[ 3383 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALTSHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 22177 OF 2025 Between: 1. Kallem Balvanth Reddy, S/o.Late Seetha Ram Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ.Business, R/o.6-34, Balapur Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Kallem Yella Reddy, S/o.Late Narayan Reddy, Aged about 55 years' Occ. Business Rl/o.Villa No.1 12, Nakshatra Colony, Balapur Village, Ranga Reddy District. ...,.PETITIONERS AND 1 Principal Secretary Municipal . The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2. The Municipal Commissioner, Jalpally Municipality, Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. 3. The Town Planning Officer, Jalpally Municipality, Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. 4. The Hyderabad Metropoplitan Development Authority, (HMDA), Rep.by its Secreteary, Swarnajayanthi Commercial Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad -500 038 Telangana State. 5. The City Planning Officer, Shamshabad Zone, Hyderabad Metropolitan Developmnet Authority, Ranga Reddy District. Director (Planning) - ll, I lyderabad 6. The Metroppolitan Commissioner / Metropolitan Development Authority Swarna Jayanthi Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 7. The District Registrar, Prasanth Nagar, lDA. Kukatpally. Ranga Reddy District.

8. The Sub-Registrar, Champapet S.R.O.. Ranga Reddy District. t- Rep.by its Managing Director Sri I M/s. Snehitha Builders Private Limited., V5mireddy Narasimha Reddy. S/o.Linga Reddy Age 66 years. Oce. Business, R/o. H.No.3-2-87013, VNR Complex, Station Road. Kacheguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the 6th respondent authority declaring the action of Respondent No.4 to 6 in approving the final layout over the land in Sy. Nos. vitt '145 situated at Balapur and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of M/s. Snehitha Builders Private limited. i.e. Respondent No.9 vide Letter No. Part025152lSMD/LfNGF112019, dated 28.09.2024 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary tothe proceed ings videProc. No.2335/S HZPLGIHMD N2020, dated 06. 1 2.202 1 issued by Respondent No.4 and consequential relief to revokethe approved layout, dt.. 28.09.2024 in favor of Respondent No.9 withthe further directions to the Respondent Municipal Authorities i.e.Respondent No. 2 and 3 to demolish the illegal structures over theproperty to an extent of Ac.348-35 Gts in Survey Nos.144 and 145 situated at Balapur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the final layout pending disposal of the writ petition. LA.NO:2 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Sub RegistrariDistrict Registrar and l0 (INSPECTOR GENERAL OF STAMPS) not to entertain any sale deed or sale deeds of plots which form part of final layout which is subject matter of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.HANUMANTHA RAO Gounsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI J.RAVINDER REDDY - Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.9 : SRI D.PRAKASH REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI D.RAGHAVENDRA RAO The Court made the following ORDER IN I'HE HIGH COTJR'T FOR 1'TI]] STATE OF TELANCANA AT IIYDERABAT) HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRI'l'PE-lt'flON No.22177 of 2025 Dated:17 .06.2026 Between: Kal lem lJalvtnt h Redd.,' and unother Pelitioners And The State of '[ elangonu. reptd., hv i t.s Princ ipo l Secretary . Munit'i1tal ldnt in istrution & Develctpment Deportmenl. l!.vderabd and ei,qht others. Respondents ORDER:

-l his \[Irit I)etition is fllcd to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 to 6 in approvin!, 15" final lal,oLrt in lcspect of the Iand in S1,.No.1,15 situatcd at [3alapur Village and Mandal. Ranga Reddy District. in favour ol re'spondent n\o.9. r'rrle letter No.PartO25 I 52/SMD/L1' ltJ6ll I l2ol9. dated 18.09.102-1. as illcgal. arbitrary and in violation ol principles of natural justice and lbr conscquential rclief 2. fleard Sri ('hava Ilanr.rntantha Rao, Ieamed counsel for petitioners, Sri J.Ravindcr Rcddr,. lcarncd Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and.l. Sri V.\a.asinrlta (ioud. Iearncd Standing Counscl for respondent - 2 LNA, J l,l/P No.22 l7t o1 2025 Nos.4 to 6 and Sri D,Prakash Reddy, leamed senior counsel appearing for Sri D.Raghavendra Rao, leamed counse l-on-record for respondent No.9. the facts of the case, as averred in the writ affidavit'3. tn nurshell are that petitioners are the legal successors ol late Kallem Bat Reddy-owner of land admeasuring Acs'348.35 gts in Sy.Nos 144 and 145 of Balapur village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property'); that the name oi late Kallem Bal Reddy was reflected as pattadar/land holder in the revenue records (Sesala one KadariPahani) upto the year 1963 64; and that the narne of Venkaiah was recorded as a protected tenant.

Tahsildar issued proceedings vide File No'3.1. White so, the 12 unrelated persons P,1563llg87 dated 20.08.1987, wherein names of Kadariare shown as protected tenants besides the legal heirs of Venkaiah; that aggrieved thereby, the tegal heirs of Kadari Venkaiah filed Appeal No.F215036/2006 (renur.nbere<l as F2/5402120 l3), which was dismissed on the ground ol limitation; that challenging the same, the legat heirs of Kadari Venkaiah filed CRP.No.436l2008 before this - 3 LNA, J ,l/P.No.22 l1: of 2a25

Courr. which stood allowed and the matter was remanded to the Joint Collector tbr licsh ad.judication; that questioning thc said order, the protected tenanrs filed Special Leave Petitions, vrde SLP(C ).Nos.573 7, 5738 and 5739 of2() l4 against respondent No.9 and others along with an intervention application and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 17.03.2015, directed the Joint Collector to afford an opportunity of hearing to all parties. consider the documents produced by them and then pass appropriate ordersl that pursuant thereto, the Joint Collector passecl order daLed 31.08.2018 in File No.F2l540212013, cancelling the alleged surrender of lenanc\ rights; that aggriered thereby, the petitioners (landlords) Iiled CRP.No.l9l7 of 2019, wherein inrerirn order dated 21.08.20 l9 was granted not to conduct survey over the subject property lor the purposc oftaking away the sanre in terms of the order dated 31.08,20 I8 passed by the Joint Collecror; and that the protecled tenants also filed CRP.No.7212019, wherein this Court passed interirr order dated 17. 122019 staying operation of the order dated I I .08.10 l8 passcd bv thr. Joint Collector. 3.2 It u,as lurther ar.erred that circumventing the afuresaid orders of this Court, third parries creatcd illegar sare deeds over the subject - 4 I-N A, J ll/P.No.22l7t'ol 2025

property and the Tahsitdar, Balapur Mandal, confirmed the surrendering vlde protected tenants in favour of respondent No'9'of rights of proceedingsinFileNos.Bl|386/21dated28'01.2022,13179|12019, dated27.07.2019,andBl79220l9,dated2l'07'2}lgandinalltheWrit Petitionsfiledbytheprotectedtenantschallengingthesaidproceedings, ol 2022' this Courtvide WP.Nos.21063, 22795, 25466 and 39449 of thegranted interim order suspending the aloresaid proceedings Tahsildar. 3.S.Itisfurtheraverredthatinpursuanceoftheinterimorders the passed by this Court, the subject property has been included in prohibitory properties list. Despite the same, respondent No'9 misrepresented the facts and obtained technical approval for layout' ttide I /LO/PIg/HM D A12020, dated 25'08'2020' Permit No.00009 also petitioners further avened that respondent No'9 has 3.4. T'he 4 obtained final layout approval lor open plots and a clubhouse (stilt + floors) in Sy.No. 145/1, vide letter No.Part-02i 52lSMD/LTru6lH12019 dated 28.09.2024. Aggrieved thereby' the petitioners, being the legal - LNA, J ll/ P. No )2 l:- ol 2l))5 heirs of Kallem llal Reddy'-original landlord. filed the presenr wril petlt ton

