The High Court · 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 Stay Respondent No.5 construction and development activities carried on the petitioner's property, land admeasuring Ac. 01-08 gts in Sy. No. 95AAM, situated at Yenekapelli Village, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District, pe r ding the disposal of the writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the : rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor- r may be pleased to extend the interim stay orders granted in W.A. No. 1222 tt 2025 dated 07-11- 2025 until further orders. W.A.NO: 1223 OF 2025 ,Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent prefe r ed against the order daled 1411012025 in W.P No. 21495 of 2025 on the file of the F i h Court. Between: Smt Kalpana, W/o N.Kishan Goud, Aged about 34 yeirt ;. Occ- House Wife, RYo. H.No.l7-2- 314111A18, Kurmaguda, Phool Thotra, li tidabad, Hyderabad- 500059. T.G ...APPELLANl M/RIT PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary De ) lrtment, Municrpal Administration and Urban Development, TS Secretariat 3 rildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning )TDC Building, 3rd Floor, 640 AC guards, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004.

3. The Commissioner, Vikarabad Muncipality, Ranga Redcy District, Telangana. 4. The Director of Town Planning Officer, Vikarabad Muncir tlity, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

5. M/s. MYRON HOMES Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its chai-t tan M. Yuvaraju, Slo, Late. Veera Swani Malli, Aged about 49 years, Occ Jusiness, FVo. Plot NO.59, Road No.71,Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderatz C- 500033. 6. The District Panchayat officer, Yenekapalli Village, Pudl r r f\rlandal, Vikarabad 7. The tvlandal Parishad Development Office, Yenekapalli ri lage, Pudure 8. The Gram Panchayat, Yenekapalli Village, Pudure Manr; l, Vikarabad Rep by lvlandal, Vikarabad its Secretary' ...RES'.NDE { .'/RES'.NDENTS tA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the cir: rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mil be pleased to stay Respondent No. 5s construction and development activ t :s carried on the petitioners property, land in Survey No. '15213, Admeasuring , ,c. 2.11 Gts, and in Sy. No. 152, Admeasuring Ac. 2.12 Gts, total admeasuring Ac.4.23 Guntas, situated at Yenkepelli Village and G.P, Pudur lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District (presently Vikarabad District.) Telangana State. pending the disposal of the writ Appeal. 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 extend the interim stay orders granted in W.A.No.1223 of 2025 dated 07-11-2025 until fu(her orders. Counsel for the Appellant ln Both: SRI A.RAVINDER REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MUNUGA SATEESH Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2ln Both: SRI E.VENKATA REDDY, Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 & 4ln Both: SRI P.KRISHNA REDOY, SC GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.5 ln Both: SRI K.RAMAKANTH REDDY, Counsel for the Respondent No.6 ln Both: SRI ROOBI NABEELA, AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV FOR GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI M.KIRAN KUMAR FOR MPCL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8 ln Both: SRI S.ROHIT REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI K.PRADEEP REODY, SC FOR MPPZPP DEV The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT THE IION'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTA(] IARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KTI: IAR W.A.Nos. L222 6b L223 OF 2025 Mr. A Ravindcr l{ed(il, tirc lcar'ned Senior Counsel, rcprescnting Mr. Muntlgll : rlccslr, learncd counscl for the appcllanrs rn both the appcals. jl,lr- E Venkata Rcdd\', rhc lc.rrred Covemment Pleader for M.A & U.D. rr canng for the rcspondenl Nos I and 2 llr horh tllc appcals Mr. P L_ishna Reddv, lhc lcarned Government Pieadcr [or Munlcipalruci iippeaflng for respon(ient No 3 n bolh rh.;tppcals It'1r K l?amakturlh R.d(l\. rllf learned Scnror Counscl, representrng Mr ll learncci counscl for the r( sl)orr(l('ni No 5 u1 both thc appcals. I\rrirrr Kurn.rr, Mr. R()obr Nabccia, thc lcalncd Asslstant Covernmcnt Pleader for ['ancha]ar t l, r(presenLinB i) rn l)olh the thc lcal_ncd Go\crnmclt ['k:(lc] lol l)anchayat raJ, appearing for rcspond( rrr \ appeals Mr S Rohrt Reddv, rhc learnc(l Scnror Counsel, representrnt Mr. K. Pra(l(c, t,d(h,l(',lrned SLandurg (ouns{'l for 7-Plr & lul')l', appcarrng lbr thc respondent Nos.7 and 8 rr r h lllc ipt)cals. COMMON JUDGMENT: (Pcr Ilon'ble.rustice Moushumi [3lr t ircharya) Both these Appeals arise out of a common r,; Cer dated

