Municipality and Mr v. Narasimha Goud, learned standlnq

7. SMT PETTUGANI VENKATA SUJATHA, Wo VENKATESWARLU, Aged major, . Occ. Housewife Rio. H.No.12-10-52/1 , Seethaphaimaidi, Secunderabad, Hyderabad-500061 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying.that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order. direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus dqclaring the inaction of the Respondents more particularly Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in not considering the Representation Dated 24.O7 .2025 wherein requestecl to cancel the building permission Dated

08.07 .2025 bearing No 000804/Bp tHMDAto217 tcHTt2o25 issued by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in favour of Respondent No.4 to 7 herein which was obtained by suppression and misrepresentation of order Dated '10.01.2020 in l.A.No.3856 of 2019 in o.s.No.332 of 2019 on the fire of r Additionar Junior civir Judge Medcha l-lt/a lkajg iri District at tVledchal is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Article 300,4 of the constitution of lndia, against the principles of Natural Justice and consequently Direct the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein to consider the Representation Dated 24.o7.2024 thereby to cancel the building permission Dated 08.07.2025 bearing No.000804/8plHMDAto2lzIGHT/202s issued by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in favour of Respondent No.4 to 7 herein which was obtained by suppression and misrepresentation of order Dated 10.01.2020 rn I.A.No.3856 of 2019 in o.s.No.332 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Junior civir Judge , Medchal-Markajgiri District at Medchar, in the interest of justrce. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section ',l51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cor-rrt may be preased to DIRECT the Respondent No.2 herein to consider the Representation Dated 24 07 2025 and cancer the buirding permission Dated 08 07.2025 and retter bearing No.000804/BPt{l\lDAlo217|GHTt2o2s of Respondent No.4 to 7 herern which was obtained by suppression and misrepresentation of order dated in lA.No. 3856 of 2019 in OS.No. 332 of 2019 on the file of I 10 01 2020 Additional Junior civir Judge , Medchar-Markajgiri District at Medchar there by stop and demolish the irlegal construction pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV counsel for the Respondent No.2 : sRr v.NARASTMHA GouD, sc FoR HMDA c o u n s e I ro r th e R es p o n d e n ts N o' 3' SS'I#rlfj fffl i"XtfrT. o o", Counsel for the Respondents No.4to7 : SRI JALLI NARENDER The Court made the following: ORDER a\ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT P ION No.2249 of 2025 ORDER The writ petition is flled questioning the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in not considering the representation ofthe petitioner dated 24.07.2025 seeking cancellation of building permission dated 08.O7.2025 bearing No.000804/Bp/HMDA/ O2l7 /GHT/2025 issued in favour of the respondents No.4 to 7 as being illegal and a rbitra ry.

2. Heard Mr. K. pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Jalli Narender, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 7, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 - Municipality and Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned standlnq counsel for respondent No.2 - HMDA .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a suit in O.S.No.332 of 2019 on the file of the I Additionat Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, was filed by the petitioner for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of Ac.0.1g guntas and 52 sq. yards, out of 4800 sq. yards, in Sy.No.308/1, Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, against one Abbasi Begum @ Begum Jani (died) per LRs. The vendors of the vendor of the respondents No.4 to 7 are defendants No.14 and 15 in the said 2 -_':t suit. Status quo order dated 10.O1.2020 was passed ln IA.No.3856 of 2O2O in O.S.No.332 of 2019. In disobedience of the status quo order, the defendants No.14 and 15 sold the property to the respondents No.4 to 7. Building permission was obtained by the respondents No.4 to 7 by indulging in m isrepresentatio n. Thus, pe.mission has to be cancelled under Section 176 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9. 4- Mr. Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel for the respondents No.4 to 7. submitted that the respondents No.4 to 7 a!-e not party to O.S,No.332 of 2019. Status quo order dated

