High Court · 2025

Commissioner,Swarna Jayanthi Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Road, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-500008.

3. The Municipal Commissioner, Manikonda Ir4unicipality [Vlanikonda, R.R.District.

4. The Telugu Cine Workers Chitrapuri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Rep by its President Sri Anil Kumar Vallabhaneni, Regd.No.TBC-608, Chitrapuri Hills, . Manikonda Jagir, Village, Gandipet lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndja praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 herein in issuing Speaking Order to the 4th Respondent Society vide Notice No.6B06/G1lUMPS/[UNt(2024, dated 22-10-2024 by directing the Society the 4th Respondent herein to remove/ demolish the additional unauthorized construction without issuing notice to the Row house owners is bad in law and arbitrary and against principles of Natural Justice, and thereby 4th Respondent also threatening Ihe 225 Row House owners vide notice dated 2311012024 to remove the additional unauthorized constructions which are exceeding to the submitted revised plans, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the Principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents not to resort to any forceful removal/demolition of 225 Row Houses at Chitrapuri Colony and without following the due procedure pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pass an interim direction directing the Respondents 3 and 4 not to resort to demolition of 225 Ro a' Houses at chitrapuri corony in pursuant t( the speaking order vide issued rJ,:tice No.6806/G'r/UC/TpsiMNK/2o24, dare,d 22-rc;-2024 issued by the 3rd Re;pondent Manikonda Municiparity and thereby notice dated 23-10-2024 issued b1' the 4th Respondent Society pending dispos ar of the main Writ Petition. lA NO:1 OF 2025 Petition under rlection '1 51 cpc praying that in the circums tances stated in the affidavit firea in r;upport of the petition, the High court may re preased to direct the 4th Respc'ndent society to stop issuance of any n )tices to the Petitioners with the rr:'gard to the subject matter invorved in W.F.No.3113g of 2024till thefinal disposat of theW.p.No.3113Bof 2024. counsel for the petiti.ners: SRr y.sRrNrvASA MURTHY, sENroR (:ouNSEL counserrortheRespc,no"",*o.!?E"tH-'#3"?t^"JiliTl*"o.o., counser for the Respc ndent No.2: sRr v.NARASiMHA GouD, sc r on inoe counsel for the Respcndent No.3: sRr LAXMAIAH'KANCHANT. sc troR Mpcl counser for the Respondent No.4: snr rvr.pnniliK REDDY /sRr rc\DryALA RAVICHANDRA MOHAN W.P.NO:48 51 0F 2021 Between:

