Smt. V.Venkata Ramana, Wo. Sri v. Koteswara Rao, R/o. H.No

16. Sri Kurumaiah, Sio. Sri Angaraiah, R/o. HIG-153, Ushodaya Enciave, Madinaguda, Miyapur, Hyderabad-50O 050.

17. Sri D Unrapathi, Sio Sri Gajjaiah, IVo H No.i-5-4!)/1. Sumithra l.{agar, Kukatpalll,.I{yderabad-72. / \ ) {

18. Sri Allu Bhagawan, S/o. Sri Allu Venkata Swamy, R/o. H.No. 2-22-50, Eenadu Sociefy, Kukatpally, Hy der ab ad-7 2. ,/

19. Smt. D. Madhubala, Wo D. Ravindra Babu, R/o C/o Madhu Nursing Home, Veranki Lock post, Lqvidttr-rqkkala Mandal, Krishna District.

20. Master M Abhishek, S/o. Sri M. Balaramulu, represented by his father, natural guardian Sri M. Balaramulu, Sio Sri M. Naganna, N o 8-3 -224 I 1 I I N 6, G-93, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad-3 8.

21. Sri K. Nagaiah, S/o. Sri K. Gundanna, R/o H.No 9-l-315/15, Laxmi Nagar, Langar I,Iouse, Hyderabad.

22. SmL P. Rajitha, Wo. Sri Gadipally Surender Reddy, R/o Yellamula Village, Jangaon l\4andal, Warangal-506 201 .

23. Smt. Saleem Unisa Begum, Wo. Sri. Dr. Syed Abdul Aziz, R/o. H.No.6-2-97 6, Flat No.3 03, Nirvana Pavani Estates, Khairatabad-4.

24. Smt. M. Shailaja, Wo. M. Bhaskar Reddy, R/o. Quarter No. 89 C, GPRA Campus, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-32.

25. Smt. V.Venkata Ramana, Wo. Sri V. Koteswara Rao, R/o. H.No. 1-10-58, Street No.2, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad-500 070.

26. Smt. A. Nagamani, Wo. A. Koteswara Rao, R/o. Sowbhagyanagar Colony, Opp. IDPL colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad-500 03 8.

27. Sri A. Venkat Krishna Rao, S/o. Sri A. Koteswara Rao, R/o. Sowbhagyanagar Colony, Opp. IDFL colony, Balanagar, Hyderabadr500 03 8.

28. Mrs. Waheeda Mahmood Siddiqa, Wo. Dr. Mahmoocl Ali Khan, R /o. H.No. | 6- 4 -l 821 67, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad-24. 7/ l {

29. Mrs. Chandni Begurn, Wo. Syed Yousuf Husair, R/o H.No. 17-5-5f3ll, Dabeer Pura, Hyderabad-23.

30. Chappidi Jayabharati D/o. Dr. C. Govinda Reddy, No.41620, Gandhi Road, Prodduturu-5 I 63 60. Cuddapah Dist. 3 1. Mohammed Kaleemullah Zafar, Slo.late Mohd. Ghouse, R/o. H.No.10-5-6, My Home Glory Apartment, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500 028.

32. Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sri M. Narayana Swamy, PJo. Plot No. 24, 'E' Block, Swagruha Apanments, Bhagyanagar Colonv, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.,

33. State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. . .. P.espondents.'Writ Petitioners

34. State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. / (Respondent \o.33&34 Cause Title is amended as per Court Order dated l i.06.2014)

35. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Khairatapad, H1'rlerabad

36. The Special Deputy Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer (tndustries), Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

37. The Vice-Chairnian, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad.

38. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division at Domalguda, Hyderabad.

39. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

40. The Station Housc Oflicer, Raidurg Police Station, Raidurg, Ranga Reddy District. . Irl I l I t I I I ) I I I I I I i i I i 1 ; I 7', r. Y 6p. 4 l. The Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, Ranga Reddy District

42. Sri Laxminarayana Pratap Singh, S/o. Late Kalyan Singh, aged about S?years, '/

43. Smt. Laxminarayana Indrani Bai, Wo. Late Bhalat Singh, / aged about 37 years

44. Sri Laxminarayana Sanker Singh, S/o. Late Bharat Singh, / aged about 25 years.

45. Sri Laxminaruyana Samrat Singh, S/o. Late Bharat Singh, aged about 23 years, '/

46. Sri Laxminarayana Sunil Singh, S/o. Late Bharat Singh, ,ncrS aged about 2l years,

47. Smt. Laxminarayana Chander Bai, Wo, Late Balaji Singh, aged about 47 years,

48. Kumari Laxminarayana Renuka Bai, D/o. Late Bataji Singh, aged about l5 years, Lted

49. Kumari Laxminarayana Durga Bai, D/o. Late Balaji Singh, aged about 12 years, (Respondents CS an/ qg being minors rep by their natural mother and guardian Smt. L. Chandera Bai i-e., Respondent No. 16)

50. Sri Laxminarayana Dhanraj Singh, S/o. Late Kalyan Singh, aged about 42 years, (The Respondents 42 to 50 are represented by their G.P.A. holder Sri Laxminarayana Rajan Singh, S/o. Late Kalyan Singh, aged about 40 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Nanakramguda Viltage, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 l. Sri Amar Singh, S/o. Prakash Singh, aged about 27 years, t)

52. Sri Sailender Singh, S/o. Prakash Singh, aged about 26 years,

53. Sri Ravinder Singh, S/o. Prakash Singh, aged about 24 years, -,/ I

54. Sri Devender Singh, S/y. Prakagh Singh, aged about 22 years,

55. Sri L. Ramesh Singh, S/o. Late Fathe Singh, aged about 38 1ears,

56. Smt. K. Kamala Bar, YVlo. Ramesh Singh, aged about 32 ye;rrs,

57. Sri L. Ranjit Singh, $/o. Ramesh Singh, aged about 20 years, /

58. Sri L. Ganesh Singh, S/o. Late Fathe Singh, aged about 36 years,

59. Sri L. Decpak Sirgh.S/o. Late Fathe Singh, aged about 25 years, (Respondents 5I to 59 al[ are agriculturists and R-/o. Nanakarrguda Village, Serilingampally N,{andal, Ranga Reddy District and Respondent; 20 to 28 are represented by tht:ir G.P.A. holder Sri Laxminarayana Prakash liingh S/o. Late Fathe Singh, aged ab,out 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Nanakranguda Village, Seril ir-rgampally Mendal, Ranga Reddy District.

