Telangana High Court
The Hyderabad Metropolitan ... vs P.Govinda Reddy on 21 September, 2021
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao, T.Vinod Kumar
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