1. Chitrapun Hills Rcw House. Owners Welfare Association, (Reoistered under Andhra pradesh (;o_on^ep31iys soci.tlei nti i'iriigGa ,i,i".;;,;;;;;;";,il;: TBC.-608 dated oalow*isal - nvo.""Lrc' arJ"k L .r .r, U rir No.101 Dr.M.prabhakar fr+cidv..chitrapuri coronvlrr,'r-,ii"*lno, lrgii, n"ri;noLrxil".i ^ S?pqF"ody.Rcp, oi tts ei"Tia"nii.V.l.'ruri?ri]inu n"" z. r.v.L.t\arasrmna -<ao. S/o. L.Narayan Murthy Rl/o. Unil. No 6, Bhavana Towers, TL Kaoa<Jja r ane, somilgu-d; rrfjii-rpJfl,v, Hyderabad. 3. Ravindrnath riqor: Jasti, S/" Jlt\ili;r;;;;;'fu; R/o. HtG e, Unit No.704 Chitrapuri Cotonv. rlhitrapuri Hiils, M;;k;;;;'fti"iorunrsrr, Rar sareddy. 4. Udav Shankar yadtanatf s/o. i.$'dfi"*;'ii;;. H.No.2_2_1, 23t2A. unit -rrl-",j, -N","i6ir;i;: No. t 01, Sai Bha s,kaia nro Secunderabad, Hr<lerabad. 5. Nageswar Rao A t uri. S/o. pundarikakshayya Rl/o. plot No. I 4 No 202 Srikara Residencv. Jaoruthi Coio;y, ti;il;iri,rSEririnsarpa,y, Rrnoa Reddv 6. Krishna Rao Veiiroa"sto. V.Lr'r.'.'njrilrilirl]'I.r.ro.3_5_.106/(rS/402. Ft;t No.402. om Sai N iiyam, Srinivas;N;s;;:K,jkrlpJlry, v"o.h"r. I r.ro -"nlj,"];;"ffi L"nL. ^A - AND ..,PETITIONERS 'l . The Government of rerangana, Department of Municipar Administration and '- Urban. Development, Hyderabad, T'elangana Represehted Oy its Frincipai Secretary 2. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Swarna Jayanti Complex. Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Road. Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, HyOerabad _ , 500038. Represented by its Metropolitan Cdmmissioner 3. The Commissioner, IVlanikonda Municipality, Manikonda, Ranga Reddy a A.P, Cine Workers Co-operative housing society Limited, Dr.M.prabhakar Reddy Chitrapuri Colony, Khajaouda, Nanakramquda (Br.p.o). Golconda - (?,O)^E S..Pistrict,tlyderabad - 500 008 Represe.-nted by its iiesident. ' 5. M/s. SVRM lnfra, Row House 65, Chitrapuri Colony, lr/anikonda Jagir. Khajaguda, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Managing part'ner. trlr. Monan Heddy. District ,..RESPONDENTS 1 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 pass an order or orders or writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents in taking action against the illegal constructions being undertaken by the 4th and Sth Respondents by constructing four extra row houses in between unit Nos. 22-23.26-27 in the area earmarked for internal road and two extra row houses by encroaching the Tor Lor area Nos. 1B and 19 beside Unit No. 75 and -13 respectively, earmarked for children play areas, parks, community halls. temple. clubhouse in Sy.No.24611 admeasuring Ac. 67.16 Gts situated at Manikonda Village, Rajendranagar lVlandal, Rangareddy District, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to building permission vide permit No. 2920lGHS/coA dated 1610312009 issued by 2nd respondent and the provisions of Hyderabad lMetropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008 (herein after referred as Act) besides being violative of petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 300(4) of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to demolish the above said illegal constructions being carried out by the 4th and 5th respondents. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section l51 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 respondents No. 'l to 3 to forthwith stop the illegal constructions being carried out by 4th and 5th respondents in respect of four extra row houses in between unit Nos' 22-23, 26-27 it the area earmarked for internar road and two extra row houses by encroachirrll the Tor Lor area Nos. 1B and 1g beside Lrnit No. 75 and 1 13 respectivery, ars. any other constructions which is earmarke! for Tor Lor areas, children play areas, parks, community halls, temple, clubhouse in Sy.No.24611 admear;uring Ac. 67.16 Gts situated at Manik:nda Village. Rajendranagar [\4andz I Rangareddy District. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under sroction 1sl cpc praying that in the circumsta,rces stated in the affidavit filed in s rpport of the petition, the High Court may I re pleased to permit the petitioner to amend and aflow the foflowing: a) amend of ti,e cause Tifle of the petitioner No 1 as ,,Chitrapuri Hills Row House Ow rers Welfare Association, (Regrsten:ri under Terangana Societies Registration A;t, 2001 vide registration No 866 0f 1'020 dated 03.10.2020), Rro. LrG Brock l--.1 1, Unit No.101, Dr. M. Prabhakar Re,i Jy Chitrapuri Colony, Manikonda Jagir, Rr jendernagar, Ranga Reddy, Rep. by ts president y.V. L. Narasirnha Rao,,, b) ,amerrd the Cause Title of the Responderrr No. 3 as "Manikonda Municiparity, rVlanik,nda, Ranga Reddy District, Represe':nted by its commissioner", c) amend the preadings in para-No. 3 0f writ Affi,avit as "r state that the 1st petitioner is ar Association registered under the pr(,visions of Telangana Societies Registration A )t, 2001 vide Registration No. 866 cf 2O2O dated 03. I 0.2020 which was forrned by the purehaser/allotees of rc,w houses after allotting _the row houses by the 4th Respondent." Counsel for the petitiorrers: SRI M.K.VISWANATH NAIDU Counsel for the Respor dent No.1: Gp FOi ftiCpi_ lonf ru & URBAN I)EV Counset for the Resporctent No.2: Snl V.f.teinSf fr,iHA GOUD, SC FCR HMDA Counset for the Responctenr No.3: SR, LAxMAi;ii'KANcHANt, Sc F:)R MpcL Counset for rhe Respondent No.4: SRI tr/,.piil+;ti REDD' /SRt KAI)I'ALA counsel for the Respondent No.5: -- RAVICHANDRA MoHAN W.P.NO: 26005 OF 2023 Between: Maddineni Ramesh Babu, S/o.Kotaiah, Age 52 years, Occ Film Director, HIG 6, Flat No.104, Chitrapuri Hills, Manikonda Jagir, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District AND ...PET|T|ONER

