THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AN D THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.700 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.15440 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed by the appellant.

2. Heard Sri Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Devineni Radha Rani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for MAUD, appearing for respondent No.2, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, appearing for respondent No.3, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.6.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that respondent No.1 herein has filed W.P.No.15440 of 2025 challenging the proceedings dated 28.05.2025 and contended that the appellant has obtained building permission without there being a layout and the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition vide order dated 04.06.2025 and directed the official respondents to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders on or before 30.06.2025, after giving an opportunity to both the parties before granting any permission.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the proceedings dated 28.05.2025 are not in existence and no such proceedings were issued by the official respondents and the learned Single Judge could not have disposed of the writ petition by directing the official respondents to conduct detailed enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing for respondent No.3 had filed affidavit dated 26.08.2025 to the effect that the proceedings dated 28.05.2025 were never issued by the official respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1 had contended that the proceedings dated 28.05.2025 are not issued by the official respondents and accordingly, appropriate orders be passed and as such, the official respondents would take necessary action if the appellant violates any of the layout conditions and building permissions.

7. Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1 had further contended that in the affidavit dated 26.08.2025 filed by the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, the official respondents have contended that no building permission was granted on 28.05.2025. However, in the very same affidavit, it is contended that layout permission was granted. Learned counsel further contended that if the building permission was not issued by respondent No.4, then the purpose of filing the writ petition itself may not arise.

8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the considered view that respondent No.4 had neither granted building permission nor any layout permission to the appellant. Therefore, the purpose of filing the writ petition itself does not survive and hence, the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15440 of 2025 is liable to be set aside.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of with an observation that respondent No.4 has neither granted any building permission nor layout permission to the appellant and the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15440 of 2025 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

_________________________________

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J Date: 03.09.2025 Pvt