One CC to SRI v. NARASIMHA GOUD SC FOR HMDA

Judgment

4. E The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, I\4unicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Represented by its Commissioner, Swarna Jayanti Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana 500038. M.Surya Prakash, S/o Late M.Rajaiah, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Narsingi Village, Rajenderanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late K.Ram Reddy, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o [Vlanikonda Jagir Village, Rajenderanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

M/s.JASWITHA CONSTRUCTIONS, Rep by Sri A.Ram Prasad Reddy, Pegasus, A-Wing, Meenakshi Khanamet, Serilingampally, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS .. t! '?ii"'ii-tiLo Petition un<ler lrrticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the tnerewitr' the Hiqh r)ourt may be circumstances st:ttec in tn" oleased to issue wnt or iir.""tiio" p'"t"i'urv writ of IMANDANiIUS declaring the ffiH ,"'"M;;;-ri" i,irzri,is.riiidzi ai-id07,.2022 issued by the MA and UD ord':rs of building Deoartment (Respon J=nt itf o'ii tettlng aside the oeimission in fit,r nc or rio+iils"ripTni luolHlzsoaz-ot 8 Dt.25.1 1 ..1021 and the ffiril;;il;'o,0" .,i.. ti-oi-i,iz i" iit" uo.otoo4e/sKP/R'l/Lr6tH.t2s032o18 g"nting b-uilding permission in favour of M/s' issued by the Re spondeni 6f 2 cellar plus 1 Ground plus 9 Upper Jeswitha Constru:tions toi floors on .a total bulll ,p' "i"'-"i 19480'15' sq mts in sv no 133/P of Kokapet Vi,age, Gandipet Mardal, fi""gri"Ody Oistrict as illeoal aibitrarv. highhanded, in violation of the princirte, ;;;"r,ffilr'.trce, in viofati6n of the pr'rvisions of the prayer to set aside the o'ders in Memo HtvlDA Act,2008 wiltr ' "ln'"q"ntLl No.9717lptg.ilt t2(22 (tt ti"oilidii ii tre rrrrn and UD Depadme'rt (Respondent No.1) and n,,to*tion oid"" i.r".oi oo+slsKP/t11/tJ6/H/2903201 8 issued by the Respondent No'll 11-08-2022 in "onstr.'i"tlon -cancellation dt - "rtlli File IA NO: 10 F 202t I .in "'f Petition urder Section 151 CPC praying that the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support'oi ift" *'it petiiion"' the^Hioh Court ma r' be pleased to suspend the [r4r:mc, r'r" gzi?iPLlii tzSii at ta'otiozz ov th'r lvA and UD """J Restoration orders dt 11i8-2022 in File Department (Re ;pondent ftf t to.OI OO+SISXP/ I 1 i L 6 Ht2903201I Counsel for the Petilioners: SRI S' NAGESH REDDY REP" FOR liRl' RANJITH KUMAR REDDY P Counsel for the Resrrondent No'1: AGP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No'2: SRI V' NARASIMHA GOUD SC' FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent Nos'3 to 5: --' The Court made ' the following: ORDER 'tr '.iir,.;,''*-. ..r- THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No. 329s8 0F 20.24 ORDER: Heard Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri P.Ranjith Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department for 1"t respondent and Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) for 2"d respondent.

2. The petitioners are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of.land admeasuring Ac. 1.24 guntas in Survey No.133, situated at Kokapet Village, erstwhile Rajendranagar Mandal, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the subject property,) on the strength of registered sa_le deed bearing Document No.g9g6 of 1999 dated IO.Il.l994 obtained by their mother. The petitioners have frled a suit uide O.S.No.739 of 2O1g on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against respondent Nos.3 to 5 seeking declaration -l 1 of title, re(:ov':ry of possession and also cancellatLon of several registered salt: deeds' The suit is pending and there are no interim o:'ders. Suppressing the said fact' 5'' respondent obtainec lrui rling permit order dated 03'06 20i9 fro:rr the 2'd responderLt. Therefore, on the complaint submittc d by the petitioner ;, lnd ls5psndsnt has cancelled the sa; d building permit ordet .icle cancellation proceedings dated 25 LI'2O2I'

3. l'he 1"' respondent uid'e memo dated lt3'07 '2022 set aside t h e cancellation proceedings dated 2|; 'll '2O2I subject tl ()utcome of pending litigations' if anv' The 1"t responde.It also directed 2'd respondent to inform the applicarrr thzLt building permission issued by 2"a r':spondent is subj ec t tc outcome of various civil suits pend ing before varior:s cc tnpetent authorities and shall o btain an undertzrtinS, from the 5th respondent that it u'ill not claim any equities n oilse the pending civil suits are decided against it' Challerrging the said order dated l8'O7 '2022 ' the' petitioners filed the pr( s;ent u rit Petition.

4. Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel ap pearing for the pet.itione rs \&'ould contend that the 1"t respond=nt has no 3 power to set aside the cancellation .order dated 2S,1 I.2O2I of 2"d respondent. The l"t respondent is neither an appellate authorit5z nor has any power to decide the said cancellation order dated 25.11.2O2t. Therefore, the impugned memo dated 18.07.2022 is in violation of principles of natural justice and a-lso the procedure laid down under Hvderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008.

5. Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for 2"d respondent-HMDA and also learned Assistant Government Pieader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department for 1"t respondent fairly submit that the l"t respondent has no power to issue impugned memo dated 18.07.2022 setting aside the cancellation order dated 25.tr.202t. 6 It is also relevant to note that l"t respondent has issued the said memo without putting the petitioners on notice and affording them an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, it is in violation of principles of natural justice. 7 . In the light of the above submissions, the impugned memo dated B.OZ .2022 of the 1"r respondent is set \ l 4 aside.H.]wever,libertyis...grantedtopetitionersand respondcnt i'los.3 to 5 to take a1l the grounds and r:ontentions which tirey have raised in the present writ petit on and in O.S.No.i 39 f 2018. 7 . Accordingly, the Writ Petition is alloq ed' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscr:llaneouspetitionspending,ifany'srhallstand closed //TRUE COPY// I SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI REGISTRAR ASSI QTANT I i rstr;rrolt oFFtcER The Princ pal fiecretary, Ivlunicipal Administration and Urban lJevelopment Departme rt, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Comrnissicner, Hyderabad lvletropolitan Development Authority, Swarna Jayanti Compl:x, Ameerpet, Hyderabad,'Telangana 500038. One CC to SFLl. RANJITH KUMAR REDDY P Advocate [OPI.JC] One CC to SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD SC FOR HMDA [OP|.,C] Two CCs lo 3,P FOR MCPL ADIMN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangan;1. [OUT] Two CD ()op e s To, 1 2 4 5 6 KKS GJP v I t / I HIGH COUFIT DATED:301011"2025 ORDER WP.No.32958 of 2024 t!F- -r HE ST4 i5 rl I APit 2825 (,! ) +li t C f '. -4, \- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I b 4 /0 /t