THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.No.818 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard A.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant;
B.Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Municipal Administration and Urban Development representing
respondent No.1; Mr. N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel
for respondent No.2- Municipality; Mr. V.Narsimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) representing respondent No.3; and Mr. Pilli Nagaraj, learned counsel for respondents No.4, 5 and 6.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17615 of 2021 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Appellant as the writ petitioner has filed the related writ petition seeking a direction to Dundigal Municipality (respondent No.2) not to issue final residential lay out permission to respondent No.6 acting for respondents No.4 and 5 in view of the status quo ::2::
order dated 07.02.2015 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal in IA.No.56 of 2015 in O.S.No.26 of 2015 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0.17 guntas in Survey No.138 situated at Bhadurpalli Village, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District (briefly 'the subject land' hereinafter)
4. Order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2022 reads as under:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the unofficial respondents have filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and in spite of the fact that the said suit is pending, the official respondents have granted permission.
When the matter came up on 11-11-2022, this Court has directed the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA to get the relevant file. Now, he submits that in the file, they have copies of the orders passed by the civil Court where there is an order of status quo in respect of the subject property. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that the said suit is reserved for orders and posted for judgment on 19-12-2022 and hence, this writ petition may be adjourned.
::3::
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is an order to status quo, the unofficial respondents are proceeding with the constructions. In view of the said submissions, respondent Nos.4 to 6 shall not make any constructions in the land to an extent of Ac.0-03 gts in Sy.No.138 till 19-12-2022.
Post on 20-12-2022 in motion list.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the restraint order of the learned Single Judge has been confined to only Acs.0-03 guntas in Survey No.138 whereas in the previous order dated 11.11.2022, extent of the land was mentioned as Ac.0-17 guntas, which is the correct extent of the land. He submits that he had filed an application for clarification of the extent of land but the same has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.
6. We find that the learned Single Judge had noted that O.S.No.26 of 2015 was heard and is now fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 19.12.2022. Therefore, learned Single Judge has posted W.P.No.17615 of 2021 on 20.12.2022 in the motion list.
::4::
7. In such circumstances, when the matter is still under active consideration of the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. It is open to the appellant to make necessary submission before the learned Single Judge.
8. Subject to the above, writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 15.12.2022 LUR