74.1O.2025 passed t;1 a lcarned Single Judge in W.l) .Irrs. 17259 and 21495 of 2025

2. Thc appcllants bcfrrrc us arc thc Writ Pt:titi,r r rrs before thc lcarned Sinqlc .JLl(lEic

3. The appcllar-rts l'rad filed the tlvo aforesaid \['r r Pe titions essenlially against the draft l:ryouL pcrmission grar t:d by thc respondent No.2 (thc Director, Dircctorate of Town a r I Country Planning, Hyder:rbacl) to thc respondent l'l r.5 vidc T.L.P.No- 11112024 lll dated 1 l 07-2024 in respect ) lands in I 2 MB,J & GI'Ii..I WA.Nos.1222 &' 1223 of 2025 certain survey numbers situated at Vikarabad District' The appellants pray for setting aside the impugned layout permission. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the Writ Petitions by the impugned common order dated 14- 10 2O25 by issuing a direction to the respondent No 2 to conduct a dctailed enquiry on the representations made by the appellants on 23.04 .2025 by affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, the respondent No.5 and other interested pcrsons' 'lhe learned Single Judge also directed the respondent No'2 to pass necessary orders for revoking or altering the layout to lhe extent of the disputed land. The respondent No 2 was also directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the common order' The appellants/Writ Petitioners approached a Co ordinate 4. Bench of this Court with the present Appeals and on 07 .l | .2025 , obtained an order of status quo against the respondent No.5 in all respects with regard to the subject property. The status qTio was to be maintained till lO'\1 2025' the said order was not extended thereafter' Hence, there is no order of stotus quo subsisting as on date' We fail to undcrstand lhe basis of the appellants in seeking an order of status quo \ \ 3 MB,J & GPK,J WA.Nos I 122 & 1223 ot 2025 while the respondent No.2 is seeking an order p.t.suant to the order of the learned Single Judge.

5. The Court is informed that the said perio( i of six weeks will expire in the end of November, 2025. This nLr respondent No.2 has two weeks to decide on tt representation. We are also informed vi I ans that the : appellants' . Lr. Rec. No.655612024lH1 dated 14.tt.2O2S thar rhe par i :s have been called for a hearing on 19.1 l.2O2S at I 1 A.M. whir h is the day after [omorrot,. Although learnecl counsel appr z ring for the respondent No.5 submits that the disputed properrl was sold by the family mcm bcrs of the appellants in 2024 to tl rr respondent No.S, we do not rvish to enter inlo the merits ol since the mafter is already pending before tl-r,: the dispute respondent No.2/the Dircctor. a

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for tlr: appellants submits that it is speculaLed that the hearing rt, I take more time and will extend beyond the time fixed by the krr rned Single Judge. The rrppellants have appropriate remedies n the event the decision is rendercd beyond the time fixed b1 :he learned Single Judge. We hence do not find it necessary o pass any orders of status cluo while the matters are being 1r rar61 6, 1lr. I I \ MB,J & GPT.,J WA Nos. t222 & 1223 of 202i t'. -*! \, \ respondent No.2/ the DirecLor. We are confident that the - respondent No.2 will hear and address the grievances of all the parties before it as was directed in the impugned order. 7 . W.A.Nos. 1222 and 1223 of 2025 are accordingly disposed of along wiCh all connected applications. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGIS SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary Department Municipal Adm Development, TS Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, tion and Urban e of Telangana

2. The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Plannrng, DTDC Building, 3rd Floor, 640 AC guards, Hyderabad,Telangana,500004. The Commissioner, Vikarabad Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. The Director of Town Planning Officer, Vikarabad Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. The District Panchayat officer, Yenekapalli Village, Pudure [\/andal, Vikarabad The tVlandal Parishad Development Office, Yenekapalli Village, Pudure Manda[, Vikarabad The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Yenekapalli Village, Pudure Mandal, -Vikarabad. One CC to SRI MUNUGA SATEESH, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI P.KRISHNA REDDY, SC FOR MPCL IOPUC] One CC to SRI M.KIRAN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR MPPZPP [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYATH RAJ & RURAL DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies To 3 4 E 6 7 8 q 10 11 12 13 14 PSK. LS l \ ,l HIGH COURT DATED:1711112025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.1222 & 1223 of 2025 \-, jl\/c lr i Bi[ il6 ,\. ( i:l r. ir ( \ -)a ?.) ",,/" : ' '-5i'rT DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS lalw-