60. Hyderabad District Public Servants Co-Operative Housing Sot;iety Ltd., , (TNGOS), l'1 Floor. Telangana Bhavan, Opp: Mahavecl' Hospital. AC Guards, Hyderabad. . (Responclent No.t0 impleaded as per Court Orders dated i0.04.2013 in W.P.M.P.No 9340 of 20I3.) . . Resfondents r Respondents I I I I I I ) a c Y 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 Cou( may be pleased to condone the delay of (460) days in filing the above Writ Appeal against order dated '1 8.11.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2795 ot 2002. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 'l8.1 '1 .2023 passed in W.P.No.25795 of 2002. lA NO: 3 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 o permit the Petitioners namely Chukka Pydithallamma, Lekkala Santhoshi and Chukka Kanaka Durga Devi to come on record as Respondent No 67 to 69 to being Legal Heirs of deceased Late Chukka Appala Naidu, the Respondent No. 1 2 in the writ appeal, and permit the Petitioners/Proposed Respondent Nos.67 to 69 herein to carry out consequential amendments to the writ appeal lA NO: 4 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 permit the Petitioners namely B. Padmavathi, A. Haritha, B. Abhilash, B. Saritha and B. Suchitha to come on record as Respondent Nos.62 to 64 being Legal Heirs of deceased Late B. Narsing Rao, the Respondent No.1 '1 in the writ appeal, and permit thee, Petitioner/Proposed Respondent Nos.62 to 64 herein to carry out consequential amendments to the writ appeal 7/ IA NO: 5 OF 202Ii Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filc'd in support of the petition, the High Col rt may be pleased to permit the Petitioner namely Kunta Manemma come on r()cord as Respondent No.61 being the Legal Heir of deceased Late Kunta Narsimttulu, the Respondent No.9 in the writ appeal, and permit the Petitioner/Propose3 Respondent No.61 herein to carry out consequenlial amendments to the writ apreal Counsel for the Appellants: SRI MALLU NETHAN REDDY, ltSST. GP REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel forthe Respondent No.1,7,10,14 & 19: SRI A. VENI{ATESH, SR. COUNSEL REP. FOR SRI SRINIViISA RAO PACHWA Counsel forthe Respondent No.2,4 to 6, 16 to20,22to25,21t lo 32: SRI SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI Counsel forthe Re,spondent No.3 & 21: SRI A. HANUMANTh,{ REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.8: SRI AVINASH DESAI, SR. COUNSEL REP. FOR SRI M. PRANAV Counsel forthe Respondent No.10: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No,'15 & 16: SRI C. HANUMANTITA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.33,35,38 & 39: GP FOR LANII ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Resipondent No.34: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.37: SRI M. DHANANJAY REDDY, SC FOR HUDA Counsel for the Respondent No.40: GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent No.47 & 60: SRI V. VENUGOPAL/\ RAO, SR. COUNSEL WRIT APPEAL NO: 1020 OF 2025: Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preierred Against the Order dated. 1 8-1 1-2O23, in WP.No.25795 ol2OO2. on the flle of the High Court, t\r cen !- The District Collector, Ranga Reddl' l)istrict at Kongara Kalan (Vg), Ibrahimpatnanr (M), Ranga Reddy District. ANL) . ..Appellant / Responde-nr No.3 \ I [, Smt. Malleshu,ari Binagari, Wo Sri Konda Reddy, Chimikala, R/o. Flat No 103, l'hasc I V, Saptagiri Apartments, Padmarao Nagar, licctr n dcrebad-5 00 025. 2- Nagabhairirva Venu Madhav, S/o. Bhaskara Rao, R/o. Pcddapulivarru Village, Kothuru Mandal, (iuntur [)istrict.

3. Smt. D. Radha, Wo Sri D. Balagandhara Reddy, IVo. Junior l'elecom Officer, Central Telegraph Of,fice, Ananthapur-515 00 [.

4. Smt- Ch. Durga Bhavani, Wo. Radha Krishna prasad, R /o -5l2, Arundal pet, Guntur-2.

5. Mr. P. Athrnanathan, S/o NV panchapageshan, IVo. l0 B. StaflQuarters, SBI Sraff College, Ilegumpet f{oad, t lyderabad-500 016.

6. Srnr. Kothl Arune. W/o. Sri K. Canga<Jhar, ll/o. H.No.o- l -29I, Srecniketan, I)adilarao Nagar. Secundcrah2d-? s I I I i : 7,', I riD

7. Smt. K. Sai Padrna, W/o. Giri Kumar, R/o Captain Bazaar, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District.

8. Sri B. Bikshapathi, S/o. Sri R Ramaswamy, R/o H.No 5-83, Gangapurra Colony, Old Alrvat, Secunderabad.

9. Sri K. Narasimulu, S,/o. Sri K Bagath, R/o. H. No.5-83, Gangaputra Colony. Old Alwal, Secunderabad.

10. Sri K. Krishan Murty, S/o. Sri K. Venkoba Rao, R/o. H.No.5-83, Gangaputra Colony, Old Alwal, Secunderabad. I l. Sri M. Narsing Rao. Sio Sri M pochaiah. R/o H.No.5-83, (iangaputra Colony. Oltl Alrval, Secunderabad.