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Hyderabad metropolitan Development authority, Swarna complex, Ameeret, Hyderabad.

3. The Telugu Cine Workers Cooperative Housing Society, Rep By its President, TBC 608, Chitrapuri Head Office, Chitrapuri Colony, Hyderabad - 500104 Anil Kumar Vallabhaneni, S/o. V.Nagheswara Rao, Age 4'l years, Occ Movie Artist, Rl/o. Chitrapuri Colony, Hyderabad-SO0 104 4. The Commissioner, Manikonda Municipal Corporation, Ranga Reddy District. (R4 is impleaded as per C.O.dl. 26.12.2024 in lA No.212023.) ...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 order or direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l/andamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent 2, Dated 2410712023 for not considering Petitioner representation revised layout sent by the 3rd respondent society shall not deviate Tot area, roads and common area sanctioned as per the original approval No.2920/GHS/CDA/2005 and to thoroughly verify the Hyderabad metropolitan development authority approved plan and the proposed revised layout shall not be approved as it is not followed the norms of HMDA and also violates the rules and regulations of the Hyderabad metropolitan development authority and there by causing great loss to the interest of 4300 members of the 3rd respondent society as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and further it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent not to approve Revised layout plan if deviates the original layout plan if deviates Totlot area road and common areas and shall not approve the revised layout plan without conducting thorough enquiry, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under {)ection 151 CPC praying that in the circr.r m st.l nces stated in the affidavit filed in srrr:port of the petition, the High Court may be p eased to direct the 2nd Respondent rot to approve Revised layout plan if Cevia es the original layout plan if deviatel; Totlot area roads and common_areas and sl- all not approve the revised layout pl:r r without conducting thorough enquiry, pend ing disposal of the Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Srection '1 51 cPC praying that in the circumstirnces stated in the affidavit filed in sr pport of the petition, the High court may be pl:ased to direct the respondent No.2 not to accord the permission to the 3rd respcndent society for the proposed con:, ruction of G+17 floors in 1 5,37g Sq l\,4eters ( Ac. 3.0g gts ) without verification of FTL area as per the original layout approva vide plan No. 29201 GHsl cDA / 2rll5 dated 24.07.2009, pending disposal of the writ petition No.26005 of 2023. Counsel for the Petitloners: SRt Y.SRIN|VASA MURTHY, SENIOR ,3OUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M.PRATEEK REDDY /SRl tiADlyALA FOR SMT. UMA DEVI NAMA Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, SC FOR MPCL RAVICHANDRA MOHAN The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 31138 0F 2024, 4851 0F 2021 AND 2600soF 2023 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, leamed Senior Counsel' representing Smt. Uma Devi Nama, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned standing counsel appearing for Manikonda Municipality, Sri V'Narasimha Goud' leamed standing counsel appearing for HMDA and Sri M' Prateek Reddy and Sri Kadiyala Ravichandra Mohan, leamed couirsel appearing for resPondent No.4.

