Heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the v. Narsimha Goud, learned standing

Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents neither linking the amount paid i.e., Rs. 28,04,420l-towards the regularization of plot nos. 66, 67,75, 7514, 94,941A, 132, 1321A, 13218, 146, 14618, 151 , 152, 156 to 162, 164,221 ,259, 353, 354, 355, 399, 399 to 402, 411 to 414 under LRS - 2020 scheme to the internal dashboard and proceed with issuing of LRS proceedings nor issuing the LRS proceedings manually to the above said plots as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provision of LRS - 2020 and consequently direct the respondents to issue the LRS proceedings manually towards the regularization of plot nos. 66, 67,75,751A,94,941A, 132, 13214, 132t8, 146, 14618, 151 , 152, 156 to 162, 164, 221, 259,353, 354, 355, 399, 399 to 402, 411 to 414 under LRS - 2020 scheme. 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 direct the respondents to issue the LRS proceedings manually towards the regularization of plot nos. 66, 67, 75, 7StA, 94, 94tA, 132, 132tA, j32tB, 146, 14618, 151 , 152, 156 to 162, 164,221,259,3S3, 3S4, 355 399, 399 to 402,411 to 414 under LRS - 2020 scheme forthwith pending disposal of the above said writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V.NARSIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MPCL The Court made the following: ORDER l I I THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1393lOF 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is hled by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent authorities in neither linking the amount paid i.e., ks.28,04,4201- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs four thousand four hundred and forty only) by the petitioner towards regularization of plot Nos.66, 6'7,15,'151A,94, 941A., 132, l32lA, l32lB, 146, 14618, l5l, 152, 156 to 162, 164,221,259,353,354, 355,399,399 to 402,411 to 414 under the Land Regularization Scheme 2020 (LRS -2020) with the internal dashboard nor processing its LRS application, as being illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. Narsimha Goud, learned standing counsel for the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), appearing for respondent No.2, and Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, leamed standing counsel for Municipalities, appearing for respondent No.3. 2

3. The petitioner claims to be absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.29-0.37 guntas in Survey Nos.615/p, 6l6lP, 617,618, 6l9iP, 6201P and 621lP situated at Dundigal Village, Gandimaisamma Dundigal Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District, having purchased the same under various registered sale deeds. The petitioner developed the above land by dividing into 395 plots under the name and style of "Viswa Sai Township,,. It was an unauthorized layout. As the layout was unauthorized, the petitioner filed application vide No.M/DUND/01329112020 dated 14.10.2020 by paying application fee ofRs.l0,000i- seeking regularization of the layout. The Govemment has also announced 25o/o rebate on the regularization charges, as such, the petitioner - firm paid Rs.28,04,4201- on27.03.2025 towards regularization of the plots. However, the said amount was not being reflected in the official website of respondent No.3. When the petitioner enquired with respondent No.3, it was infonned that payment made by the petitioner towards LRS charges was not reflected in the internal dashboard and unless the payment is reflected, the LRS application of the petitioner cannot be processed. -t

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to technical issues, the regularization charges of Rs.28,04,4201 paid by the petitioner are not reflected in the internal dashboard of respondent No.3. Hence, requested direction to be issued to respondent No.3 to manually process the regularization application of the petitioner.

5. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner - firm has submitted application for regularization of the layout, which is within the jurisdiction of respondent No'2 - HMDA and the regularization of the plots is within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 - Municipality. The petitioner has opted for layout regularization instead of individual plot regularization' I t

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that assuming that layout regularization has to be done by respondent No'2, it is intemal arrangement between respondent No.2 - HMDA and , I respondent No.3 - Municipality. The amount received by respondent No.3 may have to be transferred to respondent No'2 or vtce versa. j., i:: 4

7. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that representation dated 19.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner will be duly considered, in accordance with law.

8. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.04.2025 for processing its LRS apptication vde No. M/DLIN D / 0 I 329 1 / ZO20 dated 1 4. I 0.2020, and pass orders, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity ol.hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. /. T.VIJAY KUMAR D PUTY REGISTRAR A \ //TRUE COPY// \ To ECTION OFFICER 3 4 5 1 . The Principal Secreta ry, Municipal Administrati on an Jrb an Development Department, Secreta flat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana 2. Metropolitan Commiss loner Hyderabad Metro politan Development Authority (HMDA)., Ameerpet, Hyde The Com mrsstoner gal Munici Dunidi Medchal MalkaJgtri One CC to SRt S.S RIDHA R, Advoca Two CCs to Gp FO R MCPL ADMN of Telan gana, at H yderabad One CC to SRI V NARSIMHA GOUD SC FOR HMDA [OPUC One CC to SRt p Two CD Copies o palitv, &UR BAN DEV, High Court for the State UTTA KRIS HNA RE DDY , sc FoR MPCL [o PUCI OP UC] 6 7 8 PSK. PS HIGH COURT DATED:0910912025 CG TODAY ORDER WP.No.13931 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ t