The High Court · 2025

Baddam BhH?al Reddv, S/o. Baddam Lachi Reddy, Aged' .54 years, occ' Huslness' rvo' ii.r.rl,ii'-irjd, N;;; obvt. S;noo[-kuntioor Villale, Abdullapunrlet Mandal' R.R.District. years' Occ' Business' Bommakanti Yadagiri, S/o. B. Lachaiah' nge, !'l . H6.ii.1J.i+a, Froilrrci.ZeS, noaO r'lo.tZ, trteai Asntalikshmi Temple, Vasavi Colony, Saroor Nagar, R.R.District. PolioakaSrikanth,s/o.P.Narasimha,Age'-32yea$,--Occ..Business' hiJ.'ri.N".a:i5-, Village, Abdullapurmet lvtandal, R'R'District' 'r.rriipali" The State of Telangana, Rep. by. its . Principal Secretary' Revenue o6part-rient, Secretariai suiidings, Saifabad, Hyderabad' ...APPELLANTS

2. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA)' Rep -' c6mm6iioner, Swami-Jiyanthi C6mplex, S'RNagar' Srinivasa Ameerpet, HYderabad - 500 038. by its Nagar,

3. The District Collector' Rangareddy District at Kongarakalan' 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hayathnagar Revenue Division' R'R'District 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahimpatnam Revenue Division' R.R.District.

6. The Tahsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Abdullapurmet Mandal' R'R'District' 7. The Sub-Registrar, Hayathnagar, R'R'District' 8. Smt. M.Pushpanjali, Wo. Late Anian Kumar " Eli,j."iiJro-,-rio.H. 11116. r o-l'r --oso, c ai iannara m, Di lsukhnag ar, Hyderabad. g.M.SrinivasGoud,S/o.LateM.AnjanKumarGoud,Aged36years,occ.Pvt. " 5;;i;;, Fv; io-Jr -oso, c'aadiann'aram, Dilsukhnasar' Hvderabad' Age 56 years' Occ' -Goud'

10.M. Kum{.Rgjq,.S{o- Latg M {njan Kumar Goud, Aged 33 years, Occ. pvt. Service, R7o. H. No. 1 6-1 1 -656, Gaddiannaram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. '1 1.M. Vinay Kum:rr, S/o Late M Anjan Kumar Goud, Aged 33 vears. Occ. pvt. Service, R/o.H.No.16-1 j-656, Gaadiannaram, Dilsukh"nagar, tivr,"iiUi;. '- 12. T.Gurubrahmaiah, S/o T _Venkata pwamy, Aged 49 years, Occ. Business, .1 .1 part tndrapraiiha*Cotony, er;OtigrOi- Uppat, Rl/o H.No 1.2-1-?O2t1O, Medchal-Malkalgiri District. 14

15. S

13.A. Krishna Prasad Reddy, S/o A. Sura Reddy, Aged 65 years, Occ. Retd. Bank Employee. Rt/o.H.No.2-2-23, ptot ruo. 1OOJ Road 'No.B.' Arunod;;; Nagar Colony, t\agole, Uppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. P-yi:Il:!Ir.,_Dllveloqers, 2-2-23, ptot.No_100, Road No.8, Kalyan Nitayam, Arunooaya Nagar Colony, Nagole, Hyderabad. H .l1rl.Iilng.Ylo.. Pradeep,. Agqd about 42 y ears, Occ. House Wife, Rl/o No. 1ti-z-l38,/F, Admangadh, T.V. Tower, Malakpet, Hyderabad. 16. Sajja Pramod (umar, S/o. Late S. Venkateshwar Rao. Reo bv P.wgTy,.Aged about 72 Years, R/o. H.No.16_2_73BlFl4, Rsmang'a Malakpet Police Station, Amberpet, Malakpet Colony, HVOeraOaj, iJ S. Jaya dh, Near langana. 17. Dr. Ravinder Kumar. \r^S^q.!q, Sio. N. Venkataiah, Aged about 5S) years, Occ. Doctor, R/o. H No.1.-.120lM/Varuna/506, My Homel N;;;A;;pa: riisl_Iech City, Madhapur, Shaikpet, Hyderabad, T6tangana. Years, Occ. Busi ness, Fi./o. 9-7-52 (New),'yaiJagiri Cblony. 18 9lgghqlg Sripat Reddy, S/o. Dachartapaily pratap Reddy, Aged about 44 'l9.Smt. Komat Aoanara! _{{O.^lqOesh Agarwal, Aged about 26 years, Occ. House wife, alo. zt-i-szz, chet5il;;; iiyjliilb"o, rerinsina. -

20.Sai Harshitha Sesham, Dlo. Not Known, Aged about. \ot Known, Fl/o.H.No.16-2-738tFt4, Admangadh, TV. Towrjr, UEtat pJt, iryt"rr"Olo.'""" tA No: 3 oF 2024 "'RESPONDENTS Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in slrpport of the petition, ine Hign court may be pteaseJ to suspend the order cf the learned singre Judge in wp No.?-641sr2o23, dt.2211212023, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Senior Counsel, . counsel for the Respondents No.1&3to7: SRt MURALIDHAR REDDY KATRAM, counser ror the Respondents No.2 , rrr.S.t lB[XrlY5]?to* ,rro Counsel for the Respondents No.8to14 : SRI SRIRAM POLALI Counsel for the Respondents No.l7&i9 : SRI S.SRIDHAR rep., MS.VEDULA CHTTRALEKHA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT l I rlN THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.1O79 OF 2o24 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sm' Justice Renuka Yara) Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, iearned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents No. t and 3 to 7; Ms. D. Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, appearing for respondent No'2; Sri Sriram Polali, learned counsel for respondents Nos.8 to 14 and Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos'17 and 19. Perused the record.

