THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.351 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant; Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel
representing Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 121/writ petitioners; Ms. Borra
Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.122; Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority for respondent No.123; and Mr. B.Jagan Madhav Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.124.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.4773 of 2023.
2 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.351 of 2023
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 121 had preferred the related writ petition assailing the letter dated 21.10.2022 issued by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) and addressed to the appellant.
4. By the aforesaid letter, building permission granted earlier has been revised on the request of the appellant.
5. Learned Single Judge on 20.02.2023 passed the following order:
"Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have purchased flats in the subject property after satisfying the conditions imposed in the tentative layout as well as final layout. The present writ petition is filed questioning the letter dated 21.10.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 4th respondent.
Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit the impugned letter is issued on 21.10.2022 and the present writ petition is filed on 15.02.2023.
Sri Jagan Madhava Rao, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 3rd respondent and seeks time to file counter affidavit.
3 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.351 of 2023
Issue notice to the 4th respondent.
List on 03.04.2023.
There shall be interim suspension till then. Meanwhile, the 2nd respondent is directed to file counter affidavit."
6. From the above, we find that it is an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. While issuing notice to the appellant, learned Single Judge has fixed the matter on 03.04.2023 and has suspended the impugned letter till 03.04.2023. In the meanwhile, HMDA has also been directed to file counter affidavit.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent Nos.1 to 121/writ petitioners had entered into agreements with the appellant regarding the construction. Contentions made in the writ petition are contrary to the agreements entered into by the writ petitioners with the appellant. That apart, writ petitioners did not avail the statutory remedy as provided under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act), 2016.
4 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.351 of 2023
8. Be that as it may, since the aforesaid order is in the nature of an interlocutory one and that too till 03.04.2023, we are of the view that appellant should appear before the learned Single Judge and contest the matter. It is open to the appellant to persuade the learned Single Judge that the interim suspension granted should not be extended beyond 03.04.2023.
9. Without expressing any opinion on merit, we are of the view that against the aforesaid interim order, the writ appeal should not be entertained.
10. Subject to the above, Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 20.03.2023 KL