1. [-eamed counsel 1br the petitioners submitted that the peritioners are the pattadars and absolute owners ol the subject property, being the legal heirs ol late Kallem Bal Reddy, whose name was reflected as pattadar/landh o lder in the Sesala Pahani as well as in the revenue records upto 1963 64. and that there is no dispute with regard to their o\\,ncrship oVer Acs.3.+8.35 grs in Sy.Nos. l44 & 145. He lur-r.her submitted that respondcnt No.9, without an) lawful ritle or authoritv, obtained lay'out permission lrom HMDA by playing fraud, misrepresenting and deliberately suppressing the material facts, vL., the subject property bcing notified in prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, pendency of disputes as regartls the titie and tenancy over the subject proper-ty, pendency of several CRPs and Writ [)ctitions filed in respect of the subject property and also pendencl, of the connected proceedings pending before the revenue authorities, and as such, the layout permission is liable to be cance lled - 6 LNA, J lv P. No 22177 of2025

lor petitioners submitted that since respondent4.1 . Learned counsel No.9 obtained the layout approved by playing fraud, the same is vitiated in law. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the S. P,Chengalvaraya Naidu v' lagannathtHon'ble Supreme Court in wherein it is and A.V.Papayya Sastry v- Government of A'f ', judicial acts, irrespective of categorically hetd that fraud vitiates att whether the same are in personam or in rem. that counsel for petitioners further submitted4.2. Learned verification of clear and undisputed title is mandatory before grant of discharge this statutory layout approval, and the HMDA lailed to obligation cast on it by issuing layout approval without verifying the revenue records and the entries in prohibitory list and also ignoring the pendency of various litigations with regard to the subject property' He lurther submitted that the IIMDA erred in not exercising the power under Section 22 ol the IIMDA Act and revoking the final approved Iayout granted to respondent No.9. the petitioners further submitted that since 4.J. Learned counsel lor respondent No.9 has no valid right or title over the subject property, the '"rsga 1r1 scc r ' zoo7 lt) scc zzr 1 LNA,I W P. No.2) t?7 ol 2025 sale deeds cxccuted b1, it in favour of third parties ha\,e no effect and in support of the said submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex ('ourt in K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registray'.

4.4. Learned counsel further asserted that since the subject property is included in prohibitor-v list, the same bars the statutory authorities concemed from entertaining anr registration or sranting developmental permission in respecr of the subject property until the prohibition is removed. He f'urther subrritted that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 o1'the Transfer of Properly Act prohibits creation of third-partr 1ig[15 in respect of the property during the pendency ofdisputes in relation thereto. ,1.5. I Ie llrthcr submitted that the proceedings dated27.07.20t9 and 28.01.2022. issued bv the Tahsildar, purporting to accepr surrendering of protected lcnanc) rights b;- the alleged third parlies in lavour of respondent \o.9 and deleting the names ol the legal heirs of Kadari Venkaiah lrom the then existing PT register, are wholly without jurisdiction since the tenancy dispute was already sub judice belore this Coun in CRI,.Nos.72 and l9l7 ol 20 19. and the alleged surrender of -r,'\x€nc) rights by third parties in la'our of respondent No.9 was not - 2025 SCC ONLTNt SC 740 - 8 LNA, J lYP. No.22177 ol 2025

lawful. He further submitted that respondent No.9, having knowledge that the subject tand was in prohibitory list, pendency of litigations with regard to tenancy rights and the interim orders granted by this Court in CRP.No.72 ol 2019 and l9l7 of 2019, cannot claim to be a bona fide constructionpurchaser; that the continuation of development or toactivities by respondent No.9 in the subject property will lead multipticity of proceedings, creation of irreversible third-party rights, and cause irreparable loss to the petitioners' legitimate rights and by beapplication of doctrine of lis pendens, no legal rights are said to transferred fiom respondent No.9 to the third parties. the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the5. By advancing petitioners prayed to allow the Writ Petition. contentions, leamed counsel for petitioners placed6. In support of his reliance on the following judgments:-l. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath 2. A.V. Papayyo Sastry) v. Governmenl ofA,P 3. K.Gopi v. Sub-Registrar - 9 LNA J 1,1/ P. No 2211' of 2a2 5 4. Shivshankaro and onr v. H.P. Vedavyssa Char4 5, State ofPunjab ond onr v. Gurdial Singh and orss 6. State of ,1P and ars r'. ,\. Autlikesava Reddl' and ors6 7. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and ors v. Director, Health Services, Haryuna' 8. Order dated 27.12.2022 passed in ll/rit Appeat No.t57 of2023 9. Ramokant Ambalsl Choksi v. Hqrish Ambalal and orss

10. Ramesh Chand (D) thr. Lrs v. Suresh Chand and anre 7 . In S. P,Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme C ourl obserr,cd thus: ''The principle ol ".finalit.t of litigotion" cannot be pressed Io the extent o-f such an ahsurdin that it becomes an engine offraud in rhe hands o./'dislnttest litigants. The c.ourts of !aw c,re meant .lbr onporting justi(e between the parlies. One who (omes to lhe courl. mltst conte titl't cleon hartds. lYe are constrained to sa1, thol ntore o.fien than not. process of lhe court is being abused Prope rn'-grab bc rs, tt:tx- cvaders. bank-loa n-dodgers and other unscru pt!l()1t.t pcr.\on.\ .fi-om crll walk.s of lifc ./ind the cottrt -proce.\.t (r cony(nienl lever to retoin tlte illegal-gainS '2023 Lrve Law (SC) 261 ' rgao (z) scc +zr u zooz 1t'1 scc zzt -,'-zor:1r01 scc r:o 2024 tNSC 913 2025 tNSC 1059 - 10 LNA.,I trP No.22177 o{ 2025 indefinitety. We have no hesitation to say thal a person, whots case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court' He can be summarily tht own out at any stage of the litigation". 8 ln A.V.Papayya Sastry's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Couft observed thus " anv .iudgtnent or order lt is well settled principle of Law lhal if is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be o judgment or order Coke in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward proclaimed;

"Fraud avoids alljudicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" It is thus settled proposition of law that a iudgment, decree or order oblained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or a Authority is a nulliry^ and non est in lhe eye of law Such judgment, decree or order by the Jirst Court or by the finaL Court has to be treated as nullitv bv everv Court, superior or inferior' appeal' It can be challenged in an1' Cotrrt, at any time' in revi.sion, v,ril or even in collateral proceedings Fraud nta)' be deJined as on act of deliberate deception with the design oJ'sectrring some unfair or undeserved benefit by the taking undue advantage of another' ln fraud one gains at proceedings stand vitiated { loss if another. Even mosl solemn they are actualed b1'fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral in act which vitiales all judicial acts, whelher in rem or be personam. The principle of finality of litigation' cannot as stretched to lhe extent of an absurdity that it can be utilized litiganls' " an engine ofoppression b.v' dishonest and fraudulent 9 ln K,Gopi's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held that.'.- -.. - 11 LNA, J WP i\io 22 l1: of 2025 " l he regi.stt,ring olfitet r.s not toncerned v,ith the title het(l by Ihe eyecutdtlt. He has no atljudicaron,power to dccide whether the execliant has any title.