12. Sri Ch Appalanaidu, S/o. Sri Ch polipalli. R/o. H. No 5-83, Gangaputra C)olony. Old Alwal, Secunderabad.

13. Sri B Sambasiva Red<iy, S/o Sri B peddapuila Reddy, R/o H.No 5-83, Gangaputra Colony, Old Alwal, Secunderabatl.

14. Sri K. Ramachandra Reddl , S/o Sri K. Venkat Reddy R/o H No 5-83, Gangaputra Colony, OId AIwal, Secunderabad.

15. Sri Guduru Suresh Kurnar, S/o. Ravindemath Chowdary, R/o. Ganapavaram post. Karalapalarn Manda[, Guntur District

16. Sri Kurumaiah, Sio. Sri Angaraiali, R/o. HIG-153, Ushodal,a Enclave, Madinaguda, Miyapur, Hyderabad-5()0 05 0.

17. Sri D Umapatl.ri, S/o Sri Gaj-iaiah, R/o H No.3-5-4911, Surnithra Nagar, Kukatpally. Hyderabad-72. t 8. Sri Allu Bhagarvan, S/o. Sri r\llu Vcnkata Srvanry, R/o. H.No. 2-22-50, Iienadu Socierr,, Kukarpal11,. t{_vderabad-72. ,lB

19. Smt. D. Madhubala, Wo D. Ravindra Babu, R/o C/o Madhu Nursing I-Iome, Veranki Lock post, Pavidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District.

20. Master M Abhishck, S/o. Sri M. Balaramulu, represented by his father, natural guardian Sri M. Balaramulu, Sio Sri M. Naganna, N o 8-3 -224 I I I I N 6, G-93, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad-3 8.

21. Sri K. Nagaiah, S/o. Sri K. Gundanna, R/o H.No 9-l-315115, Laxmi Nagar, Langar I{ouse, Hyderabad.

22. Smt. P. Rajitha, Wo. Sri Gadipally Surender Reddy, R/o Yellamula Village, Jangaon Mandal, Warangal-506 20i 2i. Smt. Saleem Unisa Begum, W/o. Sri. Dr. Syed Abdul Aziz, R/o. H.No.6-2-976, Ftat No.303, Nirvana Pavani Estates, Khairatabad-4.

24. Smt. M. Shailaja. Wo. M. Bhaskar Rcddy, R/o. Quarter No. 89 C, GPRA Campus, Gachiborvli, Hyderabad-3 2.

25. Smt. V. Venkata Ramana, Wo. Sri V. Koteswara Rao, R/o. FI.No. l- l0-58, Street No.2, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad-500 070.

26. Smt. A. Nagamani, W/o. A. Kotesr.vara Rao, t R/o. Sowbhagyanagar Colony, Opp. IDPL colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad-500 03 8.

27. Sri A. Venkat Krislrrra Rao, S/o. Sri A. Koteswara Rao, R/o. Sowbhagyanagar Colony, Opp. IDFL colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad-500 038.

28. Mrs. Waheeda Mahmood Siddiqa, W/o. Dr. Mahmood Ali Khan, R/o. H.No. I 6 -4 -7 82/ 67, Chanchalguda, Hy derabad-24.

29. Mrs. Chandni Begum, Wo, Syed Yousut'Husain, R/o Il.No, I 7-5-513/1, Dabccr Pura, i lyderabad-23.

30. Chappidi Jayabharati D/o. Dr. C. (iovinda Reddy, Nr>.416?0, Gandhi tload, PLodduturu-5 l6i60, Cuddapah Dist 7, L 3 L Mohammed Kaleemullah Zafar, S/o. late Mohd. Ghouse, R/o. H.No.l0-5-6. My Home Glory Apartment, Masab TarJr, Hyderabad 500 028.

