HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
SRI M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No. 52 OF 2018
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant - Hyderabad
Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad challenging order
dt.14.02.2017 in W.P.No.23913 of 2010.
2. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior counsel, appearing for
the appellant states that though in the grounds in the Writ Appeal it is
mentioned that the said order passed in both W.P.Nos.9707 of 2009
and 23913 of 2010 is under challenge, this Appeal should be treated
as an Appeal as regards only the order passed in W.P.No.23913 of
2010. The same is placed on record.
3. In W.P.No.23913 of 2010, respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein had
sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.8 to 10 and the Appellant in creating a dispute of location and enjoyment and seeking to unlawfully dispossess them from part of their land to an extent of Ac.26.16 guntas in Sy.Nos.4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 41/9 to 12 situated in Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
4. To this Writ Petition, the Appellant has filed a counter affidavit stating that an extent of Ac.105.13 guntas in Sy.No.41/14 of ::2::
Khanamet Village had been allotted in favour of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority in 2008, that possession had also been delivered to the Appellant under cover of panchanama, and that it is in uninterrupted possession of the same since it is a successor of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. It further stated as follows:
"It is also humbly submitted that this respondent authority is unaware of the lands bearing survey No.4,5,8,9,10 and 41/9 to 41/12 situated at Khanamet Village said to have been the lands of the writ petitioner and this respondent authority has never entered or interfered with the lands or possession of the writ petition herein.
In reply to this para 10, it is humbly submitted that this respondent authority has no claim or any objection over the lands bearing survey No.4,5,8,9,10 and 41/9 to 41/12 situated at Khanamet village said to be the lands of the writ petitioner and theis respondent authority has never entered or interfered with the lands or possession of the writ petitioner herein, and this respondent authority do not have any interest to indulge with the lands of the writ petitioner, in case they maintain possession over the lands bearing survey No.4,5,8,9,10 and 41/9 to 41/12 situated at Khanamet village, without trespassing into the lands of this respondent authority."
5. Thus, the appellant has categorically stated that it had neither made a claim nor any objection over the lands said to be the lands of the Writ petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 7 and it has also admitted that it had never entered or interfered with the lands or possession of respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein.
::3::
6. Having said so, we are surprised that the Appellant has chosen to file this Appeal raising several grounds.
7. Since the land, which is claimed by the Appellant is in Sy.No.41/14 of Khanamet village and no land in the said survey number is being claimed by respondent Nos.1 to 7, we are of the opinion that the instant Writ Appeal filed by the Appellant is not maintainable on the ground that the Appellant is not a party aggrieved by the relief granted to the respondents 1 to 7/petitioners in W.P.No.23913 of 2010.
8. However, we clarify that this decision in this Writ Appeal will have no bearing on W.A.No.1105 of 2018 and the said Writ Appeal shall be decided on its own merits after hearing the parties thereto uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this appeal shall also stand dismissed. No costs.
______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, ACJ ___________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 21.09.2021.
ES