... Once the r('gistering authority is satisfiecl thot the parf ies to the document are present before him and the y;arties aclmit exe.Ltttotl thereo/' before him, subject to making procedural cr:tntpliance.s Lts narruled above, rhe document mltsl he registered. .. .Tlp execution and registration o/ a clocumt,nt have the e//icr of rron-;lert.rng onlt those rights, i.[ ant,, that rhe execLttant po.r.rd.rses lJ tlte e.recutunt hos no right, title, or inleresl in the properh'. the rt'gi.stered document connot eJfect on.r lransfer. l0 In the case ol- Shivshankoro ond onr's case (cited supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 'It ts a well-nrgh settled posltion that v,herever Tp Act s nor applicable, such principle in the saicl provision of the said Act. v hich i.s hast'tl on iu.rti(.e. eqttin, and goocl conscience is opplitcrble in o eiven sintilot circtrntston.,e, like Cottrt sale ett.. 7'rans./ir oJ p().t.\cs.tiot1 p(ndente lite vilt olso be tran-sfer o/ properfi' wtthin the meaning of Section 52 and, th,zrefore, the itnporr of Section 52 of the TP Act is that i,f there is ctny transfer o/' righr in irnnoyable propertt. durrng rlrc pendency of a suit strch trunsfer v ill be non e.\t it1 the et,e of low if it wiil adversel.l, al/icr the intercst of the other party to the suit in the propery, concerned. I{e mu.t hasten to add that the effect of Se,ction 52 is - L2 LNA, J WP.No 22177 of 2025

that the right of the successftrl partf in the litigalion in regard to lhat proper$'vould not be aJfeaed by the alienation' but it does not mean that as againsl the transferor the lransaction is invalid. " learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No 9I l. Per contra, submitted that the petitioners, who claim to be successors to the subiect property, have deliberately and willlully suppressed the crucial fact that their family had already alienated their limited l/l5th share in the subject property. has counsel, in support of his submission' 11.1. Learned senior Sale- brought to the notice of this Court the registered Agreement of possession vide Document cum-General Power of Atlorrrey with and No.10954/2006 dated 15.05.2006 for Acs.9.37 gts in Sy'No'144, Acs l3'13 gts in document No. 13750/2006 dated 29.06.2006 for Sy.No. 145, executed by the petitioners, (shown as Vendor Nos 5 and 19), along with other lamily members representing their branch' in favour of third parties and the petitioners having received total sale subject propefty to the consideration, delivered possession of the vendees. Thus, the petitioners are estopped from asserting any right, title or interest over the lands covered under the aforesaid deeds, which - 13 L,\ 1 .J ll/P No )) l-) o1 2025

includes the land covered under the HMDA approved layout and hence, the rvrit petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for want of locus stctndiolthe petitioners as l,u,ell as on the ground of suppression of material lacts. ll,l. [.earned senior counscl turther subrnitted that the present Writ Petition raises disputed questions of title, or,,,nership and possession in rcspect of the subject property extending over a period of nearlv ser,en decades and such issues cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 and can only be decided by a competent civil Court after recording evidence and therefore, on this ground also, the writ petition is nor maintainable. I 1.3. He lurther submitted that the bona fide third party plor purchasers lrom respondent No.9. who have commenced construction in the subject property! strictly in accordance w.ith the pcrmission granted by the competent authorities, are necessary and proper parties to the /ls, as an1 order passed in their absence rvould directly anrl adversely. affect their vested rights. llence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed lor non-.io indcr of nccessun partics. -..- - 74 I,N A. .I WP.No.22lt7 of 2025 11.4. He further submitted that the impugned final approved layout dated 28.09.2024 was granted by HMDA only after the subject properry was deleted from the prohibitory list, which was the sole basis lor passing ofthe abeyance order dated 06.12.2021, earlier thereto.

12. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Undertaking, dated 26.09.2024, given by respondent No.9 specifically stating that it will indemniff and compensate the HMDA for any loss, damages or liabilities in the event of passing any adverse orders by the Court in the pending cases, including CRP.No.l9l712019 filed by the petitioners herein. Thercfore, the irnpugned final layout approval is neither illegal nor arbitrary and the same is issued in accordance with law. The petitioners have failed to produce a single document evidencing their possession over the land in Sy.Nos. 144 and 145. Hence, on the aloresaid grounds, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 12.1. Leamed Standing Counsel lor respondent Nos.4 to 6 submitted that the IIMDA had accorded dlaft layout approval for 747 plots, consisting of 136 housing plots, open spaces, and a clubhouse area in - 15 LNA,,] WP.No.)2177 o[ 2025

the Iand situated in Sy,.No. 145/P, Balapur Village, admeasuring 3,43.864.92 square merers, r'ide Application No. 0251 52/SMDll,TlU6/ HI\{I),\i160620 I 9 and Lal,our Permir No. 00009 I /LCt/PlglllMD A12020 dated 10.09.2020. lhar subsequently, on receiving objections lrom Kadari Aniaiah and others. claiming protected tenancy rights over the said sr.rn,e)' number, detailed hearings were conducted and the documents produced by all parties were examined, and the proceedings dated 06.11.2021, werc issued keeping the final approval of the layout in abcyancc until disposal of the related court cases and deletion of the sub.iect lancl 1l'orn thc prohibitory list. 12.2. l-eamed Standing Counsel further submitted that some of the protccted tenants filed alfidavits belore the I'IMDA as well as before the 'fahsildar surrendering their protected tenancy rights in favour of respondent No.9. which were confirmed vide Proceedings No. Bi13861202l dated 28.01 .2022, and the said persons also withdrew rhe objections pcnding bcfore thc llMDA. Further, based on the letter dated 27.10.2.022, of the Sub-Registrar, Champapet, inlorming that ther.e were no prohibitor",'- orders on S;-.No. 145 i.e., subject survey number, and that accordingll,. the said Survev number was deleted from the prohibitorv .- 76 I,NA,J W P. No.22lt 7 ol 2025 Watch Register, the HMDA issued the final approval of the layout on 28.09.2024

submitted that the petitioners12.3. Learned Standing Counsel further have not impleaded the bona fide purchasers/third-party plot owners, who are necessary and proper parties and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable lor non-joinder of necessary parlies, The draft layout was never cancelled or revoked; it was merely kept in abeyance, pending clarification on protected tenancy claims. Once HMDA was satisfied about the prima facie title, and in the absence of any stay, injunction, status quo order, or other prohibitory direction binding HMDA, the respondent authorities were statutorily obligated to process the application under Section 22 of the I{MDA Act. As on the date of lssuance of final approved layout, dated 28.09.2024. there existed no andtegal impediment preventing HMDA from issuing the same therefore, the Writ Petition is Iiable to be dismissed earnest consideration to the submissions I 3. This Court gave its advanced by the learned Counsel for petitioners as well as leamed Senior Counscl lor respondent No.9 and learned Standing Counsel for 1,7 LNA, J WP.No.22l77 of 2025 respondent Nos,4 to 6 and perused the entire material available on record

14. The petitioners allege that respondent No.9 obtained the layout approvals by' suppressing the pendency ol various Iitigations and prohibitory orders. and relied upon the principles laid down in S.P" Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (cited supra) and A.V. Papayyo Sastry's case (cited s upra/ wherein it was held that fraud vitiates alljudicial and admin istratir.'e acts. 15. A careful examinarion of the record reveals that the HMDA had initially kept the trnal approval of the layout ln abeyance through proceedings dated 06.12.202 I, on the grounds rhat the subjcct property is in prohibitorv list and that this Courl in CRP.No.72 of 2019, vide orders dated 21 .02.2019, has granted stay oforder passed by the Joint Collector with regard to surrendcr of tenancy rights. 16. It is the case of the HMDA that based on the letter of the SRO, Champapet, dated 27.10.2022, stating that there are no stay/injunction/ status quo olders granted b1, thc Court of law and the subject Survey - 18 LNA, J llP.No.22l77 of 2025 number was deleted from the prohibitory Watch Register, the HMDA has approved the final layout, vide the impugned proceedings.