32. Sri M. Srinjvasa Rao, S/o. Sri M. Narayana Swamy, R/o. Plot No. 2-1, 'E' Block, Swagruha Apartrnents, Bhagyanagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

33. State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. ... ItespondentsrWrit Petitioncrs

34. State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to MunicipaI Administration and Urban Dcvelopment Depar:rnent. Secretariat, l{yderabad. Respondent No.i3 & 34 Cause Title is amended as per flc,urt Order dated l3.06.2014

35. The Special Deputl' (lollector cum Land Acquisition Officer ([ndustries), Ranga Reddy District, Ilyderabad.

36. The Vice-Chaimran, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad.

37. The Managing Director, Telangana Indusn iaI Infrastructure Corporation, 4'h Floor, Pariskam Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hydcrabad- i8. The Revenue Divisional Oftloer, Chevella Division at Domalguda, Hy-derabad.

39. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilinganrpall.v Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

40. The Station Housc Of tlcer, Raidurg Police Station, Raidurg, Ranga Reddy Disttict.

41. The Commissioner, Serilingampa[[y Municipality, Ranga Reddy District

42. Sri Laxminarayana Pratap Singh, S/o. Late Kalyan Singh, aged about 52 yeals. ,i : I 7/ 4D

43. Smt. Laxminarayana Indrani Bai, Wo. Late Bharat Singh, aged about 37 years

44. Sri Laxminarayana Sanker Singh, S/o. Late Bharat Singh, aged about 25 years.

45. Sri Laxminarayana Samrat Singh, S/o. Late Bharat Singh, aged about 23 years,

46. Sri Laxminarayana Sunil Singh, S/o. Late Bharat Singh, aged about 2l years,

47. Smt. Laxminarayana Chander Bai, Wo, Late Balaji Singh, aged about 47 years.

48. Kumari Laxminaral'ana Renuka Bai, D/o. Late Balaji Singh, aged about l5 y,-'ars, ),

49. Kumari Laxminarayana Durga Bai, D/o. Late Balaji Singh. aged about l2 years, (Respondents 4ti and 49 being rninors rep by their natural mother and guardian Smt. L. (lhandera []ai ic. Respondent No. l6)

50. Sri Laxminarayana Dhanraj Singh, S/o. Late Kalyan Singh, aged about 42 years, (The Respondents 4l to 50 are represented by their G.P.A. holder Sri Laxminara,vana Rajan Singh, S/o. Late Kalyan Singh, Aged abqut 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Nanakamguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal. Ranga Reddy Districr.

