THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL NOS.506, 508, 511 AND 514 OF 2025 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing learned counsel Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar; Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing learned counsel Sri Khamar Kiran Kantamneni; and Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, representing learned counsel Sri Naren Sai Chiramdasu and learned counsel Sri D.Aniketh Reddy, for the petitioners. Sri L.Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Meer Akbar Ali Hashmi, learned counsel for respondent No.1; Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue; Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home; Sri Kiran Gattu, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Bhoodan Yagna Board; Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate and Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation, for the respondents.

2. Regard being had to the similitude of the matters, on the joint request, the matters were heard on admission analogously.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in these matters submit that although these matters are arising out of an ex parte interim order, wherein the present appellants, who were unofficial respondents before the writ court, were not put to notice and the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order, the said ex parte interim order is bad in law because the learned Single Judge has even treated Survey Nos.194 and 195 as ‘Bhoodan’ land, whereas it is, admittedly, a patta land. Apart from this, observations made in last three paragraphs of the impugned order were totally uncalled for and could not have been passed without hearing the appellants.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in LIC of India v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., (2018) 11 SCC 722 and submit that even an ex parte interim order can be interfered with if it fulfils the requirement of “judgment”. Certain findings mentioned in last two paragraphs of the impugned order have serious ramification and there was no

occasion for the learned Single Judge to give such observations without hearing the appellants.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and urged that the impugned order is ex parte in nature. The appellants may file an application for vacation of the interim order and the learned Single Judge may pass appropriate order thereupon.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this aspect.

7. Admittedly, the appellants are party respondents before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order without putting the appellants to notice. Thus, the appellants can certainly file applications for vacation of the aforesaid order. If such applications are filed, the learned Single Judge will certainly examine the same and in that event, it cannot be said that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge has attained finality or falls within the ambit of “judgment”. Thus, the judgment of the Supreme Court in LIC of India (supra) is of no assistance in the factual backdrop of this matter. The point involved in this case is no more res integra. In catena of judgments, it was held that against an interlocutory order, a Letters Patent Appeal/Writ Appeal can be entertained with circumspection and upon fulfilling the requirements of certain factors.

8. In University of Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar, Central University Campus (P.O), Gachibowli, Hyderabad v. Sadik Hussain, 2013 SCC OnLine AP 342, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad considered Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and opined that it provides an appeal from a “judgment” of Single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction to a Division Bench. The judgment