Mr. /. Siddharth Goud, learned counsel representing Mr v. Nzrrs,ilha Goud, learned standing

5. K.Srinivas Rao, S/o K.Satyanrayana Aged 62 years Occ Business' R/o 1-10- 3'1 3/1 Brahmanwadi, Begumpet,Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in taking action against unofficial respondents No.4 and 5 pursuant to the show cause notice dt 23-12-2024 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent Nos 2 a r c 3 to take steps to complete the enquiry p -rrsuant to the impugned notice d' llii' 12-2024. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition urcer lection 151 CPC praying that in the circurstzrnces stated in the aff idavit file i n ; Lpport of the petition, the High corrrt rray be pleased to issue lnterim di-e.:ti:'rs to the respondents No 4 and 5. not to ali )nate the flats constructed ov,lr tt-€ schedule property i.e property bearing plot No 57 admeasuring 332 sc1"ds situated in Sy No 101 of Medipally vi lage , Hayathnagar taluq, Ranga Redr:,y t) strict till the conclusion of the enquiry pL rsu€ nt to the show cause notice dt 2? -12-2024, pending disposal of writ petition. tA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unrler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstitnces stated in the affidavit filed n ;rpport of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to issue interim di-e:;ticrs to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to grirnt Occupancy Right Certificate t(.. the respondents No. 4 and 5 till enquiry is r onc uded pursuant to the show cause not ce dt 23-12-2024 pending disposal of the, wri' petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Between:

1. K.Gnaeshwar Flao, S/o. K.satyanarayana Aged 60 years Occ f']usinesss, Rl/o 1 -10-3131 1. Blr -ahmanwadi, Begumpet, Hyderabad

2. K.Srinivas; Flarr S/o K.Satyanrayana Aged 62 years Occ Brsin,rss, Rl/o 1-10- 3'l 3/1 Brahrnarvradi, Begumpet,Hyderabad ..PETITIONER/RESPONDENT Nos.4&5 AND 1 P.R. Vas:rn:ha. 'rVlo M.V. Manivelu Aged 70 years Occ Hc'userold R/o House No 8-1-180 S l- ivajinagar,Secunderabad Rep byher GPA []old,rr B.Seetharam Reddy S/o ar:€ [)eddi Reddy Aged 60 years occ Business R o Flat No 501 , Satya Durga leaven, Chitra Layout Beside Ranga RTddi District Court complex [-B Ngar, Ranga Reddy District. ,.,RESPONDEN T/PETITIONER

2. State of Telangana, Rep,by.its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban [.)evelopment Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. The Hyderaberc ltrletropolitan Development Authority, Rep :y itr; Commiss,ore' lu4itrivanam Ameerpet, Hyderabad

4. The Peerjadiguda Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, f\4edchal Malkajgiri District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 pleased to vacate the interim order dated O2.O5.2O25 in WP No. 14778 of 2025 and thereby dismiss the above Writ Petition and/or pass such other order/orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S.MADHAVI PRIYA MANTENA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV cou nse I ror the Res pon de nt N o'2' 3[i Y. if-T$fi IX B3'rB, 33' io n n'a oe cou nser for the Respo ndents N o. 3' !|'I"r_tlfl fifl i#|fi+E D DY, Counsel for the Respondent No.4&5: SRI B.VISHNU RAO The Court made the following: ORDER -7 I'HE TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VI]AYSEN RT:DDT/ WRIT PETITION No.14778 of 2O25 ORDER: Tl-e rri r t petition is filed seeking this Cou.t tc de:lare the inaction ol t-re respondent No.2 in taking a-ction ag: inst the respond€lni.s ll).4 and 5 pursuant to the show cause noti:e dated

23.12.2C2a , as being, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. The car;r: of the petitioner is that she is t.le cwne r of Plot No.57, adnre'; s;uring 332 sq. yards, Sy.No.101, Medically Village, Hayathn;lgar Taluq, Ranga Reddy District, having purch,rsed the same un le. 1),Jistered sale deed bearing document No.13 l7/1983. While so. t ho respondents No.4 and 5 started interfer'ing with the possession ol':ne petitioner's plot. A suit in O.S.No.294 of i]008 was filed by .h,: cetitioner for perpetual injunction in the Cou t of the Ii Additiorral Senior Civil Judge, Ranga RedCy Dist'ict and ad-interjrn i11 iunction order dated 22.02.2008 was p.,ssed in IA.No.323 ::f .008 in O.S.No.294 of 2008. The suit was ren lmbered as O.S.No,,lC 1 of 2O22 on the file of the II Additlona Serrior Civil Judge, M:d:lrz l-Malkajgiri D istrict.

