Telangana High Court
A. Mallesh Yadav vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
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
