( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against an Order of the learned single judge of this Court allowing Writ Petition No. 6211 of 1998, dated 2-11-1998 and quashing the Proceedings No. 696/p4/h/94, dated 2-1-1998 issued by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority permitting substantial changes in the original sanctioned plan dated 19-7-1991 relating to C. S. R. Estates, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy district.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

( 3 ) THE writ petitioner - C. S. R. Estates Flat Owners Welfare Association, Kothapet, ranga Reddy district, represented by its President G. Jagannadha Rao - filed the Writ Petition challenging the Proceedings No. 696/p4/h/94, dated 2-1-1998 issued by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) permitting certain modifications and alterations in the original sanctioned plan dated 19-7-1991 in favour of the 3rd respondent (appellant-builder ). It is stated by the petitioner that HUDA notified certain residential plots, in the year 1989 inviting builders to purchase plots of 1200 square metres each, in the public auction for the purpose of building residential complexes and the purchaser will be permitted to build ground floor + 3 storeys or ground floor + 4 storeys, in case they decide to leave ground floor for parking. In case the purchaser chooses the second alternative, a minimum of 1/3rd area shall be kept open for parking and it shall not be sold to any prospective buyer of flats. In pursuance to the said notification, the 3rd respondent (appellant) applied for allotment of a plot and he was successful in getting Plot No. 42 ad measuring 1280 square metres at Kothapet. Subsequently, he applied for permission to construct a complex (apartment) consisting of stilt + four floors. Permission was accorded by the 1st respondent on 19-7-1991. According to the plan, stilt area consists of generator room, A. C. plant, electrical cabin, watchman room, store room, office room and open parking area for flat owners, which will be a common area. The construction was started in the year 1991 and was completed by 1993 and in all 42/46 flats were built. Immediately, the members of the petitioner-association purchased the flats by entering into agreements with the 3rd respondent and sale deeds were also executed in favour of most of the purchasers. Respondent No. 3 charged Rs. 20,000/- extra for each flat towards open parking in the stilt. Thus, according to the association, each member became the owner of undivided land approximately at 16. 70 square metres out of the total land. However, the 3rd respondent did not complete the construction in time in all respects and did not put up a compound wall. When the association wanted to put up a compound wall, the 3rd respondent went to civil Court and obtained an injunction against them in O. S. No. 444 of 1997 and on the application filed by the association, the said injunction was vacated. Ultimately, the petitioner-association constructed the compound wall.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the 3rd respondent converted stilt area into closed mulgies so that he could lease them out to various parties for running commercial shops, but the petitioner opposed the same. The 3rd respondent harassed the members of the petitioner-association by filing police complaints, criminal cases etc. In order to achieve his object, the 3rd respondent had applied to the 1st respondent for sanctioning permission to close the parking in the stilt area, for conversion of four flats in the ground floor to commercial use and to construct a further floor on the terrace. The 1st respondent without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner-association, sanctioned the modification of the plan sought by the 3rd respondent, on 2-1-1998. The 3rd respondent immediately filed a suit in O. S. No. 135 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy and obtained an ex parte injun