The High Court · 2025

Chinthakuntla Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o Sriram Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ Business, RJo H No. 11-221113, New Sri Sai Nagar, Peerzadiguda, Medchal Malkajgiri District ...APPELLANTS/R.8&9 ...RESPONDENT^^/RIT PETITIONER 2. The State of Telangana, Rep by the Principal Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Hyderabad

3. The District Collector, Ivledchal-Malkajgiri District lntegrated District Office Complexes Anthaipally Village Shameerpet Medchal Malkaigiri District Telangana-500078

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri Division MedchalMalkajgiri District At Neredmet Malkajgiri

5. The Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal MedchalMalkajgiri District 6. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund Road Hyderabad

7. The Zonal Commissioner, North Zone GHMC Secunderabad 8 The Deputy Commissioner GHIVC, Circle No 30 Begurr ret Hyderabad ...RESPONDI:,ITS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppon of the petition, the High court m. 7 be preased to pass an order to suspend the operation of the order dated 0g.1C. ,025 passed in w.p. No 29993/2025 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : SRI pRANAy SOHINI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : -- Counsel for the Respondent No.2to5 : Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.6to8: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDt) , SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1331 OF 202 Mr. l)ranay Sohrni, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddir, rhe learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for the respondcnt Nos.6 to 8. JUDGMENT: (Per Honblc Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Appcal arises out of an order dated 08.lO.2O25 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.29993 of

2025. 2- The appellants herein are the respondent Nos.8 and 9 in the Wrir Petition

3. By the impugrred order dated 08.1O.2025, the learned Single Jrrdge directed thc rcspondent Nos.6 and T lthe Zonal Commissioner, North Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Secunderabad and the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Circle No.30, Begumpet, Hyderabad (respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the Appeal) to immediately stop the construction activity undertaken by the respondent Nos.8 and 9 2 (the appellants herein) on the subject property a I I if necessary to seal their property with the assistance of the cortcr rned police. The u.rit peLition rvas directed to be listed along with V.p.No.l301g ot 2025 and batch on 29.lO.2O2S .

4. This Court is informed that the said batch r f Writ petitions !t'as not listed on 29.70.2025 or at any time ther e rfter before the learned Single Judge. 5 Learned counsel appearing for the appelra r t r su bmits that f hc impugr-re d order is an ad interim ex parte orrl r ar-rcl pr:rmits drastic consequences to be visited upon the apl,( li.rnts without aflording them an opportunity of being heard. rl runsel further su bmits that pursuant to the impugned order, ,- Le responclent No-8/the Deputy Commissioncr of GHMC issued a iealing Notice dated 23. 1O.2025, in consequence of which rl e appellants, property was sealed. it is also submitted that the i 1 pellants l,rave not yet received the notice of the Writ petition. 6 We have heard learned counsel appearing for t re appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC app: ring for the lespondent Nos.6 to g. Although the Cause List refle )ts the name \ 3 of counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner lailed to appear before the Court today. 7 . Admittedly, the irnpugned order was passed ex parte. The construction activrty undertaken by the appellants was stopped by thc ofhcials of the GHMC \,r.ith the assistance of the Police and the appellants' property had been sealed. The hnal relief sought in the Writ Petition is, inter alia, sealing of the premises of the appellants / responden t Nos.8 ald 9. Her-rce, by the impugned order, the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was granted relief in the nature of the final relief prayed for in the Writ Petition. Any order with drastic consequences should ordinarily be passed only after hearing the party who would be aJfecled by such consequences. In the present case, the appellants were not heard on the date of the impugned order. Notably, the 'sealing' action was taken even before the appellalts were served notice of the Writ Petition.

8. Hence, we deem it ht to permit the appellants to present their case before the learned Single Judge upon mentioning the matter for urgent listing, if so advised. The respondent Nos.6 to 8 i 4 shall be restrained from taking any steps under thr Sealing Noticc dated 23.10.2025 till 77.12.2025 subject to furthr r orclers oassed rn thc pcnding Wril petition.

9. W.A.No. 133 1 of 2025, along with all conncci( 1 applications, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no ordcr ,l j to costs. //rRUE COPY// i \ SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD I EPUTY REGISTRAR , "Bruttofr OFFICER Secrerary Reven ue Depa rtment $cr Il,: ^I:ll^.lor, flyoeraDao The District Collector, lVledchal_Malkajgiri District ln1€ lrated District Complexes Anthaioailv vittage 5hi;';"rp.ji" Ha"j"-r rt Matkajgiri Telangana-500028' \ e I re -iat, Telangana State Office District To, 1 2 Road Hyderabad At Neredmet fValkajgiri 3 The Revenue Divrsionar officer, Markajgiri Division Mec:harAzlarkajgiri District 4. The Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal MedchalMalkajgiri Dir;1 ict 5. The Commissioner. Greater Hyderabad Municipal C I poration Tank Bund 6. The Zonal Commrssioner, North Zone GHIVIC Secunder: rad 7. The Deputy Commissioner GHMC, Circle No 30 Begumc :t Hyderabad 8. One CC to SRt pRANAy SOHlNl, Advocate. tOpUCl 9. Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE, High Court for the I ate of Telangana at 10.One CC to SRt c.N/ADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR Cit tMC. IOPUC] 1 1 . Two CD Copies. Hyderabad. [OUT] BSK LS ?k- HIGH COURT DATED:2611112025 I 'i.cn lrl: ::\ l ', \-.. ,i -. c (.) 9 I, t 10 Er.i M ) JUDGMENT WA.No.1331 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS rA $ \z 1r