10.01.2020 does not bind the respondents No.4 to 7. Moreover, earlier a suit for declaration and injunction, filed by the petitioner, in C.S.No.721 of 1996 in the Court of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, was dismissed on 10.11.2017. Tne suit in O.S.No.332 of 2019 was filed for declaration and i-ecovery of possession.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the respondents No.4 to 7 were not parties to the suit in O.S.No.332 of 2019, the status quo order dated 10.01.2020 passed therein is binding on them. During the pendency of the suit, they have purchased the subject property despite status quo order being passed. The sale to respondents No.4 to 7 is hit by doctrine o' i,s perdense { I -)

6. The suit in O.S.No.332 of 2olg was filed for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of in respect of Ac.0.18 guntas and 52 sq. yards, out of 4800 sq. yards, in Sy.No.308/1, Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. An Ad-Interim injunction application in IA.No.3856 of 2019 was filed restraining respondents No.10 to 15, their agents and representatives from changing the nature of the suit schedule property. However, status quo order dated 10.01.2020 was granted in IA.No.3856 of 2019 in O.S.No.332 of 2019. Thus, it is clear that there is no prohlbitory order passed by the trial Court restraining alienation of the suit property.

7. In the opinion of this Court, the purchase of the subject propefty by the respondents No.4 to 7 under registered sale deed is not in disobedience of the status quo order dated 10.01.2020. Further, the respondents No.4 to 7 here!n are. admittedly, noi padies to the suit. It is stated that steps have already been taken by the petitioner to file an implead petition for impleadment of the respondents No.4 to 7 herein in the suit.

8. Learned senior counsel for the respondents No.4 to 7 submitted that building permission was obtained by the respondents No.4 to 7 for construction of Ground + 4 upper floors and Ground + 2 upper floors have already been constructed. \ I I

9. In this situation, this Court is not inclined to restrain the respondents No.4 to 7 from proceeding with further construction. However, as it is stated that implead application is being filed, the petitioner is given liberty to pursue IA.No.3856 of 2019 filed for temporary injunctlon or other interlocutory applications seeking restraint order against the unofficial respondents herein from proceeding with further construction. If such an order is passed. the petitioner is given to liberty to approach the respondent No.3 _ Municipality for cancellation of building permission or keeping in abeyance the building permission granted to the respondents No.4 to 7. The apDlication in IA.No.3856 of 2O!9 or any other application fiie6 5o the petitioner seeking injunction shall be disposed of by I Additionai lunior Civil Judge, Medchal-trlalkajgiri District. within a period of one month from the date of recelpt of a copy of this order. Acccrdingiy, the writ petition is disposed of The misceiianeous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed The;-e shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO qSISTANT REGISTRAR \ OFFICER To,

1. l-Additional Junior Civll Judqe I\/edechal- Malkajgiri District' Z. f6e pir"ipal Secretary, Ddpartment of 1Vlunicifal Administration and Urban - Oevelooment State Of Telariqana,.At Secretariate, Hyderabad,Telangana 3. The Commissioner. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, swarna Jayanti Complex, S.R. Nagar, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet' Hyderabad - 500038. Telangana 4. The Commisdioner, Nagaiam Municipality, Nagaram Village, Keesara 5 One CC to SRI K PRADEEP REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 6 Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State ot 7 o;; dc to'sRt 'KRIsHNA REDDY PUTTA, sc FoR MUNICIPALITYiMC. t\Iandal lvledchal-Malkajgiri District. Telangana. [OUT] IOPUC] B One CC to SRIV.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FoBIIY-D [OPUCI 9 O;; Cc io snr JALLI NARENDER, Advocate lOPUCl 10. Two CD CoPies. BSK BS d CC TODAY !:T a_- \ ( o .) -,,t r-qih -r r;/ ...::: .,.''' ?1lt? : ::.i !.1 :z':::, -- HIGH COURT DATED:16109t2025 ORDER WP.No.22495 of 2OZs DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,/j 4.s- .<3 ,/9,/1r