ll . Respondent No.9 claims to have title and ownership over the subject land by virtue ol surrendering of tenancy rights by the tenants. Therefore, the crux ofthe issue goes to surrendering of tenancy rights in respect of the subject property ln favour of respondent No.9. The surrendering of tenancy rights was dealt with by the Joint Collector, who vide orders dated 31.08.2018 cancelled the alleged surrender ol tenancy rights and set aside the succession orders, dated 20.08.1987, issued to Kadari Balaiah and 30 others, who are the legal heirs of Kadari Venkaiah. However, this order of the Joint Collector was challenged before this Court in CRP.Nos. I9l7 and 72 of 2019 and this Court vide orders dated 21.08.2019 and 27.02.2019, respectively, has granted interim stay of operation of the said order. 18. Further, it is bome out from the record that some of the legal heirs of Kadari Venkaiah filed WP.Nos.22795 and 25466 of 2022 seeking to quash the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Balapur, dated 27 .07 .2019, whereunder the protected tenancy rights were sunendered 19 LNA,.) lt/P. No.2 2 li7 o/ 2025

to respondent No.9 herein and this Clourt vide orders, dated 29.04.2022 and )7.10 202). passed in WP\os.22795 and 25466 of 2022, respectivell. has categorically obscrvcd that under Section l9(l) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural l,ands Act, 1956, protected tenancy riehts can be surrendered only in favour of landlords and not in lavour ol an1' third parties and accordingly, suspended the orders impr.rgned thelein. The said interim orders passed by this Court are subsistins as on todal' 19. Admittedly. respondcnt No.9 is not the landowner and he is a third party to the subject propetty and therefore, surrendering of protccted tenancy rights by the persons who are claiming tenancy rights over the subject propertv in lavour of respondent No.9 is nonest in Ihe eye ol lau and has no lesal validity 20. Furthermore, even in WPNo.2l063 of 2022, this Court. vide orders datecl 29.04 2.(122. suspcndcd the impugned proceedings therein surrendering the tenancy rights by the protected tenants in favour of respondent No.9 in respect of the subject property. These orders .- 20 1N.4. .i ItP.No.22l:i ol 2t)25 necessarily mean that respondent No.9 has no right or title over the subject Survey number

21. Therefore, from the above it is manifest that as on the date of addressing the letter dated 27.10.2022, by the Sub-Registrar, Ohampapet, to the tlMDA, the interim orders passed in WPNo.22795 of 2022, dated 29.04.2022 and in W.P.No.2 1063 of 2022, dated 29.04.2022 and CRP.Nos. l9l7 and 72 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019 and 27.02.2019, respectively, with regard to the subject Survey Number were subsisting. The Tahsildar, Balapur Mandal, was a party to the said Writ Petitions, therefore, passing of the aforesaid orders by this Court was in the knowledge of the revenue authorities. However, there appears to be some miscommun ication between the revenue and registration Departments and the said orders are not noted in the Registers maintained by the Sub-Registrar. 22. In addition to the above, it is apt to note that respondent No.9 herein is a party to the aforesaid Writ Petitions, whereunder interim orders were passed to the effect that surrender of tenancy rights in its favour were suspended by this Court, and as such, it is well aware and - 21, l.tiA. J u/P.\o 22 t7- ol 2025 has knor.r,ledge of the said orders. However, respondent No.9 has suppressed and not disclosed the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions rlentioned hereinabove while making application for final approval o1' the layout

23. In this resard, it is trite to refer to the judgment of this Court in Smt. I-olitha Srikrish & others Vs, The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretory, .l4A & UD, Secretqriot, Hytlertbad & othersto, wherein it is held that the applicanr shall necessarily disclose all the facts and file all the lelevanl documents while applying lor permission for construction. lt was turther held that the pending cases or litigations over the building permission is invariably linked to ownership or title, such pending lit igation s/d isputc with regard to title over the property is a rnaterial lact u hich has to bc mandatorily disclosed by the appellant who seeks building permission over said property. Such discloser ol pending litigations/su its is necessan, for the authorities to determine prime facie title and possession. 21. With regard to the same aspect, it is pertinent to note the ratio laid dor,,,n by a Division llench of this Courr, vide judgment dated 24.09.2021 o lzozz'1 : att 3 t - 22 LNA, J WP No 2217 ; ol 2025 in Writ Appeal No.l62 of 2021 {M/s. Fortuna Infraslructure India Pvt non-disclosure ofLtd vs. State of Telangana|, wherein it is held that pending litigation amounts to material m isreprese ntation under Section 450 of the GHMC Act, 1955.

the aforesaid two judgments of this Court, the25. In the light o[ inaction on the part of respondent No.9 in disclosing the pendency of the subjectWrit Petitions and CRP before this Court with regard to the survey numbers belore the HMDA while making application for approval of final Iayout amounts to rnaterial m isrepresentation and suppression of facts. was issued with an observation that 26. The final approved layout the protected tenants have surrendered their tenancy rights in favour of respondent No.9 and also made representations that they have no claims over the subject lands. Due to the misrepresentation of the material lact as regards suspension olsurrendering oftenancy rights in its lavour by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, the administrative power exercised by HMDA by approving the final layout is vitiated, since it is settled principle of law that lraud vitiates all judicial and administrative - 23 LNA, J ll/P.No.22l7i ol 2025 acts. (Sce S.P. Cftangalvaraya Naidu's case (cited supra) and A.V. Papayyu .Sas/rJ's case (cited supra). 27. In the teeth of thc interim orders passcd by this Court, the surrender ol- tenancr rights in I'avour of respondent No.9 in respect of the subjecr property stood suspended. thereby, respondent No.9 holds no valid title over the subject properly.

28. Hence, the observations and understanding on which the HMI)r\ granted fina1 approved layout are factually incorrect and are contrary to the interim orders passed by this Court in the pending Writ Petitions and CRP. mentioned hereinabove 29 As reqards the contcntion of respondent No.9 that the petitioners have already' alienated their share in the subject survey number and as such. they have no iocus standi to file the present Writ Petition, a perusal of the record discloses that the interse tenancv rights in respect r:1'the subject survey numbers between the legal heirs of the protected tenant-Kadari Vcnkaiah arc not adjudicated conclusively and the rnatter is pending considcration before the revenue authorities. Therefore, this Couft erercising the powers under Article 226 of thc = 24 LNA, J l{P No.22177 of 2025 Constitution of lndia cannot delve into the said disputed question of title and it is for the parties to agitate the same before the appropriate forum which after conducting detailed enquiry, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law 30. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, this Court holds that respondent No.9 has suppressed and not disclosed the subsistence of interim orders passed by this Court in the alorementioned Writ Petitions in respect of the subject survcy number, which amounts to m isrepresentation of material facts and therefore, the impugned final approved layout is liable to be set aside.

31. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the letter No. Par1025 I 52/SMDILT lU 6l F I 120 19, dated 28.09.2024, whereby final layout was approved in favour of respondent No.9, and the matter is remanded to respondent No.6 with a direction to take into account and scrupulously follow all the orders passed by this Court in the aloresaid Writ Petitions in respect of the subject survey number, afford an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concemed and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. t- 25 LNA, J trP No )111'o[20)5 32. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- C. DEEPIKA AS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal secretary, state of relangana, Rep.by its principal secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Departmeni Secretariai Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2. The Municipal Commissioner, Jalpally Municipality, Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State 3. The Town Planning Officer, Jalpally Municipality, Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State 4. The Hyderabad Metropoplitan Devetopment Authority, (HMDA), Rep.by its _ Swarnajayanthi Commercial Comptex, Ameerpet, iyOeiaOaO !99r9!eaV, 500 038 Telangana State 5. The city Planning officer, shamshabad Zone, Hyderabad Metroporitan Developmnet Authority, Ranga Reddy District.

