Telangana High Court
M/S S.R.S.K. Developers vs The State Of Telangana on 7 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.848 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for
the appellants. Also heard Sri K.Mahesh, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Department,
appearing for respondent No.1; Sri Krishna Reddy Putta,
learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, appearing for
respondent Nos.2 to 4; Sri I.Ramesh, learned counsel for
respondent No.5; Ms. B.L.Kanakavalli, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.6; and Sri M.Ram Mohan
Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.8.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the interim order
dated 24.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.20633 of 2025, which
was filed by the appellants herein (hereinafter referred to
as, "the writ petitioners").
3. The layout permission granted to the writ petitioners
was revoked by order dated 07.07.2025 by the
Mahabubnagar Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
Being aggrieved, the writ petition was preferred. The
learned writ court passed a conditional order in the
following terms:
"In the opinion of this Court, even if pendency of the
suit in O.S.No.l00 of 2022 was disclosed by the petitioners,
it would not have any bearing on the lay out permission
since there was no interim injunction order passed in the
suit. Thus, until any interim injunction order or prohibitory
order is passed by the trial Court, there was no embargo on
respondent No.2 to process the layout application and
ultimately grant approval. It would not be in the interest of
justice to continue the impugned proceedings for an
indefinite period even if there is no injunction/prohibitory
order.
In the circumstances, the trial Court is directed to
dispose of I.A.No.1310 of 2024 in O.S.No.25 of 2024 or any
other pending application within (6) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. If any prohibitory or
injunction order is passed in O.S.No.100 of 2022, the
impugned order dated 07.07.2025 shall continue. However,
if I.A.No.1310 of 2024 or any other application is dismissed,
the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 shall stand
automatically suspended."
4. It transpires from the submission of the learned
counsel for the parties that the subject land over which the
layout permission has been granted is the subject matter of
O.S.No.100 of 2022 filed for declaration of title and
possession over the subject land. The reason for revocation
is suppression of this fact to the MUDA. Therefore, the
learned writ court thought it proper to direct the trial court
to dispose of I.A.No.1310 of 2024 pending in O.S.No.25 of
2024 or any other pending application within six weeks
from the date of receipt of the interim order. If any
prohibitory or injunction order is passed, the order of
revocation dated 07.07.2025 would continue. If the
interlocutory application or any other application is
dismissed, the order of revocation shall stand
automatically suspended.
5. We understand that the learned writ court has taken
the safeguard, since the parties are involved in the civil
suit over the same subject land. The writ petition is
pending. There is a clear timeline for the trial court to
dispose of such application.
6. In the above circumstances, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the impugned interim order. We
leave it to the parties to raise such grounds of law and
facts in the pending writ proceedings which may be
considered in accordance with law expeditiously.
7. The instant appeal is accordingly disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
07.08.2025
vs
