The High Court · 2025

5. The Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 6. Palli Naresh Kumar Reddy, S/o. Palli Laxmi Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Flat No.401, Plot No.105, 106, Road No.2, Vokshit Hill View, Gajularamaram, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 055. 7. Velivela Ravi, S/o. Veera Swamy, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. Flat No.103, ROI s Varshini Mansion, Deepthisree Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad. 8. Tula Sridhar, Sio. Tula Ramchander, Aged about 44 yeas, Occupation Employee, R/o. Flat No.1004, lndis One City Aparts., Sth phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072. 9. Thatavarthi Srinivasulu, S/o. T.Venkateshwarlu, Aged about 64 years, Occupalien Business, R/o. H.No.13-1-8, Kandkuru, Prakasam Dist. 523 105, . RR8 and 9 are impleaded as per C.O.dt.19.11.2025 in lA No.2/2025. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that iri 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 official respondents in not taking any action on the representations, dated 10.04.2025 and 03.01.2025 of the petitioners association in entering the application of the unofficial respondents for granting of the construction permission over the Plot Nos 54 and 60 in Sy.Nos.141 , 142 and 161 situated at Shanthinagar' Madinaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and consequently direct the official respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner before granting construction permission over the above said property ' IA NO F 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 official respondents not to grant any construction permission to the unofficial respondents over the Plot Nos.54 and 60 in Sy.Nos.'141, 142 and 161 situated at Shanthinagar, Madinaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending finalization of the Writ Petition :3OF 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 the interim order granted in w.P.No. 1444012025 dt.01-05-2025 and dismiss the writ petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. JALLI KANAKAIAH REP SRI NARENDAR JALLI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.S: GP FOR HOME Gounsel for the Respondent Nos. 8&9: SRI GANDYAPU RAJESHAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6&7:- The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY M/s. Shanti Nagar Plot Owner's Welfare Association. And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not taking considering the representations of the petitioner-association dated 1O.O4.2025 and 03.01.2025 whereby the petitioner-association has requested the authorities not to grant building permission for Plot Nos.54 and 60, Shanthinagar, Madinaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Mr. Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for the petitioner-association, submitted that the land admeasu ring Ac4.O4 guntas in Sy.Nos.141, I I 2 142 and 161 of Madinaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was originally owned by one K. Seetharama Raju. He converted the land into plots in two phases and the layout was named as Shanthi Nagar Colony and the plots in the colony were sold to several persons. Some of the plots were kept unsold in Sy.Nos.S4 and 60. plot No.54 is in phase II and plot No.60 is in Phase I. Recently some vested interest persons have fabricated the documents and clamed rights over the subject prots. on verification by the petitioner-association, it was found that the respondents No.6 and 7 have, allegedly, purchased the subject plots under unregistered sale deeds, as such, the sale deeds are not valid and hit by Section 33 of the Registration Act.

3. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner-association decided to use the subject plots for construction of Mahila Mandali building for community purpose. Thus, representation dated LO.O4.ZO2S was submitted requesting the respondent No.3 not to grant building permission.

4. Mr. Gandyadapu Rajesham, learned counsel for the respondents No.B and 9, submitted that the respondent No.B purchased plot No.60 from one palani Swamy Karthikeyan, S/o. Palani Swamy, under registered sale deed bearing document No.3463 of 2025 and the respondent No.9 purchased plot No.54 3 from one Palli Naresh Kumar Reddy, S/o. palli Laxmi Reddy, under registered sale deed bearing document No.18730 of 2024. The layout clearly shows that the Plot Nos.54 ad 60 are not open spaces or park. The said plots cannot be used for any other purpose including the alleged community building.

5. In response, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner- association submitted that the contents of the sale deeds clearly show that the vendors of the respondents No.8 and t have, allegedly, purchased the subject plots under unregistered sale deed and got it validated. Mere validation will not confer any title.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents No.8 and 9 submitted that the dispute, if any, regarding title is between the petitioner-association and the vendor of the respondents No.8 and

9. If the vendor of the respondents No.8 and 9 is having dispute over title, ownership and possession, then the respondents No.B and 8 would contest the same. However, assuming the respondents No.8 and t have defective title, the same cannot be a ground to usurp the subject plots and utilize them for purpose other than earmarked in the layout.

7. Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, rearned standing counser for respondent - GHMC, submitted that the representation of the petitioner-association dated Lo.04.2025 will be duly considered. i-'" I' I I I I I I I I 4 B. In the light of the above rival contentions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner-association dated 10.O4.2025 requesting not to grant any building permission for Plots No.54 and 60 and pass orders, by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-association, respondents No.8 and 9 and other interested persons, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as costs. SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER /TTRUE COPY// To, 1ilr3il[t*11b]ri*Efl::[Hl"#'i##fl"ff[:,:ilH":::;T;' :f,i:+t$',tr,t,;s*i:l*H$ilFffi H{:';'Fi,';i;xix:,..'"* lm$i'surumamqm;-w,g**: .l ihi";'L:"n"t;"lt$'$gnffttSnutJ",n ror the state or reransana, at ' Hvderabad [OUT] lZ.two CD CoPies BM BS CC TODAY HIGH COURT T=i t0811212025 ORDER WP.No.14440 of 2025 * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ttlR lP{-