2. Since the parties are common and the lis involved in these writ petitions and subject property is one and the same' these three writ petitions are being heard together and disposed of by way of common order:

3. Vide G.O.Ms.No.658 dated 04'07 '1994' erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh, has altotted land to an extent of Ac.67.18 guntas in Sy-No.246l1 situated at Manikonda Jagir Village' Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District presently within Manikonda Municipality (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property') -* - .1 2 KL,J \\'PNolll 8of2024& balch in favour of tire A.P. Cine Workers Co-operative Housi rg Society Limited (hereirr'rfter referred to as 'the Society') on ceftain conditions specifically mt:ntioned in the said G.O. that i) the land slrall not be sold for next trn years, ii) the land shall be used tbr cons:ruction of flats, instead ol allotment of individuat plots. This will acc ommodate more people and at the same time prevent sale of land, the construction stall take place in the next three years, i:ii) 50% of the plots shall be a llotted to workers and technicians, who z le staying outside the Ste.te. The Government has appointed -5 rnen :ommittee out of which tvro may be from the Film Industry and tlrree Members from the Gove rnrnent consisting of Commissioner, Inforn ration and Public Relations, Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Collector, Ranga Reddy l)istrict. The said Committee shall rnade the said allotments

4. There rfter, the Society has submitted an applica ion dated

09.02.2009 witrr I'IMDA seeking permission. Vide lerrer dated

16.03.2009, HI\4DA has accorded approval for the same w th ceftain conditions and intbrmed the then Manikonda Jagir Graml anchayat, stating that it sl- e:[ ensure that the open plots shall be developed by the applicant as per the sanctioned plan etc. \ a.* .;, l KL.J WP No.ll ll8 ol-2024 & batch

5. Thus, permission for constmction of 225 flats was granted' There are disputes among the Members of the said Society. There is also an allegation against the petitioners and the Members of the Society that they are making additional constructions. Therefore, the 1" petitioner/Chitrapuri Hills Row House Owners Welfare Association and 5 others (hereinafter referred to as 'Association') filed W.P.No.485 1 of 2A2l to declare the action of the HMDA and Manikonda Municipality in not taking action against the illegal constructions being undertaken by respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein by constructing four extra row houses in between Unit Nos.22-23,26-27 in the area earmarked for internal road and two extra row houses by encroaching the TOT LOT area Nos.18 and 19 beside Unit Nos'75 and 113 earmarked for children play areas, parks, community halls, temple, clubhouse in the subject property.

6. Vide order dated 19.03.2021, this Court directed Manikonda Municipality to inspect the subject land, and if the allegations made by the said Association that the buildings are being constructed by unofficial respondents (R.4 and 5 therein) in common area, which was earlier earmarked for road, TOT LOT etc., are found to be true, he I i I I I 4 K L.J WIr N.r ll 38 of2024& batch shall immediirr.ely stop the construction or seize the p,remises in question.

7. Sri Ntaddineni Ramesh Babu, claiming to be the \4ember.of the Society an,l 1'' petirioner Association fited W.p.No.26(o5 of 2023 to consider the representation submitted by hirn reqr.resti rg HMDA and Manikonda Municipality to accord permission complrining that the Society i:i approaching HMDA and Manikonda Municipality seeking reviserl lay out, as illegal.

