The High Court · 2025

{ppalaneni Praveen, S/o A. Sri Hari Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ. 'Hyderabad, Business, Rt/o Plot No. HIG-35, KPHB 9th Phase, Kukatpally, Telangana. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.8

2. The State of Telangana, Rep Municipal Administration, B.R. Telangana. ...RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER by its Principal Secretary, Department of Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat Buiding,

3. The Commissioner, Hyderabad [Vletropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Swarna Jayanti complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana.

4. The Commissioner, Sanga Reddy Municipality, Sanga Reddy mandal and district Telangana

5. The Town Planning Officer, Sanga Reddy Municipality, Sanga Reddy mandal and district Telangana

6. The Collector, Sanga reddy District, Telangana. 7. A. Sudharkar, S/o Sri Subba Rao, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o H.No.1203, DSR Reganti Appartment, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

8. P. Brahmanna, S/o Sri. Krishnarah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Charted Accountant, Rl/o Plot No. 204, Sri Krishna Sai Appartment, Yousoufguda Check post, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.7 and 8 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2O2s Petition under Section 151 cpc prayrng that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou-t may be pleased to suspend the order passed in W.p.No 15440 of 2025 dated O4lOe l2O2S. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI MOHAN RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. FOR SRI A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI M.p.CHANDRAMOUt-t, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SMT DEVINENI RADHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN & IJRBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRt V.NARASTMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI PUTTA KRISHNA REDDy, SC FOR MCPL Counsel for the Respondent No.6: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.7OO OF 2025 JUD GMENT: @er tLe tlotr ble S JusLtcc '\bturkiL'l KLinL'\r ShiJutll) Aggrieved by the order dated 04.06'2025 passed in W.P.No. 15440 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed bY the aPPellant'

2. Heard Sri Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.P. Chanclramouli' learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Devineni Raclha Rani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for MAUD, appearing for respondent No 2, Sri V' Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, appearing for respondent No.3, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.6.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that respondent No.1 herein has filed W P.No.l544O of 2025 I ) challenging the proceedings dated 2g.OS.2O2S and contended that the appellant has obtained building permis,sron without there being a layout and the learned Single JuCge rvas pleased to dispose of the writ petition uid_e order dated 04.06 .202s and, directed the official respondents to conduct an enquirl, and pass appropriate orders on or before 30.06.2023, alter giving an opportunity to both the parties before grantrng an_\., permrssion.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contencled that the proceedings dated 2g.05. 2O2S arc not in e;<istence and no such proceedings were issued by the official .re sponclents ard the learned Single Judge could not have ciisp,osed of the writ petition by directing the official respondents to conduct d etailed enqu1ry a1-td pass appropriate orclers in accordance u.ith law 5 Learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appea;ing for respondent No.3 had fiied affidavit dated 26.Oil.2O2S to the effect that the proceedings dated 2g.OS.2O2S were n{:ver issued by the official respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1 had contended that the proceedrngs dated 2g.o5.202ri are not J issued by the oflicia-l respondents and accordingly, appropriate orders be passed and as such, the official respondents would take necessar5r action if the appellant violates any of the layout conditions and building permissions

7. Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1 had further contended that in the af{idavit dated 26.08.2025 liled by the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, the official respondents have contended that no building permission was granted on 28.05.2025. However, in the very same afftdavit, it is contended that layout permission was granted. Learned counsel further contended that if the building permission was not issued by respondent No.4, then the purpose of filing the writ petition itself may not arise.

8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the considered view that respondent No.4 had neither gralted building permission nor any layout permission to the appellant. Therefore, the purpose of liling the writ petition itself does not survive and hence, the order dated

04.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1544O of 2025 is liable to be set aside. '1 4

9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal 1S dispose d of with an observation that respondent No.4 has neither g,ranted any building permission nor layout permission to the: appellant and the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned S;ingle Judge in W.P.No.l544O of 2025 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications p:nd.ing, if arly, shall stald closed. //TRUE COPY// To, 1 2 The Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat Building, Telangana' The Commission-er, Hydera bad Metropolitan Developm Swarna Jayanti compli:x, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Sriniv Hyderabad, Telangana. SD/- K.SiREERAMA MURTHY STRAR FFICER Administration, B.R. 3nt Authority (HMDA), asa Nagar, AmeerPet, Hvderabad. district Telangana and district Telangana 3 iil-C";,"issiondr, Sanga Reddy Municipality Sanga Reddy mandal and + in" io*n plinning Officer, Sanga Reddy tr/unicipality' \anga Reddy mandal 5. The Collector, Sahga Reddy District, Telangana. O. fne Section Officei Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Z ifr"-S".tion Officer, Writ Non-service Section, High Jourt for the State of B one ct to sRl A.pRnsHRKnR RAo, Advocate toPUqL S. On" CC to SIr/T DEVINENI RADHA RANI, Advocate [OPUq]- - ^ rO O"" CC to SRt PUTTA KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR IMCPL IOPUCI r i One CC to SRI V.NARASIIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HTVDA [OPUC] - iz.i*" ccs to Gp FOR tUCpL ADIMN & URBAN DEV., High court for the state 13 iwo CCi to Cp fOn ReVE=ruUE, Uigh Court for the Sta1e of Telangana at of Telangana at HYderabad LOUT] . ^ Hyderabad [OUT] Telangana at HYderabad. -

14. Two CD Copies BSR W HIGH COURT DATED:03109t2025 CC TODAY ORDER WA.No.700 ot 2025 a. ,-i\"., 'r 4ri: :.4:') a') ?ffi E P \ " '-:...:: \<-.'1..:.'. ^.'. f\ I .'' :,: :-':'--:--',' ;/ -- it f. ),/ . ) ',! 'i::./ j1/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS c.