High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District J.

4. The Additional Collector (Revenue), Ranga Reddy District, Ranga Reddy The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District The Tahsildar, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

5. 6. M/s. Novus Real Estate Private Limited, Represented by its Director Mr. Naveen Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Jawahar Lal Aganval, aged about 45 years, Occ. Director Having its registered office at H. No. 3-6-687, Flat No. 303, 3rd Floor, Radhe Kishan Pleasant Homes, Street No.10, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad - 500 029 ...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 any writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in not considering the Petitioners implead applications dated 10-06-2025 and 1 8-1 0- -/ IA NO: 10F 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circ,r mstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court nay be preased to direct the Respondent No. 3 not to pass any orders in File \o. F1/3osgl2o22, pending disposal of the above Writ petition. IA NO:2 oF 202s petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circ r nstances stated in the affidavit fired in suppo( of the petition, the High cou( r ray be preased to vacate the interim order dated 31.10.2025 in r.A No. 1 0f 202(, nw.p. No. 33052 ot 2025 and consequen,y dispose of the writ petition itserf, r as much as the impread apprications fired in F11305912022 by the petitioners ir the writ petition are arready heard and posted for pronouncement of orders on 5.1 1 .2025 betore the Respondent No 6 herein, and further be preased to perrr t the Respondent No 6 herein to proceed with and concrude the procee J ngs in Fire No. F113059r2022 stricry in accordance with raw and in compria.;e with the time_ bound direction issued by this Hon,ble Court in W.p ' No' 27485 n 2o2s, and pass such other and further orders. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1to5: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGp :OR REVENUE counsel for the Respondents No.6 : SRI MAyuR REDD', seni< r counsel rep., Ms.SNEHA BHOGLT: The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 7 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT IIYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL I.A.No.3 of 2025 in/and WRIT PETITION No.33052 of 2025 DATE:08.12.2025 Between: Ramesh Kumar Dalmia and two others. AND The State ofTelangana, Rep, by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others. ...Petitioner COMMON ORDER ...Respondents This Writ Petition is f,rled seeking the following relief:- "...pleased to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in not considering the Petitioners implead applications dated

10.06.2025 and 18.10.2025 filed in File No.Fll3059l2O22 and proceed to dispose the File No.Fl/3059/2022 filed by the Respondent No.6 for issuance of Occupancy Rights Certificate for mutation and issuance of e-Pattadar Passbooks in favour of thc Respondent No.6 even after -/ 2 specific directions of this Hon'ble Court as per tl,( order dated, 11.02.2021 passed in W.P.No.5938 of 2( ( 5 and batch order dated, O4.O3.2021 passed in W.P.No.2 2 )53 of 2OO7 and order datr:d 12.09.2025 passed in W.P.N,r 17485 of2025 as being arbitrary, illegal in violation of prir ciplcs of natural justice colorable exercise of power, ab rse of process of law, abuse of power entrusted by law, I t use of official capacity and position and besides in viol r .on of Article 14, 2l and 300-A of Constitution of Inl a and consequentially direct the Respondent No.3 to de,: le the implead applications filed by the Petitioner: dated 10.06.2025 and 18. 10.2025 filcd in File No.Ftl30; /2022 at first instance beforc deciding the applicatit,r vide File.No.F l/3059 /2022 filed by the Respondent No.,j .."

2. Heard Mr. D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel fo the petitioners Mr. L.Ravinder, leamed Assistant Govemment pleai :r for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. I to 5 and Mr. Mayur Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel appearing for Sneha Bhogle, lear;r:d counsel for respondent No.6- Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehementl./ contended that though the petitioners have filed implead applir lrions in File No.F1/3059/2022 before respondent No.3, without nur bering the said applications, the petitioners were pennitted to make t r :ir submissions in a casual manner which would apprehend the petiri rners that their 7 J case is not taken seriously by the said authority and hence, there is every possibility that these implead applications would be dismissed. This Court in W.P.No.27485 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025 has passed the following order:

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of, in the absence of the Telangana State Waqf Board and the petitioners and respondents to the other writ petitions, directing respondent No.2 to consider the petition filed by the petitioner vide Case No. F 3059 of 2022, as well as the findings of this Court in the common order dated 11.02.2021 in W.P. No. 5938 of 2006 and batch, which was confirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, by putting the petitioner and all the parties to the said petition, including the Telangana State Waqf Board, on notice and affording them an opportunity. However, respondent No.2 shall complete the said exercise within a period of six months fiom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs

4. In the above order, this Court has clearly directed respondent No.2 therein to consider the petitions filed by the petitioners by issuing notice to all concerned parties. But respondent has not numbered the said Interlocutory Applications and taken up the matter for consideration and therefore, apprehending that the petitioners 4 would not be impleaded by the said authority in offic al manner, the present writ petition is filed.

