JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Kothapalli Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. G.Bhaskar, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department appearing for respondent No.2.

2. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are the appellants, are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.9790 of 2018 whereby the cancellation of Layout Regularisation Scheme (LRS) permission dated 29.07.2013, granted to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was set aside. The reasons for cancellation of the LRS proceedings in favour of the writ petitioner contained in the impugned order dated 23.12.2017 are extracted hereunder:

“SC, KUDA, Warangal vide reference 8th cited sought legal opinion that Sri Bathini Venkata Narayana in his reply clearly stated in his explanation at page (2) 1st para that he alleged to have filed petition before the Hon’ble I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal and there by the case has been restored to its original position by setting the exparte decree. As such it is undoubtedly a clear admission of the fact and the litigation and a dispute with regard to his vacant plot in question is herein for which LRS was granted to him is appear to be pending before the Civil Court. In this aspect he has already given his opinion in detail and again reiterating the stand taken by him that U/Sec. 31 of T.S.U.A. (D) Act, 1975 and also as per guidelines issued by the Government Under Rule 6(viii)(i) envisaged that in the event of site in question under Litigation/legal disputes regarding ownership and title, shall not be considered for according sanction of LRS and deserves to be cancelled.

In the light of the above stated circumstances and facts mentioned by Sri Bathini Venkata Narayana and Standing Counsel, KUDA, Warangal opinion the LRS permission granted vide Roc.No.LRS/C1/783/2012/1217, dated 29-07-2013 with L.R.S.No.304/2013 in favour of B. Venkata Narayana and others vide L.R.S.No. 304/2013 is hereby cancelled.”

3. The guidelines for regularisation of LRS provide that it shall not be applicable amongst others, in cases where the site is under litigation/legal dispute regarding ownership. It is not in dispute that a litigation instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants (Darapuneni Chennaiah) seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of 306 Sq. Yds. in Sy.No.4/B, Lashkar Singaram Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District (corresponding to extent covered by the 33 feet wide road shown by the writ petitioner in the LRS plan) vide O.S.No.462 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal was pending when the layout regularisation scheme approval was granted in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was the defendant No.1 in the said suit. Despite the pendency of the said suit, the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA) proceeded to grant regularization permission to the writ petitioner vide proceedings No.LRS/C1/783/2012/1217 dated 29.07.2013.

4. The appellants’ predecessor filed W.P.No.20527 of 2015 which was disposed of on 20.12.2016 recording the respondent No.1’s undertaking that the 33 Ft. road would be laid from his own land. Later, KUDA cancelled the LRS permission on 23.12.2017 citing the pending litigation. The suit was ultimately dismissed on merits, on 12.12.2023, but an appeal vide A.S.No.74 of 2024 is pending. The learned Single Judge set aside the cancellation by the impugned order.

5. Therefore, the impugned order of cancellation of LRS proceedings on that legal ground cannot be faulted with. The next question, therefore, arises as to whether if the LRS proceedings could not have been granted during the pendency of the litigation, whether the question of LRS proceedings of the writ petitioner or the appellants should be left undecided.