3. It is sr- Lrmitted that the respondents No.4 anl 5 claimed ownershi'r l,r:r plot Nos.103, 104, 106 and 1O7, ir Sy No. 102, which is abutt ng Sy.No.101 wherein the property of tre petitioner is situated --lr,: vendor of the respondents No.4 anrl S made a 2 layout in the name of Om Vihar Colony and alienated the plots. The vendor of the respondents No.4 and 5 has encroached the plot of the petitioner in Sy.No.101 and included it in the layout developed in Sy.No.102, taking advantage of the contiguity.

4. It is submitted that Sy.No.102 comprises an extent of Ac.13.08 guntas only but the vendor of the respondents No.4 and 5 made a layout in an area covering Ac.77.L4 guntas. The vendor of the respondents No.4 and 5 approached the revenue authorities for correction of revenue entries, which was not considered. The respondents no.4 and 5 have fraudulently obtained building permissions dated 24.06.2O24 and 07.06.2024 basing on the sale deeds, which are not valid. The petitioner filed WP.No.25075 of 2024 challenging the building permisslon. The petitioner also filed WP.No.20181 of 2024 requesting police protection to be granted for implementation of status quo order passed by the trial Court.

5. It is submitted that on complaint of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the respondents No.4 and 5 but they did not file any reply and they, however, proceeded with the construction of the building. They made an application for issuance of occupancy certificate and they are in the process of alienating the flats. Hence, the present writ petition is filed to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 not to grant any t t 3 occupancy (:er:rficate to the respondents No.4 and 5 tll ccnclusion of enquirz 1:u'';tLant to show cause notice dated 23.L2-2O24

6. Mr tl . \i;hnu Rao, learned counsel for the respc'nderts No'4 and 5, srhTritted that the petitioner does not have ocu:; standi. There ls .1is p Lrte with regard to title and possession of the petitioner'. '-he petitioner is a chronic litigant and filed s eve'al cases against the ret:;1>ondents No.4 and 5 without any valid c aim of title.

7. Mr. \/. Siddharth Goud, learned counsel representing Mr. V. Nzrrs,ilha Goud, learned standing counsel for HIYDA, submitte,j '.h;:. orders will be passed pursuant to show cau;e notice dated 23 l)-..)-)24 as expeditiously as possible.

8. In view or the above, considering that show :ause notice dated 2j,l2.2024 is already issued, this Court ir; nct in:lined to pass any o-d,: -l;.

9. Hcw:rv€r, the writ petition is disposed of with. dir,-'ction to the respondert No.2 to conclude the enquiry purs'lant to lhe show cause notic:e czted 23.12.2024 and pass final orders w thin a period of four ( 1) i,r'r e:ks from the date of receipt of a copy ,rf this order. Any alienertio i of the flats by the respondents lJo.4 and 5, construcl:e(: in :he subject plots, shall be subject to finirl orrlers that may be pirss;<:d in the enquiry. If explanation to the shc w cause 4 notice dated 23.L2.2O24 is not filed by the respondents No.4 and 5, they shall do so within a period of one week from today. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any. shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/.K.SREERAMA MURTHY EPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Principal Secretary, Munic Department, Secretariat, State o Administratio fTelangana, Hyderabad nd Urban Development

2. The Commissioner, Hyderabad [Vlekopolitan Development Authority, Mitrivanam Ameerpet, Hyderabad

3. The Commissioner, Peerjadiguda Municipal Corporation, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

4. One CC to M/s.MADHAVI PRIYA MANTENA, Advocate. [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTJ

6. One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HIUDA. [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI B.VISHNU RAO, Advocate. [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY/MC. \ To, t: loPUCl

9. Two CD Copies. /M- BSK HIGH COL'TR]T DATED:23106t,2025 crc roro" 'rE Sr.irt 4K' C(i -l 1 ii lil( ?m5 '(; -l- ORDER WP.No.147'VB of 2025 DISPOSINGi ,0F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS '/ )1 t