4.1. He would further submit that there is ongoing li iSation between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents whert: the petitioners have filed WP.No.22053 of 2001 and this Court vid,: its order dated

04.03.2021 has directed the respondent No. I the .ein to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioners befbre passir; any orders in respect of Case Nos.Fl/340i2005 and Fl1486912005 cired25.02.2006 and without bringing the petitioners on re: rrd in Case No.Fl/3059/2022, respondent No.3 has procecded i: the said case. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the implea,l petitions i.e., I.A.Nos. - Nil - of 2025 in File No.Fl/305912022 and r : would submit that the said authority ought to have heard all the cas:s together and hence, would seek to direct respondent No.l to club File No.Fl/11112021 to adjudicate all the cases together. t earned counsel also would submit that vrde I.A.No.3 of 2025 n amendment application has been fited in the present writ petitior to permit the petitioners for amending the prayer.

5. Sri Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 wourd submit that it is admittei lact that the 5 petrtroners were granted opportunity of hearing which would establish that the petitioners wiil be impleaded in the said proceedings and not numbering the I.A.s is a administrative action and mere administrative action will not become a ground to the petitioner to file this writ petition, which is obviously misconceived. He would also submit that the authority in question is conducting proceedings pursuant to passing of the orders by this court in w.p.No.274g5 of 2025 wherein this Court had prescribed time limit of six months fiom the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and onry to delay the proceedings before respondent No.3, this writ petition is filed.

5.1 He would take objection to I.A.No.3 of 2025, which is filed seeking amendment to the prayer in the present writ petition, stating that the said prayer would go beyond the scope of the writ petition and hence, it may amount to indulgence of this Court in the proceedings before the said authority and therefore, he would seek to dismiss I.A.No.3 of 2025. However, he would take no objection to the submissions made by the petitioners to implead the petitioners herein in File No.Fl/305912022 before respondent No3 to decide the same. 6- Learned Assistant Govemment pleader for Revenue wourd submit that respondent No.3 is duty bound to comply with the qrder t 6 passed by this Court in W.P.No.27485 of 2025 md since, the petitioners have already been granted opportunity c t hearing in the implead applications and the petitioners do not have r; rod grounds for maintainability of this writ petition. Hence, he wou d seek to pass appropriate orders.

7. This Court, having heard the leamed counsel ft . the petitioners and leamed Senior Counsel for respondent No.6 and t amed Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and upon perus I g the material before this Court, it reveals that respondent No.I is conducting proceedings in File No.Fl /305912022, in order to cc nply the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27485 of 2025, dt ed \2.09.2025 wherein respondent No.3 is directed to conclude t re proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt rf a copy of the said order.

8. ln view of the same, without making any obse wations on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems .l appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to number the interlocutory aJ plications filed by the petitioner herein in File No.F1/3059/2022 and ,: rnsider the said implead petitions by granting opportunity of hearing t r all the parties concerned after following the necessary procedure as established by 1 law and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law and in terms of the order passed by this Courr in W.p.No.27485 of 2025. lt is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the contentions raised in this writ petition before the said authority after being impleaded.

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Since liberty is given to the petitioners to raise all the grounds in this writ petition before respondent No.3, the amendment application vide IA.No.3 of 2O25 shall stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. To, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/.MOMINA SISTANT R AR STRAR CTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Sec at, Telangana State, Hyderabad

2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District 3. The Additional Collector (Revenue), Ranga Reddy District, Ranga Reddy 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, Ranga Reddy District 5. The Tahsiidar, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 6. One CC to SRI DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. IOUI B. One CC to Ms.SNEHA BHOGLE, Advocate. [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies. BSK HIGH COURT EW,J DATED:0811212025 COMMON ORDER l.A.No.3 OF 2025 IN/AND WP.No.33052 ot 2025 ( C O \.* '.\.' . I I t[[ 2t21 .irr,l .<:,-'/ ' tt/ /r/ -t 1i, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION & DISMISSING THE l.A.No.3 OF 2025 WITHOUT COSTS J