IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.307 of 2026 DATE:16.03.2026 Between:

Rayapudi Siva Kumari and 9 others ….Appellants And Nimmagadda Darahasa Lahari and 21 others ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Jagadish Kadudas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants; Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1; Sri Mamidi Sai Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.14; Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) appearing for respondent Nos.17 and 18 and Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.22.

2. This writ appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred by the appellants herein, who are respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 14, 16, 17, 21 and 22 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.26451 of 2021, assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.2025. By the said order, the learned Single Judge allowed I.A.No.1 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 herein under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’). The learned Single Judge, being prima facie satisfied that appellants Nos.3, 7 and 8 (Petitioner Nos.3, 7 and 17 in the writ petition) had forged the signatures of several other co-petitioners on the Vakalatnama filed in the main writ petition, directed the Registrar (Judicial-I) to take necessary steps for initiating proceedings against them.

Factual matrix

3. The dispute concerns an apartment complex known as “Elite Residency” situated at Pragathi Nagar, Hyderabad. The builders, respondent Nos.19 and 20 herein (Vatti Srinivasa Reddy and Vatti Suneela), obtained a sanctioned plan from the then Gram Panchayat in 2007 for a Ground + 3 floors structure comprising 24 flats. They sold these flats to various individuals, including the appellants, between 2012 and 2014.

4. Disputes arose when the builders constructed two additional structures on the terrace of the third floor, styled as penthouses bearing Flat Nos.401 and 402. These constructions were alleged to be unauthorised and in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The said penthouses were sold in July, 2021 to respondent Nos.1 and 21, namely Nimmagadda Darahasa Lahari and his wife, on the representation that the constructions had been regularized by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) vide proceedings dated 21.06.2021.

5. Aggrieved by the said construction and the alleged inaction of the statutory authorities, a group of 24 flat owners, including the appellants, instituted W.P.No.26451 of 2021. The writ petition sought a declaration that the inaction of GHMC and HMDA on their representations dated 04.10.2021 was illegal and arbitrary, and further sought a direction to demolish the alleged unauthorised penthouses. The petition also questioned the validity of the HMDA regularization proceedings dated 21.06.2021, alleging the same to be ‘fake’.

6. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No.1, who had purchased one of the penthouses, filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The application alleged commission of offences relating to fabrication of evidence and perjury in connection with the filing of the writ petition. The basis of the said application was that the Vakalatnama dated 25.10.2021 filed in the writ petition purportedly bore the signatures of all 24 writ petitioners. Upon obtaining a certified copy of the said Vakalatnama, respondent No.1 alleged that several signatures therein were forged, in particular, the signatures attributed to petitioner Nos.4, 6, 10, 12, 20, 23, and 24 were stated to be fabricated.

7. It was alleged that on the date of execution of the Vakalatnama, the said individuals were not present in Hyderabad, as some of them were residing abroad, including in the United States of A