THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P.No.34395 of 2011 O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.Siddhartha Goud, representing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3, and perused the record.

2. The instant Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of the respondents in finalizing the Draft Metropolitan Development Plan-2031 for Hyderabad Metropolitan Region, without giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to present the facts in relation to the representations made by it on 08.12.2008, 12.09.2011 and 22.11.2011, and also without affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

3. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents filed separate counter affidavits. 4. Based on the said counter affidavits, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3 would submit that the contention of the petitioner that the Draft Metropolitan Development Plan 2031 for the Hyderabad Metropolitan Region covers the entire area within the jurisdiction of HMDA, including the petitioner’s land is incorrect, and in fact, the petitioner’s land is earmarked for Bio-Conservation Use Zone and the said Master Plan is in force as on date.

5. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri V.Narsimha Goud, further submits that the allegation of the petitioner that the Government is once-again preparing a new master plan in respect of Sy.No.224 of Vattinagulapalli Village is not correct, and that since the Draft Master Development Plan -2031 does not cover the subject survey of the petitioner, affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before finalizing Draft Metropolitan Development Plan –

2031, does not arise.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits record and liberty may be granted to the petitioner to challenge the subsequent proceedings, whereby the building plan of the petitioner was rejected.

that the Draft Master Development Plan -2031, does not cover dt.03.04.2008, which is earmarked for Bio-Conservation Use Zone and the said Master Plan is in force as on date, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present Writ Petition.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum/authority for redressal of its grievance in view of the subsequent events, if any. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J Dt.17.10.2025 gra