6. The Mekoppolitan Commissioner / Director (planning) _ ll, I lyderabad -Complex, Metropolitan Development Authority Swarna Jayanthi Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 7. The District Registrar, Prasanth Nagar, lDA. Kukatpally. Ranga Reddy District. 8 The Sub-Registrar, Champapet S.R.O.. Ranga Reddy District. 9. M/.. snehitha Buirders private Limited., Rep.by iti Managing Director sri Vemireddy Narasimha Reddy. s/o.Linga ReddyAge 66 years-. orce. Business, R/o. H. No.3-2-87013, VNR Complex, Station Road. Kacheguda, Hyderabad. 10 Two ccs to Gp FoR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN OeleloptueruT, High Qourt for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 11. One CC to SRI C HANUMANTHA RAO, Advocat,e [OPUC] 12.One CC to SRI D.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, Advocate (OpUb) '13 One CC to SRI J RAVTNDER REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 14. One CC to SRI V.NARASTMHG GOUD, Advocate (OpUC) '15. Two CD Copies SA tuy GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 1710612026 1 \lE STATC- zo (j 1eJuN2o26 _b o , .ar=- .-t * C,'. S,,i.'r';'l ORDER WP.No.22177 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. I l. 1 b \q

[ 3383 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALTSHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: 22177 OF 2025 Between: 1. Kallem Balvanth Reddy, S/o.Late Seetha Ram Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ.Business, R/o.6-34, Balapur Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Kallem Yella Reddy, S/o.Late Narayan Reddy, Aged about 55 years' Occ. Business Rl/o.Villa No.1 12, Nakshatra Colony, Balapur Village, Ranga Reddy District. ...,.PETITIONERS AND 1 Principal Secretary Municipal . The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2. The Municipal Commissioner, Jalpally Municipality, Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. 3. The Town Planning Officer, Jalpally Municipality, Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. 4. The Hyderabad Metropoplitan Development Authority, (HMDA), Rep.by its Secreteary, Swarnajayanthi Commercial Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad -500 038 Telangana State. 5. The City Planning Officer, Shamshabad Zone, Hyderabad Metropolitan Developmnet Authority, Ranga Reddy District. Director (Planning) - ll, I lyderabad 6. The Metroppolitan Commissioner / Metropolitan Development Authority Swarna Jayanthi Complex, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 7. The District Registrar, Prasanth Nagar, lDA. Kukatpally. Ranga Reddy District.

8. The Sub-Registrar, Champapet S.R.O.. Ranga Reddy District. t- Rep.by its Managing Director Sri I M/s. Snehitha Builders Private Limited., V5mireddy Narasimha Reddy. S/o.Linga Reddy Age 66 years. Oce. Business, R/o. H.No.3-2-87013, VNR Complex, Station Road. Kacheguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the 6th respondent authority declaring the action of Respondent No.4 to 6 in approving the final layout over the land in Sy. Nos. vitt '145 situated at Balapur and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in favour of M/s. Snehitha Builders Private limited. i.e. Respondent No.9 vide Letter No. Part025152lSMD/LfNGF112019, dated 28.09.2024 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and contrary tothe proceed ings videProc. No.2335/S HZPLGIHMD N2020, dated 06. 1 2.202 1 issued by Respondent No.4 and consequential relief to revokethe approved layout, dt.. 28.09.2024 in favor of Respondent No.9 withthe further directions to the Respondent Municipal Authorities i.e.Respondent No. 2 and 3 to demolish the illegal structures over theproperty to an extent of Ac.348-35 Gts in Survey Nos.144 and 145 situated at Balapur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the final layout pending disposal of the writ petition. LA.NO:2 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Sub RegistrariDistrict Registrar and l0 (INSPECTOR GENERAL OF STAMPS) not to entertain any sale deed or sale deeds of plots which form part of final layout which is subject matter of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.HANUMANTHA RAO Gounsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI J.RAVINDER REDDY - Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.9 : SRI D.PRAKASH REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI D.RAGHAVENDRA RAO The Court made the following ORDER IN I'HE HIGH COTJR'T FOR 1'TI]] STATE OF TELANCANA AT IIYDERABAT) HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRI'l'PE-lt'flON No.22177 of 2025 Dated:17 .06.2026 Between: Kal lem lJalvtnt h Redd.,' and unother Pelitioners And The State of '[ elangonu. reptd., hv i t.s Princ ipo l Secretary . Munit'i1tal ldnt in istrution & Develctpment Deportmenl. l!.vderabd and ei,qht others. Respondents ORDER:

-l his \[Irit I)etition is fllcd to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 to 6 in approvin!, 15" final lal,oLrt in lcspect of the Iand in S1,.No.1,15 situatcd at [3alapur Village and Mandal. Ranga Reddy District. in favour ol re'spondent n\o.9. r'rrle letter No.PartO25 I 52/SMD/L1' ltJ6ll I l2ol9. dated 18.09.102-1. as illcgal. arbitrary and in violation ol principles of natural justice and lbr conscquential rclief 2. fleard Sri ('hava Ilanr.rntantha Rao, Ieamed counsel for petitioners, Sri J.Ravindcr Rcddr,. lcarncd Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and.l. Sri V.\a.asinrlta (ioud. Iearncd Standing Counscl for respondent - 2 LNA, J l,l/P No.22 l7t o1 2025 Nos.4 to 6 and Sri D,Prakash Reddy, leamed senior counsel appearing for Sri D.Raghavendra Rao, leamed counse l-on-record for respondent No.9. the facts of the case, as averred in the writ affidavit'3. tn nurshell are that petitioners are the legal successors ol late Kallem Bat Reddy-owner of land admeasuring Acs'348.35 gts in Sy.Nos 144 and 145 of Balapur village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as 'the subject property'); that the name oi late Kallem Bal Reddy was reflected as pattadar/land holder in the revenue records (Sesala one KadariPahani) upto the year 1963 64; and that the narne of Venkaiah was recorded as a protected tenant.

Tahsildar issued proceedings vide File No'3.1. White so, the 12 unrelated persons P,1563llg87 dated 20.08.1987, wherein names of Kadariare shown as protected tenants besides the legal heirs of Venkaiah; that aggrieved thereby, the tegal heirs of Kadari Venkaiah filed Appeal No.F215036/2006 (renur.nbere<l as F2/5402120 l3), which was dismissed on the ground ol limitation; that challenging the same, the legat heirs of Kadari Venkaiah filed CRP.No.436l2008 before this - 3 LNA, J ,l/P.No.22 l1: of 2a25

Courr. which stood allowed and the matter was remanded to the Joint Collector tbr licsh ad.judication; that questioning thc said order, the protected tenanrs filed Special Leave Petitions, vrde SLP(C ).Nos.573 7, 5738 and 5739 of2() l4 against respondent No.9 and others along with an intervention application and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by order dated 17.03.2015, directed the Joint Collector to afford an opportunity of hearing to all parties. consider the documents produced by them and then pass appropriate ordersl that pursuant thereto, the Joint Collector passecl order daLed 31.08.2018 in File No.F2l540212013, cancelling the alleged surrender of lenanc\ rights; that aggriered thereby, the petitioners (landlords) Iiled CRP.No.l9l7 of 2019, wherein inrerirn order dated 21.08.20 l9 was granted not to conduct survey over the subject property lor the purposc oftaking away the sanre in terms of the order dated 31.08,20 I8 passed by the Joint Collecror; and that the protecled tenants also filed CRP.No.7212019, wherein this Court passed interirr order dated 17. 122019 staying operation of the order dated I I .08.10 l8 passcd bv thr. Joint Collector. 3.2 It u,as lurther ar.erred that circumventing the afuresaid orders of this Court, third parries creatcd illegar sare deeds over the subject - 4 I-N A, J ll/P.No.22l7t'ol 2025

property and the Tahsitdar, Balapur Mandal, confirmed the surrendering vlde protected tenants in favour of respondent No'9'of rights of proceedingsinFileNos.Bl|386/21dated28'01.2022,13179|12019, dated27.07.2019,andBl79220l9,dated2l'07'2}lgandinalltheWrit Petitionsfiledbytheprotectedtenantschallengingthesaidproceedings, ol 2022' this Courtvide WP.Nos.21063, 22795, 25466 and 39449 of thegranted interim order suspending the aloresaid proceedings Tahsildar. 3.S.Itisfurtheraverredthatinpursuanceoftheinterimorders the passed by this Court, the subject property has been included in prohibitory properties list. Despite the same, respondent No'9 misrepresented the facts and obtained technical approval for layout' ttide I /LO/PIg/HM D A12020, dated 25'08'2020' Permit No.00009 also petitioners further avened that respondent No'9 has 3.4. T'he 4 obtained final layout approval lor open plots and a clubhouse (stilt + floors) in Sy.No. 145/1, vide letter No.Part-02i 52lSMD/LTru6lH12019 dated 28.09.2024. Aggrieved thereby' the petitioners, being the legal - LNA, J ll/ P. No )2 l:- ol 2l))5 heirs of Kallem llal Reddy'-original landlord. filed the presenr wril petlt ton

