THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22495 of 2025

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 24.07.2025 seeking cancellation of building permission dated 08.07.2025 bearing No.000804/BP/HMDA/ 0217/GHT/2025 issued in favour of the respondents No.4 to 7 as being illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Mr. K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Jalli Narender, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 7, Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 – Municipality and Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 - HMDA .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a suit in O.S.No.332 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, was filed by the petitioner for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of Ac.0.18 guntas and 52 sq. yards, out of 4800 sq. yards, in Sy.No.308/1, Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, against one Abbasi Begum @ Begum Jani (died) per LRs. The vendors of the vendor of suit. Status quo order dated 10.01.2020 was passed in IA.No.3856 of 2020 in O.S.No.332 of 2019. In disobedience of the status quo order, the defendants No.14 and 15 sold the property to the respondents No.4 to 7. Building permission was obtained by the respondents No.4 to 7 by indulging in misrepresentation. Thus, permission has to be cancelled under Section 176 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019.

4. Mr. Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel for the respondents No.4 to 7, submitted that the respondents No.4 to 7 are not party to O.S.No.332 of 2019. Status quo order dated 10.01.2020 does not bind the respondents No.4 to 7. Moreover, earlier a suit for declaration and injunction, filed by the petitioner, in O.S.No.721 of 1996 in the Court of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, was dismissed on 10.11.2017. The suit in O.S.No.332 of 2019 was filed for declaration and recovery of possession.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if O.S.No.332 of 2019, the status quo order dated 10.01.2020 passed therein is binding on them. During the pendency of the suit, they have purchased the subject property despite status quo order being passed. The sale to respondents No.4 to 7 is hit by doctrine of lis pendense.

6. The suit in O.S.No.332 of 2019 was filed for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of in respect of Ac.0.18 guntas and 52 sq. yards, out of 4800 sq. yards, in Sy.No.308/1, Nagaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. An Ad-Interim injunction application in IA.No.3856 of 2019 was filed restraining respondents No.10 to 15, their agents and representatives from changing the nature of the suit schedule property. However, status quo order dated 10.01.2020 was granted in IA.No.3856 of 2019 in O.S.No.332 of 2019. Thus, it is clear that there is no prohibitory order passed by the trial Court restraining alienation of the suit property.

7. In the opinion of this Court, the purchase of the subject property by the respondents No.4 to 7 under registered sale deed is not in disobedience of the status quo order dated 10.01.2020. Further, the respondents No.4 to 7 herein are, admittedly, not parties to the suit. It is stated that steps have already been taken by the petitioner to file an implead petition for impleadment of the 8. Learned senior counsel for the respondents No.4 to 7 submitted that building permission was obtained by the respondents No.4 to 7 for construction of Ground + 4 upper floors and Ground + 2 upper floors have already been constructed.

9. In this situation, this Court is not inclined to restrain the respondents No.4 to 7 from proceeding with further construction. However, as it is stated that implead application is being filed, the petitioner i