51. Sri Amar Singh, S/o. Prakash Singh, aged about 27 years,

52. Sri Sailender Singh, S/o. Prakash Singh, aged about 26 years,

53. Sri Ravinder Singh, S/o. Prakash Singh, aged about 24 years,

54. Sri Devender Singh, Sio. I'rakash Singh, aged about22 years,

55. Sri L. Ramesh Singh, S/o. Late Fathe Singh, agcd about 38 years,

6. Smt. K. Kamala Bai, W/o. Ramcsli Singh, aged about 32 years, 7', S

57. Sri L. Ranjir Singh, S/o. Ramesh Singh, aged about 20 v:ars,

58. Sri L. Ganesh Singh, S/o. Late Fathe Singh, aged abour 36 years, 59. Sri L. Deepak Singh S/o. Late Fathe Singh, aged about.2,s ),ears, (Respondents 51 to 59 a, are agricurturisls and R/o. r.,,-ana* ramguda vilrage, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga R.eddy oistrict ,,ri 20 to 2g are represented by their G.p.A. ho der Sri Laxminarayana l,rakasrr Singh S/o. Late Fathe Singh,.aged about 43 years, O"", Surln".i[,,,], Nu,,ok,.,.,rguda Village, Serilingampally }viandal, Ranga Reddy Disrrict. -Responcrents I 60' Hyderabad District pubric Servants co-c)peraLir.c- flousing S.ciery Ltd-, 9NCO!1, l,r Floor, Telangana Ehavan, Opp: Manaveer Hospital, AC Guards, Hyderabad. i I (Respbndent No.60 impleaded as per courr onrers crarerr i0.04.20 r 3 in W.P.M.p.No.9340 of 20 I 3.) 7 IA NO :1 0F 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 condone the delay of (4BB) days in filing the present Writ Appeal against order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25795 of 2002. lA NO:2 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 suspend the order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25795 of 2002. Gounsel for the Appellants: SRI MALLU NETHAN REDDY, ASST. GP REP. FOR ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Gounsel forthe Respondent No.1,7 to 15 & 26: SRI C. HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2,4 to 6,16 to 20,22to 25,27 to 32: SRI SUDHAKAR RAO AMBATI Counsel forthe Respondent No.3 & 21: SRI HANUMANTH REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.8: SRI AVINASH DESAI, SR. COUNSEL REP. FOR SRI M. PRANAV Counsel forthe Respondent No.10: SRI A. VENKATESH, SR. COUNSEL REP. FOR SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA Counsel for the Respondent No.60: SRI V. VENUGOPALA RAO, SR. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.33,36,38 to 41, 42 to 59: - - - - The Court delivered the following: COMMON ORDER 4 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUIVtr BTIATI'ACTIARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR LA.No.1 OF 2025 IN/AND IIr.A.No.396 OF:1O25 AND I.A.No.1OF 2O25 IN/AND 1V.A.No.1O2O OF 2025 Mr, Mallu Nethan Reddy, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General appea.ring for the appellants. Mr.A. Venkatesh, leamed Senior Counsel representing Mr- Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1O in W.A-No,1O2O and the reipondent Nos.l, 7, 1O, 14 & l9 in W.A.No.396 ol2025. Mr.Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. M. Pranav, leamed counsel appeanng for the respondent No.8 in W.A.Nos- 1O2o alrd 396 of 2025- M..V.Venugopala Rao, Iearned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Srin \',1s Kapatia, learned counsel for the respondent No.60 (Online). COMMON ORDER: {per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattachary r) r. The appellants challenge a common order da l.ed 18.11 .2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in : batch of Writ Petitions. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.Nos.20396,25795 of 2OO2 and 8406 of 201:l inter alia by permitting the writ petitioners to submit representatlons before the official respondents for allotment of an a,lternate lan<[ in lieu of the land acquired, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order and to consider the case of the writ petitioners for allotment of alternate land The respondents were also directed to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date o1'submission of the writ petitioners' representations. z. The appellants before this Court are the Managing Director, Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TIIC) (the appellant in W.A.No.396 of 20251 and the District Collector, Ilanga Reddy 2 --l District, (the appellant in W.A.No.1O2O of 2025). The respondent Nos.l, 7, 8, 10, 14, 19 and 60 (in the two Writ Appeals) a-re represented by learned Senior Counsel.

3. W.A.No.396 of 2025 has been filed with a delay of 460 days and W.A.No. 1O20 of 2025 has been frled with a delay of 488 days.

4. We have taken up the I.As in the two Writ Appeals to decide on the objeclion ofthe respondents to the delay being.condoned.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 7, 8, 10, 14, 19 and 60 with regard to condonation of the delay- The affidavits in the two I.As which seek to explain the delay. The grounds proffered for seeking condonation of the delay are substantially the same in both the I.As.

0. The appellant states in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in I.A.No.1 of 2025 io W.A.No.1020 of 2025 that Assembly Elections in the State of Telangana were concluded on 30. I 1.2023 ar,d the results were announced on 03.12.2023 resulting to a change in Government. It is stated in paragraph 4 that the Elections for the Parliament were announced on 16.03.2024 and the Model Code of Coirduct was enforced leading to the entire machinery of the State being involved in the Elections. Paragraph 6 of the affidavit states that the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District (deponent of the affidavit) assumed charge on 28.1O.2024 ald initiated several 'flagship' programmes. It 7 I is further stiated that the administrative workload i:l the District had increased in view of administrative responsibitilies and land acquisition processes.

7. These are the only grounds stated by the appellant in W.A.No. 1O20 of 2O25 for condonation of the delay of 488 days in filing the Writ Appeal.

8. We nott: that the affidavit falls short of furnishing even the most basic of clarifications including fuhen' the appellant received the impugned common order. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit simply avers that the ordr:r under challenge was received by the office of the appellant 'belbre the General Assembly Elections'. Hence, it is assumed that the Court would do the necessar5r dedtrctions as to the date or time of the appellant's knowledge of the impugned order. The appellant assumes that the delay would be condoned as a matter of right even if the pleadings towards sufliciency of cause are woefully inadequate.

9. In essence, the sole reason given by the appellant in W.A.No.1O2O ol 2O2S to justifu the delay of 488 days is the Assembly Elections of November , 2023 and the Parliamentarl. Elections of March,2024, respectively. In this context, it is importalt to bear in mind that the impugrred common order was passed c,n 18.1 1.2023. The narration of the development works undertaken in Ranga Reddy District from October , 2024 onwards reads like a sr.lf-promotional 4 -' -1 exercise with the assumption that the delay would therefore be condoned. io. We fail to see as to how either the Assembly Elections or the development works undertaken in the District can satisfo the requirement of sufficiency of cause under section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963. Article 117 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 provides for a limitation period of thirty days from the date of the decree/order of a High Court for filing of an intra-High Court Appeal. The delay of 488 days looks humongous in the total insufficiency of the reasons proffered. r 1. The affidavit filed in I.A.No. I of 2025 in W.A.No.396 of 2025 for condoning the delay of 460 days is even more surprising. The appellant herein is the Managing Director of a Corporation (TIIC) who, for reasons unexplained, adopts the grounds given by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District in W.A.No.LO2O ot 2025. In the affidavit, the appellant states that the impugned common order dated

18.11.2023 was dispatched by this Court on 26.12.2024 and was received by the Office of the TIIC ot 07.O9.2O25. The delay of almost two years in receipt of the impugned common order is alarming.

12. The appellant thereafter unquestioningly adopts the reasons given by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District i.e., announcement of Parliamentar5r Elections on 16.03.2024 enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and that the entire machinery of the - I 5 State was involved in the Election process until the conclusion of the Elections on 06.06.2O24. The only additional reason given is that the TIIC took time to obtain lega1 opinion on whethe.r the TllC or the Government should file an Appeal from the impugrtetl common order.

13. As in the other Writ Appeal (W.A.No.1020 of 20251, the affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay does not even attempt to make an effort to furnish any details or particularize the reasons for the delay of 460 days in hling the Writ Appeal.

14. The lack of bona fides of the appellants in filing the Appeals after more lhan 460/488 days would also be evident from a Government Memo dated 17.07.2025 where the tlollector, Ranga Reddy Distri<:t uide letter dated L8.O7.2O25 requested the Vice- Chairman and Managing director of TSIIC, Hydt;rabad, to take immediate necessary action in view of the Contempt Case filed by the respondent. This fact is disclosed by the respondent No.8 in its counler in W.A.No. 1O2O of 2025. is. Signilicantly, the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and TIIC are the two appellants before this Court. It is obvious that the Appeals were filed to undo the damage created in the wake of the letter given by the Collector.

16. The Supreme Court recently considered the impact of delay on the part of the Stale or any of its instrumentalities on public policy: 6 -'1 Shiuamma (Dead) bg .Lrs. Vs. Kantataka Housing Boardt. The conclusion arrived at therein is that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court further directed all High Courts not to condone delays on frivolous ald superlicial grounds until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out and the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout.

17. Assembly Elections and Parliamentary Elections cannot be used as a sufficient reason for condonation of the delay in filing intra-Court Appeals. The lack of particulars with regard to the competent officers and their role in the conduct of elections or formation of Covernment would fall short of the sufficiency criteria for condonation of delay'. The Gout. of Rajasthan Vs. Smt.Prem Kanutar Shaheed Jai Singh2 and Store of H.P. Vs. Jagson International Ltd.3.