1. [-eamed counsel 1br the petitioners submitted that the peritioners are the pattadars and absolute owners ol the subject property, being the legal heirs ol late Kallem Bal Reddy, whose name was reflected as pattadar/landh o lder in the Sesala Pahani as well as in the revenue records upto 1963 64. and that there is no dispute with regard to their o\\,ncrship oVer Acs.3.+8.35 grs in Sy.Nos. l44 & 145. He lur-r.her submitted that respondcnt No.9, without an) lawful ritle or authoritv, obtained lay'out permission lrom HMDA by playing fraud, misrepresenting and deliberately suppressing the material facts, vL., the subject property bcing notified in prohibited properties list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, pendency of disputes as regartls the titie and tenancy over the subject proper-ty, pendency of several CRPs and Writ [)ctitions filed in respect of the subject property and also pendencl, of the connected proceedings pending before the revenue authorities, and as such, the layout permission is liable to be cance lled - 6 LNA, J lv P. No 22177 of2025

lor petitioners submitted that since respondent4.1 . Learned counsel No.9 obtained the layout approved by playing fraud, the same is vitiated in law. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the S. P,Chengalvaraya Naidu v' lagannathtHon'ble Supreme Court in wherein it is and A.V.Papayya Sastry v- Government of A'f ', judicial acts, irrespective of categorically hetd that fraud vitiates att whether the same are in personam or in rem. that counsel for petitioners further submitted4.2. Learned verification of clear and undisputed title is mandatory before grant of discharge this statutory layout approval, and the HMDA lailed to obligation cast on it by issuing layout approval without verifying the revenue records and the entries in prohibitory list and also ignoring the pendency of various litigations with regard to the subject property' He lurther submitted that the IIMDA erred in not exercising the power under Section 22 ol the IIMDA Act and revoking the final approved Iayout granted to respondent No.9. the petitioners further submitted that since 4.J. Learned counsel lor respondent No.9 has no valid right or title over the subject property, the '"rsga 1r1 scc r ' zoo7 lt) scc zzr 1 LNA,I W P. No.2) t?7 ol 2025 sale deeds cxccuted b1, it in favour of third parties ha\,e no effect and in support of the said submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex ('ourt in K.Gopi Vs. Sub-Registray'.

4.4. Learned counsel further asserted that since the subject property is included in prohibitor-v list, the same bars the statutory authorities concemed from entertaining anr registration or sranting developmental permission in respecr of the subject property until the prohibition is removed. He f'urther subrritted that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 o1'the Transfer of Properly Act prohibits creation of third-partr 1ig[15 in respect of the property during the pendency ofdisputes in relation thereto. ,1.5. I Ie llrthcr submitted that the proceedings dated27.07.20t9 and 28.01.2022. issued bv the Tahsildar, purporting to accepr surrendering of protected lcnanc) rights b;- the alleged third parlies in lavour of respondent \o.9 and deleting the names ol the legal heirs of Kadari Venkaiah lrom the then existing PT register, are wholly without jurisdiction since the tenancy dispute was already sub judice belore this Coun in CRI,.Nos.72 and l9l7 ol 20 19. and the alleged surrender of -r,'\x€nc) rights by third parties in la'our of respondent No.9 was not - 2025 SCC ONLTNt SC 740 - 8 LNA, J lYP. No.22177 ol 2025

lawful. He further submitted that respondent No.9, having knowledge that the subject tand was in prohibitory list, pendency of litigations with regard to tenancy rights and the interim orders granted by this Court in CRP.No.72 ol 2019 and l9l7 of 2019, cannot claim to be a bona fide constructionpurchaser; that the continuation of development or toactivities by respondent No.9 in the subject property will lead multipticity of proceedings, creation of irreversible third-party rights, and cause irreparable loss to the petitioners' legitimate rights and by beapplication of doctrine of lis pendens, no legal rights are said to transferred fiom respondent No.9 to the third parties. the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the5. By advancing petitioners prayed to allow the Writ Petition. contentions, leamed counsel for petitioners placed6. In support of his reliance on the following judgments:-l. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath 2. A.V. Papayyo Sastry) v. Governmenl ofA,P 3. K.Gopi v. Sub-Registrar - 9 LNA J 1,1/ P. No 2211' of 2a2 5 4. Shivshankaro and onr v. H.P. Vedavyssa Char4 5, State ofPunjab ond onr v. Gurdial Singh and orss 6. State of ,1P and ars r'. ,\. Autlikesava Reddl' and ors6 7. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and ors v. Director, Health Services, Haryuna' 8. Order dated 27.12.2022 passed in ll/rit Appeat No.t57 of2023 9. Ramokant Ambalsl Choksi v. Hqrish Ambalal and orss

10. Ramesh Chand (D) thr. Lrs v. Suresh Chand and anre 7 . In S. P,Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme C ourl obserr,cd thus: ''The principle ol ".finalit.t of litigotion" cannot be pressed Io the extent o-f such an ahsurdin that it becomes an engine offraud in rhe hands o./'dislnttest litigants. The c.ourts of !aw c,re meant .lbr onporting justi(e between the parlies. One who (omes to lhe courl. mltst conte titl't cleon hartds. lYe are constrained to sa1, thol ntore o.fien than not. process of lhe court is being abused Prope rn'-grab bc rs, tt:tx- cvaders. bank-loa n-dodgers and other unscru pt!l()1t.t pcr.\on.\ .fi-om crll walk.s of lifc ./ind the cottrt -proce.\.t (r cony(nienl lever to retoin tlte illegal-gainS '2023 Lrve Law (SC) 261 ' rgao (z) scc +zr u zooz 1t'1 scc zzt -,'-zor:1r01 scc r:o 2024 tNSC 913 2025 tNSC 1059 - 10 LNA.,I trP No.22177 o{ 2025 indefinitety. We have no hesitation to say thal a person, whots case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court' He can be summarily tht own out at any stage of the litigation". 8 ln A.V.Papayya Sastry's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Couft observed thus " anv .iudgtnent or order lt is well settled principle of Law lhal if is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be o judgment or order Coke in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward proclaimed;

"Fraud avoids alljudicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" It is thus settled proposition of law that a iudgment, decree or order oblained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or a Authority is a nulliry^ and non est in lhe eye of law Such judgment, decree or order by the Jirst Court or by the finaL Court has to be treated as nullitv bv everv Court, superior or inferior' appeal' It can be challenged in an1' Cotrrt, at any time' in revi.sion, v,ril or even in collateral proceedings Fraud nta)' be deJined as on act of deliberate deception with the design oJ'sectrring some unfair or undeserved benefit by the taking undue advantage of another' ln fraud one gains at proceedings stand vitiated { loss if another. Even mosl solemn they are actualed b1'fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral in act which vitiales all judicial acts, whelher in rem or be personam. The principle of finality of litigation' cannot as stretched to lhe extent of an absurdity that it can be utilized litiganls' " an engine ofoppression b.v' dishonest and fraudulent 9 ln K,Gopi's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held that.'.- -.. - 11 LNA, J WP i\io 22 l1: of 2025 " l he regi.stt,ring olfitet r.s not toncerned v,ith the title het(l by Ihe eyecutdtlt. He has no atljudicaron,power to dccide whether the execliant has any title.

