One CC to Sri v. Narasimha Goud

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m: z be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Notification No. 10r l /EMU/HMDA/KKPT- MOOSAPET/2025 ssued by the Respondent No 1 auct r ning the properties situated in Survey trlos. 239, 240 in Plot No. 15 admeasuring \c. 4.03, Plot No. 16 admeasuring Ac. 5.03, Plot No. '1 7 admeasuring Ac. 4.59, Plot No. 1B admeasuring Ac. ti.31, Plot No. 19 admeasuring Ac. 4 i I and Plot No. 20 admeasuring Ac. 4.O4, Kokapet (Neopolis-Golden Mile), Kokr ret Village, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI THOMAS GEORGE Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI V. NARASIMHA GOL D(SC FOR HMDA) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: SRI A. SUDARS'l qN REDDY, ADVOCATE GEI.I1 ,RAL The Court made the following: ORDER =BF:w . ,tr' ? IN THE COURT OF THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACTIARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO WRIT APPEAL No.l39O OF 2025

3.d Decernber, 2O25 Between: .J-D.Amar Dutt Appcllant/ Petitioner AND The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority And 8 others Respondents/ Respondents Mr.Thomas George, learned counsel appearing for the appeilant Mr.V.Narsimha Goud, the learned Starding Counsel lor HMDA appearing for the respondent No. I . Mr.A. Sudzrrshan Reddy, the learned Advocate General appearing for the rcspondent Nos. 1 and 2. JUDGMENT : Qt er H o n' b I e, Jr r stice NI ortshumi B hottochary a)

1. The present Writ Appeal has been hled against an interim order dated 21.11.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in W.P.No.2224l of 2019 fi1ed by the appellant (the writ petitioner No.7 before the learned Single Judge).

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge refused to grant stay of the proposed auction scheduled on 24.1 1.2O25 while MB,J & BRMR,J 7.A.No,139O ol 2O25 imposing a conditioll that the result of the au,-:li )11 conducted on 2

24.1 1.2025 sh.all be subjecr to the result of lhe pen I rrg writ Pctitions.

3. The Court is informed that the State resporl Lents are holding another auction on 03.12.2025 i.e-, today at 2:O0 P i ' Lcarnecl counsel appearing for the appcllan submits that the 4. appellant requires urgent interim orders for stay ol he auction u'hich rs to bc conductecl today at 2 :O0PM since the k:: t n ed Singlc Judgc failccl to considcr sevcral facts including the Vier,r i,i<cn b-r, a learned Sirigle Judgc of this Court, as IIis Lordship thcr '':rs, in a Commotr .Iudgmcnt datcd 02.06.2009.

5. The leat-ned Advocate General appearir 1 frrr thc Statc respondents s;ubmits that there was an inordinate : :1ay on the part of lhe appellant in hling the IA. It is submitted thaL 11e Writ Petition is ol 20 19 n,hereas the appellant hled the IA for stal of the auction in 2025 r,r.ithout clisclosing the pendency of a Suit h1:1 by the appellant before the jurisdictional Civii Court against stay of L Ie auctioll'

6. We have heard iearned counsel appearing tc - the appellant as well as the learned Advocate General appeari lg for the State respondents 3 MB,J & BRMR,J W.A,No.739O oJ 2O25

7. We fail to see any rcal prejudice being caused to the appellant by reason of the impugned order since Lhe learned Single Judge made it clear that the result of the auction $'ou1d be subject to the pending Writ Pelitions. In any event, we find substance in the contentions of the learned Advocate General that the appellant waited for six long lrcars before approaching the Writ Court with an IA and that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the appellant in filing the IA.

8. In any event, the matler has been made returnable on

23.12.2025 before the learned Single .Iudge, hence nothing prcvents the appellant from raising all relevant facts and questions of law before the learned Single Judge.

9. W.A.No. i39O of 2O25, along with all connected applications, is accordingiy dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, TJ LS 1 2 3 4 One CC to Sri Thomas George, Advocate [OPUC] . One CC to Sri V. Narasimha Goud(SC for HMDA) [OPUC] . Two CC to The GP for Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT] . Two CD Copies Y* HIGH COURT DATED:0311212025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1390 of 2025 -,-?.::-=--.: 'ii1';.i1.;r ..'r"; ,: i 3 jA}l 2[26 t ( A'o /-,i) $ * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .t*{"b &P