2. This appellants/ petitioners, aggrieved by the interim order dated intra-court appeal hled by is an

22.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.26415 of 2023 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

3. In the aforesaid Writ Petition, the petitioners sought two interim reliefs, one is to direct respondent No.2 not to entertain any application made by respondent Nos.12 and 14 with reference to land in Sy.Nos.204 and 2O8 of Kuntlur Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for gralting lay out permission and \"v -/ 2 another one is to direct respondent No.6 to corLsider the representations Cated 04.O5.2O23, O1.06.2022 and 21.06.2).023 of the petitioners for inrplementation of the orders of the Special 'l'ribunal in Case No.Ds/SIi 1168l2O2l (old D5/ll8\l2O2Ol ernd Case No.D5l799 1202 I (old A2l02l2O2O) dated 19.06.2021 .

4. This Court uide interirrl order, dated 22.09.2023, directed respondent No.(r to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.O6.2023 rvithin two weeks, but the learned Single Judge was not inclined to direct the respondent No.2 not to enl ertain the application of rr:spondent Nos. 12 and 14 in granting the lay out permission. Thereafter, when the respondent Nos.S, 9 anrl 11 to 14 approached resp,lndent No.2 for grant of layout permission, the same was rejected referring to the Court order dated 22.O9.2023. Respondent No.2t informed that the permission cannot be accorded and the matter was kept on hold till the dispute is settled.

5. In that reg,ard, when the respondents approached tLre learned Single Judge, since no interim relief was granted in favc,ur of the petitioners in clirecting respondent No.2 not to consider the application for gJrant of lay out permission, on 22.12.2.023, tine learned Single Judge passed an order, which reads as follorvs: there s.hall be interim direction to respondent No.2 to consider th,: appiication submitted by respondent Nos.B, 9, I 1 3 to 14 vacate petitioners for lay out permission in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.204 and 2O8 part of Kuntloor Village, without referring to the order passed by this Court in this writ petition dated 22.09.2023 and letters of respondent No.2 in Lr. No.OO269l LOl HMDA/ 0 065 I GHT I 2023 dated 03. | 1.2023 Lr.No.OOO269lLOIHMDA/0065lGHTl2023 dated 24.Lt.2023."

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed emphasizing that I.A.No.1 of 2023 in the Writ Petition is filed to direct respondent No.2 not to entertain any lay out application with respect to the subject land and during pendency of the said application, the impugned order cannot be passed. 7 . Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the relief granted to the respondents far exceeds the prayer in the main writ petition and that there is no prayer by respondent Nos.g to 11 seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to consider their lay out application with respect to the subject property'

8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.ll to 14 would submit that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge as the order d'ated 22.12.2O23 was passed only by way of clarihcation to the order dated 22.09.2023. The record revea'ls that the appellants frled I.A.No.1 of 2023 under Section 151 of CPC praying as follcj*.tL- -/ 4 to dire ct resPondent No'2 not to entertain anY a'PPlication made by rt:spondent Nos' 12 and I4 ovel the land in fiy'Nos'2O4 and 208 of Kuntlur Village, Abrlullapur Met Mantlal' Ranga Reddy District lbr granting any lay out pending disp'rsal of the writ Petition '" It is the zrppellants who have approacherl this Court seeking g. relief against the respondents' Therefore' the learned Single Judge hastoconsidertheentitlementoftheappellantsforgrantofreliefin the writ petition and the interim applications' There is no scope for grant of positive relief to responrlent Nos'S' 9' 11 to 1"f in. a writ petition hled bY the aPPe'llarts'

10. Upon reaCing the order d'ated' 22'L2'2023' it appeulrs that the learned Single Judge only intended to give clarificatior: about the scope of the ir.terim ord'er granted in favour of the appe1lants uide orrler clated 2i',.Og.2O23' By using the wor<l "interim clirection" to respondent No 2 to consicler the applicatibn submitted by respondent Nos.S, 9, 11 to 14, in effect, it appears that a positive relir':f is granted in favour of respondent Nos'8, 9, lL to 14' Since the usage of the words "interirrr direction to respondent No'2" is iikely to be mis- interpretecl to constrlre that respondent No'2 has been directed to vve deem it consider the applicatron of respondent Nos'8' 9' l' 1 to 14 ' just and necessary to set aside the same' l! .aa' 5 11 . ln the result' the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 22 '12 '2023 ' There shall be no order as to if anY, PendinB in this aPPeal' shall SD,.K. SRrNlv ASA RAO R Gls T RE I costs. Miscellaneous aPPlicatrons' stand closed To, a \ BSK LS W HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 210312025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1079 of 2024 {{iFiE riT4f ,4 /./.i .i ; ._. \,:, 02 AiB 2[25 ( a .i .t '''r':." aur-. ' 't-.--..- .it ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS (e- I24s t5 1t