023 by dividing the share of the land in the ratio of 5g.l l%o (land owners) and 41.89 % (developers). Respondent Nos.l0 and 11 in collusion with respondent No.g further created registered agreement and deed of mortgage in favour of respondent No.2 which is clearly illegal and unlawful. 6' lt is submitted that the petitioners submitted representation dated I1.02.2025 to respondent No.2 to cancel the layout which was illegally obtained by respondent Nos. l0 and I I . The petitioner No, I is wife and the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are sons of late Mr. yousuf Khan who never relinquished his rights over the subject property. The entity by name Jamia Elahia is not a registered entity. The 6 claim of respondent No.10 that he is a Managing Trustee is without anv basis.

7. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.10 and 11 denying the allegations made in the writ affidavit. It is stated that Jamia Elahia initially was an unregistered trust, subsequently registered vrde document bearing No.l09 of 2023 dated 04.08.2023' That originally Mrs. Shamshunnisa Begum was the Inamdar of the land admeasuring Acs.58-35 guntas in Survey Nos.444' 445, 448, 449, 451, 486, 487 and 488, situated at Mankhal Village' Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Mrs. Shamsunnisa Begum and Jamia Elahia, an educational institution represented by Mr. Sayed Bin Salam Bin Maquashin, Mr. Abdut Raheem Bin Salaa Ba Nayeem and Mr. Yosuf Khan, entered into agreement of sale dated 15.03.1984 for purchase of land admeasuring Acs.40-00 guntas in Survey Nos.444,445,448,449,451,486 and 487 of Mankhal Village, Miiheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, out of total extent of Acs.58-35 guntas. Mrs. Shamsunnisa Begum was issued the Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) for entire extent of Acs.58-35 guntas by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad 7 ,7 District, vide Proc.No. W 4330 I lg84 dated 26.04.1984' Thereafter' Mrs. Shamsunnisa Begum sold land admeasuring Acs'37-34 guntas comprising of Acs.10-13 guntas in Survey No.486, Acs'5-17 guntas in Survey No.487, Acs.2-00 guntas in Survey No'448 Part, Acs'8-08 guntas in S urvey No.449, Acs. I 1-36 guntas in Survey No'448 of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' in favour of Jamia Elahia, represented by the above three (3) persons under two (2) registered sale deeds bearing document Nos'2845 of 1984 dated 02.05.1984 and 2908 of 1984 dated 07'05'1984'

8. It is stated that subsequent to the sale of the pioperty the revenue authorities mistakenly mutated the names of representatives of Jamia Elahia as mentioned sale deeds instead of name of the institution. The representatives of Jamia Elahia have acknowledged the mistake after issuance ol pattadar passbooks in their favour and they sought to rectiff the same' Accordingly, two (2) representatives of Jamia Elahia executed two (2) affrdavits stating that issuance of pattadar passbooks in their favour in individual capacity is mistake on the part of revenue authorities and requested ro mutate the name of Jamia Etahia in respect of the subject property 8 :.-] \.1 and also issue fresh pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The predecessors of the petitioners i.e., late Mr. Yousul Khan executed affidavit dated 19.07.2006 and Mr. Sayeed Bin Salam Bin Maquashin executed affi davit dated 24. I 2. | 992. g. It is further stated that for the purpose of mutation for its favour, Jamia Elahia, authorized Mr. Abdultah Bin Abdul Raheem Banaeem i.e., respondent No.10, who is son of Mr. Abdul Raheem Bin Salam Ba Nayeem (one of the representatives of Jarnia Elahia) to represent Jamia Elahia by way of General Body Resolution dated

04.06.2006. The Trust also issued a letter ol authority dated

19.07.2006 in favour of Abdullah Bin Abdul Raheem Banaeem. Thereafter, he executed an affidavit dated25.07 -2006 stating that he has applied for mutation in the name olJamia Elahia

10. It is submitted that initially pattadar passbooks issued in respect ofthe subject property in favour of three (3) representatives i.e., Mr. Sayeed Bin Salam Bin Maquashin, Mr. Abdul Raheem Bin Salam Ba Nayeem and Mr. Yousuf Khan, rvere cancelled. Subsequently, mutation proceedings bearing Proc.No.B/l 97512006 I t 1=;€ € 9 ') dated 02.08.2006 were issued in lavour of Jamia Elahia represented by Mr. Abdullah Bin Abdut Raheem Banaeem and new pattadar passbook has been issued in the lavour of Jamia Elahia and the same was reflected in the revenue records as pattadar. [t is submitted that the subject property was never a personal or individual properry, it was in fact owned by the Jamia Etahia, which is a trust; and the trust had been peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property since its purchase. Thereafter, out of the said land, Jamia Elahia entrusted land admeasuring Acs.2l-t8 guntas for development to respondent No.l under DAGPA dated 1684 of 2023 dated 17.08.2023 Respondent No.11 obtained draft layout vide application No.062369/SMD/I-TN6|IIMDA|O7O22024 dated 30.09.2024 Thereafter, the parties entered into supplementary agreement bearing document No. 836 of 2025 dated 1 8.0 I .2025.