18. Several High Courts have reiterated that existence of election duty does not mean that office work should come to a grinding halt particularly in the face of limitation: State of Punjab through Collector, Curdaspur Vs. Inderjit Forestor Aliwal Range, Gurdaspura. Further, delay in obtaining legal opinion cannot be treated as a fail-safe excuse and absolve the applicant from explaining the delay with sufficient details for justifuing the delay: Paulus Vs. The State of Tamil Nodu5. i 202.5 SCC Online SC 1969 2 2Ol5 SCC Onl.ine Raj 4741 3 MANU /HP / 1093/2024 4 20 12 SCC Online P&H 89 1 1 5 MANU/TN/ 1104/ 1994 7 I 7 A Division Bench of this Court in I.A.No. I of 2025 in COMCA.No. i of 2O25 rejecterl the plea for condonation of delay ma:l.e therein on the ground that the State cannot shrug off its respo rrsibility of being diligent in pursuing Appeals

19.. All other considerations apart, condonation of delay is a matter of discretion based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Suffrcient cause' under section 5 of The Limita tion Act, 1963, permitting the appellant/applicant from preferring the Appeal/Applit:ation within the prescribed period, cannot be liberally interpreted where negligence, inaction or lack of bona _fides is stark on the face of the pleadings: Basawaraj Vs. Special l-and Acquisition officefr.

20. In essence, the cause shown must be compelling enough to advance the cause of substantial justice even in light ol'the Appeal not being filed within the statutory time limit. The prayer lbr condonation cannot be borne out of privilege or a sense of entjtlement or an alticipated betrefit for Government departments. A parallel limitation cannot be claimed when the State functionary/department has ) ) t I competent persons who were familiar with Court proceedings: Posf Master General Vs. Liuing Media India LimttedT. The aforesaid case was rendered in 2012. We are now in 2025 where 'cornpetence' would 6 (2013) 14 Suprenre Oourt Cases 81 7 (2Ot2) 3 SCC 563 8 also include technologr-literate with the wherewithal to remain alive and alert to Court proceedings. 2r. We are hence of the firm view that the appellants have failed to make out a case for condoning the delay of 460 days and 488 days, respectively, in filing W.A.Nos.396 and 1020 of 2025, respectively. There is no explanation, even remotely satisfactory, provided by the appellants to fulfill the sufficiency benchmark of 'suffrciency of cause' required for condonation of the delay

22. I.A.No.1 0f 2025 in W.A.No.1020 0f 2025 and I.A.No.1 0f 2025 in W.A.No.396 of 2025 are accordingly dismissed in terms of the above.

23. W.A.Nos.1020 and 396 of 2O25 are accordingly rejected There shall be no order as to costs. ,TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, \ 1 2 4 4 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12 13 Two CCs to ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana' TOUTI iir"o'ic. to GP FoR HoME, High court for the State of Telangana' [oUT]. i;; dc; io e p roH uNo noMtrutsrRATloN, High court for the state of Telanoana. [OUT] r*o icl to'cF FbR MUNIcIPAL ADMINlsrRATloN & URBAN oEVif-biHaEflT, High Court for the State of Telangana' [oUT] o"d c-c t" sdt siitttivnsn RAo PACHWA, Advocate t-o^P-t/.c^1. o;; aa io SHi SuonnKARA RAo AMBATI, Advocate [oP.!pl on; ca io Snt n. HANUMANTHA REDDY, Advocate IoPUC] One CC to SRI M. PRANAV, Advocate IOPUCI o;; ac 6 SRi c. IvIADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate [!t-PUc] o;; ac io Snt c. HANUMANTHA RAo, Advocate [o?.ucl - - ^- o;; ac io sni tr,t. DHANANJAY REDDY, sc FoR EqD4^tq.qq.cl il; ca i" Sni v. vENUGoPALA RAo, sR couNSEL IoPUC] Two CD CoPies BN, HIGH COURT DATED:1011112025 r-:,;- 3TA r(' o(J I'r N0X ?S6 * D o * COMMON CTRDER

1.A. No.1 of 2025|N/AND W.A. No.: 396 OF 2A'.25 & LA. No.1 of 2025IN/AND W.A. No.: 1020 OF 2025 DISMISSING BOTH THE WRIT APPEALS & lAs WITHOUT COSTS @ q( 01,) t\ I