8. The srid Society has filed W.p.No.23772 of 2024 to declare the action of IIYDRAA, HMDA, GI{I\4C, Manikonda Mr nicipality, more particularty, Manikonda Municipality in passirrg o.der dated

23.08.2024, dir:cting to remove/demolish the 225 row houses at Chitrapuri Co ony while the matter regarding the ilL:gality or otherwise of tl-re said construction is pending considcration in W.P.No.4581 of 2021 and W.p.No.26005 of 2023, as illegal.

9. Vide c,rder dated 13.08.2024, this Court disposed r f the said writ petitiotr <lirecting to treat the impugned proceedir Lgs dated

23.08.2024 (spt:aking order ) as show cause notice, and to ;ubmit an explanation within (07) days from today along with the documents, which the petiticner intend to rely upon. On petitioner subn itting the \ I .,,/ 5 KL.J wP No.i I 138 of2024 & barch explanation and documents as permitted to be filed by this Court, the 5th respondent-authority shall consider the same and pass an order afresh, in accordance with law

10. Thereafter, Manikonda Municpatity has passed speaking order dated 22.10.2024 stating that the Association has been examined in view of the orders passed by this Court dated 13.08.2024 in W.P.No.23772 of 2024 and directed to submit revised approval on 225 row houses within two months and it has been noticed that some individual owners of the row houses have proceeded with additional construction apart from the revised plan submitted before HMDA. Therefore, Manikonda Municipality, directed the President of the Society, to remove/demolish the additional unauthorized construction which is exceeded to the submitted revised plan, within 15 days, failing which, action will be taken against them as per the Telangana Municipalities Act,2019 (for shorl, 'the Act, 2019').

11. HMDA has filed counter in W.P.No.26005 of 2023 contending - that HMDA accorded permission for multi-storeyed building blocks, row housing and EWS/LIG in Sy.No.246ll of Manikonda Jagir Village to an extent ofAc.66-07 guntas belongs to the Society --1 6 KI,.J WP No I I I 18 of 202.1 & hatch

12. The cetails of the said approvals are as follorvs:- lst Approval Lr. No. 2().10/GHS/CDA/Plg/HMDA/2005. dr. I 6.0i.2009 1- IIIG tllook 't2 No's 720 units) with Cellar + Srilt,r [2 ltpper lrIrors, 2. MIG Block 1000sft (10 No's I176 units) with Cellar +. Slilr - 12 tjppcr Floors,

3. MIG Blocl. 750sft (2 No's-192 units) with Celtar + Stitt 2 Upper Floors, 4. LIG Btock 450sft-1728 units (t4 No,s with Cellar - Sritt - 2 Upper Floors & 4No' ; with Stilt + l2 Upper Fl6ors)

5. EWS Block i:50 sft (7 No's-656 units) wirh Stilt + 4 Upper Floor;

6. Rorv Ilouscl;-225 units with Ground + I Upper Floor 2nd Approval Revision of E\VS/I-lG units (Lr. No. 2920lrjils/cDA/ptg/HMD N2005, dt. 24.07.2009 l. EWS Block 190.97sft (7 No,s-224 units) wirh Srilt + 4 Uppt:r Flo rrs

2. LIG Block 38Osft (6 No's-320 unirs) wirh Stilt + 5 Upper FIoor.s

3. LIG Blook 38Osft (6 No's-384 units) wirh Ground + 5 [_rpper liloc rs 4. LIG Block.]80sft (14 No's 948 units) wirh Cellar + Ground + 5 Upper Floors

5. EWS Block 250 sft (7 No's-656 unirs) with Srilt + 4 Upper lrloors 6. Ror.r Houses-.125 units with Ground + I Upper Floor

13. It is firrther contended that the Society has c,on51,1g1s6 ,i, houses, two h(nrses were constructed in extra TOT LOl area on corner bits and a.nother 4 houses were constmcted on 60 f-et.t intemal road without a-ry approval. HMDA had issued permission to 225 I I l ,,./ |, ,/' 7 KL.J wP No.ll l-18 of2024 & batch houses, but the Society has constructed additional 6 row houses without any permission from HMDA. HMDA had issued a letter to the local municipality to act upon such consttuction, and the local municipality has already issued notices to the said Society and seized the unauthorized six houses.

