THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

AND

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

WRIT APPEAL Nos.512 AND 525 OF 2025

COMMON JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara) Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel

representing Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.512 of 2025, Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sathvik Makunuru, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 in W.A.No.512 of 2025 and for respondent Nos.3 to 6 in W.A.No.525 of 2025, Ms. Pratusha Boppanna, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.525 of 2025 and Ms.T.Kanyakumari, learned counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing

Counsel for GHMC in both the appeals.

W.A.No.512 of 2025

2. The intra-Court appeal preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16141 of 2023 dated 21.04.2025 whereby the impugned revocation order dated 20.06.2023 is confirmed by dismissing the writ petition. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition to declare the proceedings of respondent No.1 in Letter No.59560/25/08/2014/HO/808, dated 20.06.2023

whereby the building permission dated 21.04.2020 in permit No.53601/HO/EZ/Cir.3/2016 in file No.59560/25/08/2014/ HO is cancelled and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

W.A.No.525 of 2025

3. This appeal is preferred by respondent No.6-Ms.Orange Avenues assailing the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16141 of 2023 dated 21.04.2025. Respondent No.6 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.02.2014 with the writ petitioner for construction of 2 cellars + ground + upper 4 floors of multi storied commercial complex in land admeasuring 2714 square yards which is a portion in ‘B’ schedule property as per sketch map in page No.87 of Writ Appeal material papers. The writ petitioner and the developer had share of 60% and 40%

respectively in the built-up area.

4. The parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.

5. The writ petitioner claims to be the owner of land to an extent of 4461 square yards which is bequeathed by his father through will deed dated 29.12.1999. The writ petitioner filed application dated 25.08.2014 seeking permission for construction of a building. Even before the application was processed by respondent No.1, the sister of writ petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.301 of 2016 (old O.S.No.101 of 2016) seeking partition and separate possession of ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule properties. Respondent No.6 who is the Developer got impleaded into the suit. The civil Court granted injunction in favour of the sister of the writ petitioner restraining the writ petitioner from alienating the suit schedule properties and from changing the physical feature of said properties. The said applications were disposed of vide common judgment dated 15.11.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner’s mother filed C.M.A.No.35 of 2018, respondent No.6 filed C.M.A.No.36 of 2018 and respondent No.2 filed C.M.A.No.81 of 2018. During pendency of the CMAs, the family members reached an understanding. On the basis of said understanding, this Court vide common judgment dated 31.10.2018 disposed of the CMAs with directions as follows:

1) The injunction granted by the lower Court in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property is confined to ‘B’ marked portion in the sketch prepared by the Surveyor and filed along with the Advocate Commissioner’s report in I.A.No.1150 of 2016.

2) The injunction is also confined to 60% of the constructed area to be allotted to defendant Nos.1 and 2 over ‘A’ marked portion of plaint ‘B’ schedule property.

3) Within two weeks, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 11 shall register the Memorandum of Understanding, dated

10.02.2014.

4) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall select 60% of the constructed area falling to their shares facing Vijayawada and Nagarjunasagar Highways.

5) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall not alienate or further encumber the ‘A’ schedule property which is already under