11. Respondent Nos. 12 to l5 filed counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner No.l, is the son, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are sons of late Mr. Yosuf Khan and they are daughters of late Mr. Yosuf Khan. , They alleged that the petitioners and respondent Nos.10 and l1 in collusion with each obtained layoul dated 07.12.2024. The t0 -.1 petitioners and respondent Nos' 10 and 1 1 in collusion with respondent No .'7 havecreated fabricated document dated 19'07'2006 in favour of respondent No'10 altegedly issued Mr' Yosuf Khan and deleted his name from the revenue records and thereafter rcspondent No.l0 got mutation issued in his favour by playing fiaud'

12. It is submitted that respondent Nos'12 to 5 have filed a suit in O.S. No. 1 14 of 2025 before the leamed XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short 'Trial Court')' seeking partition and for declaring registered DAGPA bearing document No.1684 of 2023 dated 14'08'2023 and subsequent supplementary agreement bearing document No'S3ti of 2025 dated

18.0|.2025asnullandvoidandnotbindingonrespondentNos.12 to 15, and also for consequential perpetual injunction After filing of suit, respondent Nos.12 to 15 came to know about I'rling of this writ petition.

13. In the light of the rival claim over the title to the subject property it emerges that: "There is serious dispute with regard to the title of the property. The petitioners who are wife and sons claim to I i u the owners of the subject property and fabricated affidavit was created by respondent Nos.10 and lt and therealter they entered into DAGPA and supplementary agreement. Respondent Nos.12 to 15 who are daughters of late Mr. Yousuf Khan claim that there is collusion between the petitioners and respondent Nos.10 and 1 1, and the suit in O.S. No.l 14 of 2025 was filed. The pattadar passbooks issued in favour of three (3) individuals have been cancelled and subsequently pattadar passbook was issued in favour of Jamia Elahia. Jamia Elahia through respondent No. l0 entered into DAGPA dated 17.08.2023 and supplementary agreement dated

18.01.2025 with respondent No.1 1."

14. Innocuous relief is sought in this writ petition directing respondent Nos.2 to 8 to consider the representation of the petitioners for cancelling the layout allegedly obtained by respondent Nos.10 and l1 by illegal means. [t is stated across the Bench that so far interim orders have not been passed in O.S. No.I14 of2025. t2

15. In the opinion of this Court, the suit filed for partition will determine the rights of the parties finally' During the pendency of the suit before the competent Court. it would not be appropriate to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 8 to consider the representation of the petitioners. Any interim order or final judgment passed in the suit will be binding on the respondents and cancellation/suspension of the layout will depend on the interim order or final judgment passed in the suit.

16. Thus, in order to ensure the compliance of rival claim over' the subject property in question and in the interest of justice' it would be appropriate to give sufficient time to the parties to pursue injunction apptication if any filed or to be hled in O'S' No'I14 of 2025. Therefore, the Triat Court is directed to dispose of the injunction application in I.A. No.535 of 2025 in O'S' No'114 of 2025 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the orders passed in the injunction application, the peStioners and respondent Nos'12 to 15 are at liberty to approach respondent Nos.2 to 8 and submit application lor TJ cancellation/susPension of the layout issued vide permit No.000069/LO lPlgl!ilvlx N2024 dated I 1.02.2025' t7. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of' There shall be no order as to costs Asa sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. I^",.i+H,tts?HXA / SD,-P. S //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFIGER '" : Ii',rm;i":r+$r'q*t ml* ^ffi[i l+i"t:#$j;$#'ni;*tH[B'+itti*t'qi'*l'1"''''='1"*"*"0* ItEttiii--d*ts*3*"vn$'!'t1i:'rsssil'?$"l"nguR"aov l$'*:ins.#HlrH],*"'rtJil$;.:J;*.--,: ;bit'€i1{,5ifr.*'ffFJvf ER?'s."::?f; -L?:Y'crt"tuni"p'tcorpora'iion ." SL'g to sRl B BALAJI' Advocate toPucl ^" \i iwo CD coPtes' 1.1X,,. BSK t'/ Bs HIGH COURT DATED:3010712025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.8353 of 2025 r\c STAI <) rut 1tt5 2t * D6SPAl >, * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (\