THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR 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 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 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 w