... Once the r('gistering authority is satisfiecl thot the parf ies to the document are present before him and the y;arties aclmit exe.Ltttotl thereo/' before him, subject to making procedural cr:tntpliance.s Lts narruled above, rhe document mltsl he registered. .. .Tlp execution and registration o/ a clocumt,nt have the e//icr of rron-;lert.rng onlt those rights, i.[ ant,, that rhe execLttant po.r.rd.rses lJ tlte e.recutunt hos no right, title, or inleresl in the properh'. the rt'gi.stered document connot eJfect on.r lransfer. l0 In the case ol- Shivshankoro ond onr's case (cited supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 'It ts a well-nrgh settled posltion that v,herever Tp Act s nor applicable, such principle in the saicl provision of the said Act. v hich i.s hast'tl on iu.rti(.e. eqttin, and goocl conscience is opplitcrble in o eiven sintilot circtrntston.,e, like Cottrt sale ett.. 7'rans./ir oJ p().t.\cs.tiot1 p(ndente lite vilt olso be tran-sfer o/ properfi' wtthin the meaning of Section 52 and, th,zrefore, the itnporr of Section 52 of the TP Act is that i,f there is ctny transfer o/' righr in irnnoyable propertt. durrng rlrc pendency of a suit strch trunsfer v ill be non e.\t it1 the et,e of low if it wiil adversel.l, al/icr the intercst of the other party to the suit in the propery, concerned. I{e mu.t hasten to add that the effect of Se,ction 52 is - L2 LNA, J WP.No 22177 of 2025

that the right of the successftrl partf in the litigalion in regard to lhat proper$'vould not be aJfeaed by the alienation' but it does not mean that as againsl the transferor the lransaction is invalid. " learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No 9I l. Per contra, submitted that the petitioners, who claim to be successors to the subiect property, have deliberately and willlully suppressed the crucial fact that their family had already alienated their limited l/l5th share in the subject property. has counsel, in support of his submission' 11.1. Learned senior Sale- brought to the notice of this Court the registered Agreement of possession vide Document cum-General Power of Atlorrrey with and No.10954/2006 dated 15.05.2006 for Acs.9.37 gts in Sy'No'144, Acs l3'13 gts in document No. 13750/2006 dated 29.06.2006 for Sy.No. 145, executed by the petitioners, (shown as Vendor Nos 5 and 19), along with other lamily members representing their branch' in favour of third parties and the petitioners having received total sale subject propefty to the consideration, delivered possession of the vendees. Thus, the petitioners are estopped from asserting any right, title or interest over the lands covered under the aforesaid deeds, which - 13 L,\ 1 .J ll/P No )) l-) o1 2025

includes the land covered under the HMDA approved layout and hence, the rvrit petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for want of locus stctndiolthe petitioners as l,u,ell as on the ground of suppression of material lacts. ll,l. [.earned senior counscl turther subrnitted that the present Writ Petition raises disputed questions of title, or,,,nership and possession in rcspect of the subject property extending over a period of nearlv ser,en decades and such issues cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 and can only be decided by a competent civil Court after recording evidence and therefore, on this ground also, the writ petition is nor maintainable. I 1.3. He lurther submitted that the bona fide third party plor purchasers lrom respondent No.9. who have commenced construction in the subject property! strictly in accordance w.ith the pcrmission granted by the competent authorities, are necessary and proper parties to the /ls, as an1 order passed in their absence rvould directly anrl adversely. affect their vested rights. llence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed lor non-.io indcr of nccessun partics. -..- - 74 I,N A. .I WP.No.22lt7 of 2025 11.4. He further submitted that the impugned final approved layout dated 28.09.2024 was granted by HMDA only after the subject properry was deleted from the prohibitory list, which was the sole basis lor passing ofthe abeyance order dated 06.12.2021, earlier thereto.

12. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Undertaking, dated 26.09.2024, given by respondent No.9 specifically stating that it will indemniff and compensate the HMDA for any loss, damages or liabilities in the event of passing any adverse orders by the Court in the pending cases, including CRP.No.l9l712019 filed by the petitioners herein. Thercfore, the irnpugned final layout approval is neither illegal nor arbitrary and the same is issued in accordance with law. The petitioners have failed to produce a single document evidencing their possession over the land in Sy.Nos. 144 and 145. Hence, on the aloresaid grounds, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 12.1. Leamed Standing Counsel lor respondent Nos.4 to 6 submitted that the IIMDA had accorded dlaft layout approval for 747 plots, consisting of 136 housing plots, open spaces, and a clubhouse area in - 15 LNA,,] WP.No.)2177 o[ 2025

the Iand situated in Sy,.No. 145/P, Balapur Village, admeasuring 3,43.864.92 square merers, r'ide Application No. 0251 52/SMDll,TlU6/ HI\{I),\i160620 I 9 and Lal,our Permir No. 00009 I /LCt/PlglllMD A12020 dated 10.09.2020. lhar subsequently, on receiving objections lrom Kadari Aniaiah and others. claiming protected tenancy rights over the said sr.rn,e)' number, detailed hearings were conducted and the documents produced by all parties were examined, and the proceedings dated 06.11.2021, werc issued keeping the final approval of the layout in abcyancc until disposal of the related court cases and deletion of the sub.iect lancl 1l'orn thc prohibitory list. 12.2. l-eamed Standing Counsel further submitted that some of the protccted tenants filed alfidavits belore the I'IMDA as well as before the 'fahsildar surrendering their protected tenancy rights in favour of respondent No.9. which were confirmed vide Proceedings No. Bi13861202l dated 28.01 .2022, and the said persons also withdrew rhe objections pcnding bcfore thc llMDA. Further, based on the letter dated 27.10.2.022, of the Sub-Registrar, Champapet, inlorming that ther.e were no prohibitor",'- orders on S;-.No. 145 i.e., subject survey number, and that accordingll,. the said Survev number was deleted from the prohibitorv .- 76 I,NA,J W P. No.22lt 7 ol 2025 Watch Register, the HMDA issued the final approval of the layout on 28.09.2024

submitted that the petitioners12.3. Learned Standing Counsel further have not impleaded the bona fide purchasers/third-party plot owners, who are necessary and proper parties and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable lor non-joinder of necessary parlies, The draft layout was never cancelled or revoked; it was merely kept in abeyance, pending clarification on protected tenancy claims. Once HMDA was satisfied about the prima facie title, and in the absence of any stay, injunction, status quo order, or other prohibitory direction binding HMDA, the respondent authorities were statutorily obligated to process the application under Section 22 of the I{MDA Act. As on the date of lssuance of final approved layout, dated 28.09.2024. there existed no andtegal impediment preventing HMDA from issuing the same therefore, the Writ Petition is Iiable to be dismissed earnest consideration to the submissions I 3. This Court gave its advanced by the learned Counsel for petitioners as well as leamed Senior Counscl lor respondent No.9 and learned Standing Counsel for 1,7 LNA, J WP.No.22l77 of 2025 respondent Nos,4 to 6 and perused the entire material available on record

14. The petitioners allege that respondent No.9 obtained the layout approvals by' suppressing the pendency ol various Iitigations and prohibitory orders. and relied upon the principles laid down in S.P" Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (cited supra) and A.V. Papayyo Sastry's case (cited s upra/ wherein it was held that fraud vitiates alljudicial and admin istratir.'e acts. 15. A careful examinarion of the record reveals that the HMDA had initially kept the trnal approval of the layout ln abeyance through proceedings dated 06.12.202 I, on the grounds rhat the subjcct property is in prohibitorv list and that this Courl in CRP.No.72 of 2019, vide orders dated 21 .02.2019, has granted stay oforder passed by the Joint Collector with regard to surrendcr of tenancy rights. 16. It is the case of the HMDA that based on the letter of the SRO, Champapet, dated 27.10.2022, stating that there are no stay/injunction/ status quo olders granted b1, thc Court of law and the subject Survey - 18 LNA, J llP.No.22l77 of 2025 number was deleted from the prohibitory Watch Register, the HMDA has approved the final layout, vide the impugned proceedings.

