JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant; Ms. Borra Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department representing respondent No.1; Mr. V. Siddhartha Goud, learned counsel representing Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3; Ms. A. Chandana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondents No.4 and 5; and Mr. D. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.6 to 8.

2. This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.46153 of 2022 filed by respondents No.6 to 8 as the writ petitioners.

3. Respondents No.6 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the writ petitioners’) had filed the related writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 26.11.2022 passed by the Secretary, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA).

4. Appellant who was arrayed as respondent No.6 in the writ proceedings had submitted application before HMDA for approval of layout in respect of land to the extent of Acs.30.08 guntas in Survey Nos.435/P, 436/P, 437/P, 454/P, 460/P, 461/P, 462/P, 463/P and 464/P of Bowrampet Village, Dundigal Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District (subject land).

5. HMDA, after due consideration, had granted approval of the draft layout on 31.08.2020. At that stage, writ petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.23795 of 2022 stating that they had lodged complaints before HMDA against the approval sought for by the appellant on 23.12.2020, 02.06.2021 and 23.04.2022. They sought for cancellation of the draft layout. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated 20.05.2022 disposed of the writ petition by directing HMDA to consider the aforesaid representations of the writ petitioners. It was the case of the writ petitioners that a portion of the subject land admeasuring Acs.3.20 guntas in Survey Nos.435/1/1 and 464/1/1/1/1/1/1 belongs to them. However, learned Single Judge while directing consideration of their objection further directed HMDA authorities to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It was thereafter that HMDA passed the impugned order dated 26.11.2022.

6. By the aforesaid order HMDA noted that both the parties are having prima facie title over the land in respect of Survey Nos.435 and 464. But the main dispute pertains to possession which HMDA is not competent to decide. Noticing that writ petitioners have filed O.S.No.231 of 2020 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Medchal against the appellant in respect of the land claimed by the writ petitioners as belonging to them, HMDA relegated the complainants (writ petitioners) to the forum of civil Court and dismissed the complaint. Assailing this order, the related writ petition came to be filed.

7. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 27.12.2022 took the view that HMDA did not consider the entirety of the objections raised by the writ petitioners and therefore, set aside the order dated 26.11.2022, whereafter matter has been remanded back to HMDA for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the order dated 26.11.2022 and remanding the matter back to the file of HMDA. The aforesaid order of remand has caused severe prejudice to the appellant. After adverting to the materials on record, he submits that sale deed of the writ petitioners in respect of the land claimed as being theirs is dated 30.07.2020, which is after 08.07.2020 when the appellant had made application for approval of layout. That apart, writ petitioners themselves have instituted O.S.No.231 of 2020 which is pending. HMDA had considered all relevant aspects of the matter and had rightly taken the view that question of possession ca