14. The Manikonda Municipality has filed counter in W.P.No.31138 of 2024 contending that though permission was accorded for construction of 225 row houses, some Members of the Society in collusion with the Society proceeded with the additional construction without obtaining prior permission, which is iltegal' They have also constructed six additional row houses apart from 225 row houses. Therefore, Manikonda Municipality has already demolished four row houses and in respect of the balance two row houses, it has also issued notices to the occupants and it witl take action against them in accordance with law. Manikonda Municipality has also passed speaking order dated 07.01.2025 in respect of other two row houses directing them to remove/demolish the additional unauthorized construction, within l5 days, failing which necessary action will be taken in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Act, 2019, The said speaking order is placed on record' 8 KI .J UIP No ll 1 i8 of2024 & balch

15. Tht: aforesaid facts would reveal that the erstwhile Govemment olAndhra Pradesh has allotted the aforesaid lrnd to the Society, rvith rrri object to develop film industry in Hydera rad so that thc film industry including the cine workers will shift llrom Madras to Hyderabad. TIr,: Govemment has appointed 5 Men Cor mittee lor allotment. Tht Society has obtained permission from FTMDA for construction ol 225 row houses. Admittedly, six rorv i-rc uses were constructed in Ceviation to the said building permit order. l.4anikonda Municipatity has already demolished four row houses and in respect of the two une uthorized row houses, it has already passe< speaking order dated 0i.01 .2025. Therefore, Manikonda Municipality has to execute the sa'cl speaking order 07.01 .2025 and dem,rlish t[-re other two ro\\. l-rouses strictly in accordance with the proceclure taid down under the Act, lltl19. I 6. The rllegation with regard to increase in the built up area from 1560 to 2150 sft, in compliance with the order dated I 1.0g.2024 in W.P.No.23',''r2 of 2024, Manlkonda Municipality hiLs passed speaking order dated 22.10.2024. perusal of the saicl orc er would reveal that th : Manikonda Municipality has stated tlrat some individual o\ rn(r's of the Society have made additional cons tructions. '\ // ,,,', ,// 9 KI- J WP No.3l ll8 of2024 & batch Therefore, Manikonda Municipality directed the President of the said Society to remove /demolish the Additionat rrnauthrozied construction which is exceeded the revised plan, within 15 days. Thus, admittedly, the said speaking order dated 22.10.2024 is without putting the petitioner Nos.2 to 46 in W.P.No.31138 of 2024 on notice and without affording them an opportunity. Therefore, the impugned speaking order dated 22.10.2024 is liabte to be set aside only on the said ground since it is the violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down under the Act,2019.

17. At this stage, Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, leamed Standing Counsel, on instructions, would submit that despite direction of this Court, neither the ls petitioner Association nor the Society has fumished the details of the Members of the owners of the said 225 row houses. However, 2nd respondent will serve notices on the petitioners by sending the same to the addresses mentioned by them in the cause title of W.P.No.3 I138 of 2024. W.P.No.31l38 of 2024:-

18. In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned speaking order dated 22.10.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to Manikonda Municipality with a l0 t 1_,1 wP N. -11 ll8 o1202:1 & barch direction to put the petitioners 2to 46, HMDA, Society arrd all the interested parlie s on notice, affording them an opportunitl' t f hearing and pass orde'':; afresh. He shall consider the aforesai,l aspects inctuding the a;;rect of submission of revised plan and per Ldency of the same with HMDA, conditions imposed vide G.O,Ms.No.658, dated 04.07. 199 zt. He shall also consider the allegation:r mar le against the Society, its ldembers that they are making alterations, rdditional construction in leviation to the approvals granted by HMDA, th,at too, during pendency of application seeking revised plan/approv rl etc. He shall serve no.ices on the petitioners 2 to 46 on the addresses mentioned in ttu: cause title, He shall pass orders afresh w ithin four (4) weeks lronr the date of receipt of a copy of this o'der. The petitioners in lM.P.No.3l138 of 2024 shall cooperate with the Commissioner, Manikonda Municipality ln completing the said enquiry, lailing which,, matter will be viewed seriousily. T hereafter, subject to resu[, of the same, he shall take action in accord mce u,ith W.P.No.485l of 2021-

