Telangana High Court
Smt Kalpana vs The State Of Telangana on 17 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
W.A.Nos. 1222 & 1223 OF 2025
Mr. A. Ravinder Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Munuga Sateesh, learned
counsel for the appellants in both the appeals.
Mr. E. Venkata Reddy, the learned Government Pleader for M.A & U.D. appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both the appeals.
Mr. P. Krishna Reddy, the learned Government Pleader for Municipalities, appearing for
respondent No.3 in both the appeals.
Mr. K. Ramakanth Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. M. Kiran Kumar,
learned counsel for the respondent No.5 in both the appeals.
Mr. Roobi Nabeela, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, representing
the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat raj, appearing for respondent No.6 in both the
appeals.
Mr. S. Rohit Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. K. Pradeep Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for ZPP & MPP, appearing for the respondent Nos.7 and 8 in both the appeals.
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
Both these Appeals arise out of a common order dated
14.10.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.17259
and 21495 of 2025.
2. The appellants before us are the Writ Petitioners before
the learned Single Judge.
3. The appellants had filed the two aforesaid Writ Petitions
essentially against the draft layout permission granted by the
respondent No.2 (the Director, Directorate of Town and Country
Planning, Hyderabad) to the respondent No.5 vide
T.L.P.No.111/2024/H dated 11-07-2024 in respect of lands in
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.Nos.1222 & 1223 of 2025
certain survey numbers situated at Vikarabad District. The
appellants pray for setting aside the impugned layout
permission. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the Writ
Petitions by the impugned common order dated 14.10.2025 by
issuing a direction to the respondent No.2 to conduct a detailed
enquiry on the representations made by the appellants on
23.04.2025 by affording an opportunity of hearing to the
appellants, the respondent No.5 and other interested persons.
The learned Single Judge also directed the respondent No.2 to
pass necessary orders for revoking or altering the layout to the
extent of the disputed land. The respondent No.2 was also
directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the common order.
4. The appellants/Writ Petitioners approached a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court with the present Appeals and on
07.11.2025, obtained an order of status quo against the
respondent No.5 in all respects with regard to the subject
property. The status quo was to be maintained till 10.11.2025,
the said order was not extended thereafter. Hence, there is no
order of status quo subsisting as on date. We fail to understand
the basis of the appellants in seeking an order of status quo
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.Nos.1222 & 1223 of 2025
while the respondent No.2 is seeking an order pursuant to the
order of the learned Single Judge.
5. The Court is informed that the said period of six weeks
will expire in the end of November, 2025. This means that the
respondent No.2 has two weeks to decide on the appellants'
representation. We are also informed vide Lr. Rec.
No.6556/2024/H1 dated 14.11.2025 that the parties have been
called for a hearing on 19.11.2025 at 11 A.M. which is the day
after tomorrow. Although learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.5 submits that the disputed property was sold by
the family members of the appellants in 2024 to the respondent
No.5, we do not wish to enter into the merits of the dispute
since the matter is already pending before the respondent
No.2/the Director.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that it is speculated that the hearing will take more
time and will extend beyond the time fixed by the learned Single
Judge. The appellants have appropriate remedies in the event
the decision is rendered beyond the time fixed by the learned
Single Judge. We hence do not find it necessary to pass any
orders of status quo while the matters are being heard by the
MB,J & GPK,J
WA.Nos.1222 & 1223 of 2025
respondent No.2/the Director. We are confident that the
respondent No.2 will hear and address the grievances of all the
parties before it as was directed in the impugned order.
7. W.A.Nos.1222 and 1223 of 2025 are accordingly disposed
of along with all connected applications. There shall be no
order as to costs.
__________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
DATE: 17.11.2025
KVR
