Sri. Kana Ganapathi Reddy v. 1. The State of Telangana

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent no.3 in making constructions over the subject property pending disposal of the writ Appeal in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI G.BHASKER REDDY -..1:i-:lr.'*:. Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI E.VENKATA REDDY, GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN OEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.SIDDARTH REDDY, SC t:OR MCPL Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI CH.RAVINDER WRIT APPEAL NO;410 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order dated 27-02-2025 in V/ P.No.35 l15 of 2024 on the file of the High Co irt. Between: Sri. Karra Ganapathi Reddy, S/o. Saireddy, Aged. 67 Years, Occ.A Rl/o. H.No.10-4216/1 , Vavilalapally, Karimnagar Town and Distrct, T. S culture, ..APPELLANT AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep., by it's Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar rep. by it's Commissioner, l(arimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 Thota Thirup:rthi, S/o. Thotalingaiah, Aged about. 50 Years, Ctcc. Agriculture, R/o.H.No. 4-46, Venkatraopally Village, Ramagundam L4andal, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumr;tances stated in the affidavit filec irr support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent no.3 in making constructions over the sr.bject property pending disposal or thr: writ Appeal in the interest of justice, Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI G.BHASKER REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI E.VENKATA REDDY, GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.SIDDARTH REDDY, SC F'OR MCPL Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI CH.RAVINDER WRIT APPEAL NO: 414OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order Dated 2710212025 in WP No 35096 ot 2024 on the file of the High Court. Between: Sri. Karra Ganapathi Reddy, S/o. Saireddy, Aged. 67 Years, Occ.A Rl/o. H.No.10-4-46/1 , Vavilalapally, Karimnagar Town and District, T. riculture, g S .,.APPELLANT AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep., by it's Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar rep. by it's Commissioner, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

3. ThotaThirupathi, Sio. Thotalingaiah, Aged about.50 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o.H.No. 4-46, Venkatraopally Village, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 restrain the respondent no.3 in making constructions over the subject property pending disposal of the writ Appeal in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.PRABHAKAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI G.BHASKER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI E.VENKATA REDDY, GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.SIDDARTH REDDY, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI CH.RAVINDER The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT i i 1 I i I 'j@- THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIET JUSTICE SUJOI' PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL Nos.4O9 4lO &,414 of 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Just,ce Sujog Paut): Sri .i. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel represents Sri G. Bh.as r<ar Reddy, learned counsel for th: appellant; Sri E. Venk.ar-a Reddy, iearned Government Pleader lor Municipal Administratior-r and Urban Development, for resp,rndent No.1 and Sri F.. Siddarth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Ni;.2 2 Re51a:,1 being had to the similitude of tI Le questions involved, tlres': matters were analogously heard on arlmission

3. The :;r ngular point raised by learned Senior Counsel for the appeilant is that the learned Single Judge l Las erred in passing thr: ir:rpugned common order dated 27.O2.2)25 ignoring the fact that the writ petitioner (respondent No.3 her-ein) has not disclosed the act of pendency of O.S.Nos.52, 53 and 28O of 2022 on the fil: of Principle Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. Learned Sr:nior Counsel for the appellant submits that this 2 amounts to "suppression of fact" and in view of suppression, no relief was due to the writ petitioner

4. The other point raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that as per the provisions under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1 882 (for short, 'the Act'), it is deemed that the writ petitioner had the knowledge of pendency of the suits.

5. On a repeated query from the Bench as to whether there existed any materia-l to show that the writ petitioner was aware of the pendency of aforesaid civil suits and yet he has not disclosed the same, no cogent material could be placed before us by learned Senior Counsel for the appellalt to highlight the same. The only document on which reliance is placed is at page No.173 in W.A.No.4O9 of 2025 i.e., a plair-rt copy under Order XXVI r/w Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. This plaint was filed before the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar after frling of the writ petition. No material could be pointed out to highlight arld establish that by the time the writ petition was filed, the writ petitioner was aware of pendency of aforesaid civil suits. Thus, the contentions raised by learned i i I l I i :-EEry l 3 Senior Counsel for the appellant that the writ petitir>n was filed suppressing tl-re material fact could not be substantiated.

6. So fzrl as the contention of learned Senior ,lounsel for the appellar-^.t that as per the provisions under Sectir:n 52 of the Act, it is der:rned that the writ petitioner hhd the krrowledge of pendency of the aforesaid suits, in our opinion, Section 52 of the Act operates; rn a different fie1d for a different purp ose ald no deemed kncrr,r,ledge can be assumed on the ba:;is of this provision.

7. For l,he aforesaid reasons, we find no reason i_o entertain these appeals Tl-rc admission is declined and acco.dingiy, the appeais are dismissed. No costs. interlo:utory applications, if any pending, shall also stanci closed To, //TRUE COPY// SO/-K.SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR '\- SECTION OFFICER -- _=- r^.. 1

1. One CC to SRI G BHASKER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sttl (IH.RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI K.SIDDARTH REDDY, SC FOR MCPL IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADIVIN URBAN DEV, High Court frtr the State of Telangana al Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copres BSR LS Ig. HIGH COURT DATED: 1610412025 COMMON JI.'DGMENT 1Hr-s r,i € ( WA.Nos.409, 410 & 414 ot 2025 30 .,1 AP 2fl25 I ) o \-r''.\\ri'. lo6' rlr --;-===_= * s--O DISMISSING ALL THE WRIT APPEALS, WITHOUT COSTS ,ilL6 ?\ i I i I I I I I t I I I I l I