19. As dirrcussed supra, Manikonda Municipalitl, has already demolished lou'row houses constructed over and above th< 225 row 1 \ KL.J WP No I I ll8 of2024 & batch houses and in respect of two row houses, it has already passed speaking order dated 07.01.2025.It is going to execute the same.

20. [n view of the above submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing Manikonda Municipality to take further action pursuant to the speaking order dated 07.01.2025 within four (4) weeks lrom the date of receipt of copy of this order W.P.No.26005 of 2023:-

21. As discussed supra, it is the specific contention of the HMDA that Sri Maddineni Ramesh Babu, the petitioner, is not a Member of the aforesaid Society. Therefore, he cannot submit representation dated 24.07.2023 and seek a direction to HMDA not to consider the revised layout

22. This writ petition is disposed of directing the HMDA to consider the representation dated 24.07.2023 submitted by the petitioner Sri Maddineni Ramesh Babu, and dispose it olf in accordance with law and communicate a copy of the said order to the petitioner. He shall complete the said exercise within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order-

23. HMDA shall also consider and dispose of application dated

03.10.2024 submitted by the Society seeking revised plan and pass ) ) I I \r\l \I l \ l2 xt-.J WP \o i ll:8 of2024 & batch appropriate or(iors strictly in accordance with law and cornr nunicate a copy of the sairl order to the said Society

24. I1- HlvfDA is not inclined to accept the request rnrde by the Society to revise plan/approval, it shall assign specifir: reasons, pass order, commur icate a copy of the said order to the Societl . He shall complete the sirid exercise within a period of four (4) rveek; from the date of receipt,;f a copy of this order. Consequ:ntly, miscellaneous petitions pending, if an r, in these writ petitions sh:r[[ stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYASREE STAN'I REGISTRAR \ ASSI "SEC ION OFFICER To 2 1 The Principal Slicletary, tVlunicipal Administration ,ndturbrn D,:velopment Department Dr El.R.Ambedkar, Telangana State Secretariat Br,,ildingi Hyderabad, Stzrte of Telangana The Commissir,rre_r, Hyderabad Metropolitan Developmen: Auflrority (HIMDA), Swarna Jayant ri Complex,-Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Road, Srini rasd Nagar, ' Ameerpet, Hyd erabad-500008. The ltrlunicipal (lommissioner, Manikonda tMunicipality Manikon Ca, R. R. District. One CC to SIr,4-- UIVA DEVI NAlVtA, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to GF' FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DfV, Uigfi Cour for the State of Telangana, z t Hyderabad. [OUT] one cc to SRt t.AXMA|AH KANCHhN|, SC FOR MPCL topuol One CC to SRI \/.NARAS|MHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA tbpuc i One CC to SRI It,4.PRATEEK REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl' One CC to SRI IGDIYALA RAVTCHANDRA MOHAN, Advocate topUCl Two CD Copies 0 6 7 o o 'l 4 5 PSK. GJP \ \ HIGH COURT' DATED:0510312025 ) COMMON OR.DER WP.Nos.31138 OF 2024,4851 OF 2021 AND 26005 oF 2023 q )3 e4 Atii 2[25 -?- 7 o r.,t;. ALLOWING THE W.P.No.31138 OF 2024 AND DISPOSING C)F THE W.P.NOS.4851 OF 2021 AND 26005 OF 2023 WITHOUT COSTS u le6 l