ll . Respondent No.9 claims to have title and ownership over the subject land by virtue ol surrendering of tenancy rights by the tenants. Therefore, the crux ofthe issue goes to surrendering of tenancy rights in respect of the subject property ln favour of respondent No.9. The surrendering of tenancy rights was dealt with by the Joint Collector, who vide orders dated 31.08.2018 cancelled the alleged surrender ol tenancy rights and set aside the succession orders, dated 20.08.1987, issued to Kadari Balaiah and 30 others, who are the legal heirs of Kadari Venkaiah. However, this order of the Joint Collector was challenged before this Court in CRP.Nos. I9l7 and 72 of 2019 and this Court vide orders dated 21.08.2019 and 27.02.2019, respectively, has granted interim stay of operation of the said order. 18. Further, it is bome out from the record that some of the legal heirs of Kadari Venkaiah filed WP.Nos.22795 and 25466 of 2022 seeking to quash the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Balapur, dated 27 .07 .2019, whereunder the protected tenancy rights were sunendered 19 LNA,.) lt/P. No.2 2 li7 o/ 2025

to respondent No.9 herein and this Clourt vide orders, dated 29.04.2022 and )7.10 202). passed in WP\os.22795 and 25466 of 2022, respectivell. has categorically obscrvcd that under Section l9(l) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural l,ands Act, 1956, protected tenancy riehts can be surrendered only in favour of landlords and not in lavour ol an1' third parties and accordingly, suspended the orders impr.rgned thelein. The said interim orders passed by this Court are subsistins as on todal' 19. Admittedly. respondcnt No.9 is not the landowner and he is a third party to the subject propetty and therefore, surrendering of protccted tenancy rights by the persons who are claiming tenancy rights over the subject propertv in lavour of respondent No.9 is nonest in Ihe eye ol lau and has no lesal validity 20. Furthermore, even in WPNo.2l063 of 2022, this Court. vide orders datecl 29.04 2.(122. suspcndcd the impugned proceedings therein surrendering the tenancy rights by the protected tenants in favour of respondent No.9 in respect of the subject property. These orders .- 20 1N.4. .i ItP.No.22l:i ol 2t)25 necessarily mean that respondent No.9 has no right or title over the subject Survey number

21. Therefore, from the above it is manifest that as on the date of addressing the letter dated 27.10.2022, by the Sub-Registrar, Ohampapet, to the tlMDA, the interim orders passed in WPNo.22795 of 2022, dated 29.04.2022 and in W.P.No.2 1063 of 2022, dated 29.04.2022 and CRP.Nos. l9l7 and 72 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019 and 27.02.2019, respectively, with regard to the subject Survey Number were subsisting. The Tahsildar, Balapur Mandal, was a party to the said Writ Petitions, therefore, passing of the aforesaid orders by this Court was in the knowledge of the revenue authorities. However, there appears to be some miscommun ication between the revenue and registration Departments and the said orders are not noted in the Registers maintained by the Sub-Registrar. 22. In addition to the above, it is apt to note that respondent No.9 herein is a party to the aforesaid Writ Petitions, whereunder interim orders were passed to the effect that surrender of tenancy rights in its favour were suspended by this Court, and as such, it is well aware and - 21, l.tiA. J u/P.\o 22 t7- ol 2025 has knor.r,ledge of the said orders. However, respondent No.9 has suppressed and not disclosed the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions rlentioned hereinabove while making application for final approval o1' the layout

23. In this resard, it is trite to refer to the judgment of this Court in Smt. I-olitha Srikrish & others Vs, The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretory, .l4A & UD, Secretqriot, Hytlertbad & othersto, wherein it is held that the applicanr shall necessarily disclose all the facts and file all the lelevanl documents while applying lor permission for construction. lt was turther held that the pending cases or litigations over the building permission is invariably linked to ownership or title, such pending lit igation s/d isputc with regard to title over the property is a rnaterial lact u hich has to bc mandatorily disclosed by the appellant who seeks building permission over said property. Such discloser ol pending litigations/su its is necessan, for the authorities to determine prime facie title and possession. 21. With regard to the same aspect, it is pertinent to note the ratio laid dor,,,n by a Division llench of this Courr, vide judgment dated 24.09.2021 o lzozz'1 : att 3 t - 22 LNA, J WP No 2217 ; ol 2025 in Writ Appeal No.l62 of 2021 {M/s. Fortuna Infraslructure India Pvt non-disclosure ofLtd vs. State of Telangana|, wherein it is held that pending litigation amounts to material m isreprese ntation under Section 450 of the GHMC Act, 1955.

the aforesaid two judgments of this Court, the25. In the light o[ inaction on the part of respondent No.9 in disclosing the pendency of the subjectWrit Petitions and CRP before this Court with regard to the survey numbers belore the HMDA while making application for approval of final Iayout amounts to rnaterial m isrepresentation and suppression of facts. was issued with an observation that 26. The final approved layout the protected tenants have surrendered their tenancy rights in favour of respondent No.9 and also made representations that they have no claims over the subject lands. Due to the misrepresentation of the material lact as regards suspension olsurrendering oftenancy rights in its lavour by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, the administrative power exercised by HMDA by approving the final layout is vitiated, since it is settled principle of law that lraud vitiates all judicial and administrative - 23 LNA, J ll/P.No.22l7i ol 2025 acts. (Sce S.P. Cftangalvaraya Naidu's case (cited supra) and A.V. Papayyu .Sas/rJ's case (cited supra). 27. In the teeth of thc interim orders passcd by this Court, the surrender ol- tenancr rights in I'avour of respondent No.9 in respect of the subjecr property stood suspended. thereby, respondent No.9 holds no valid title over the subject properly.

28. Hence, the observations and understanding on which the HMI)r\ granted fina1 approved layout are factually incorrect and are contrary to the interim orders passed by this Court in the pending Writ Petitions and CRP. mentioned hereinabove 29 As reqards the contcntion of respondent No.9 that the petitioners have already' alienated their share in the subject survey number and as such. they have no iocus standi to file the present Writ Petition, a perusal of the record discloses that the interse tenancv rights in respect r:1'the subject survey numbers between the legal heirs of the protected tenant-Kadari Vcnkaiah arc not adjudicated conclusively and the rnatter is pending considcration before the revenue authorities. Therefore, this Couft erercising the powers under Article 226 of thc = 24 LNA, J l{P No.22177 of 2025 Constitution of lndia cannot delve into the said disputed question of title and it is for the parties to agitate the same before the appropriate forum which after conducting detailed enquiry, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law 30. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, this Court holds that respondent No.9 has suppressed and not disclosed the subsistence of interim orders passed by this Court in the alorementioned Writ Petitions in respect of the subject survcy number, which amounts to m isrepresentation of material facts and therefore, the impugned final approved layout is liable to be set aside.

31. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the letter No. Par1025 I 52/SMDILT lU 6l F I 120 19, dated 28.09.2024, whereby final layout was approved in favour of respondent No.9, and the matter is remanded to respondent No.6 with a direction to take into account and scrupulously follow all the orders passed by this Court in the aloresaid Writ Petitions in respect of the subject survey number, afford an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concemed and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. t- 25 LNA, J trP No )111'o[20)5 32. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- C. DEEPIKA AS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal secretary, state of relangana, Rep.by its principal secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Departmeni Secretariai Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2. The Municipal Commissioner, Jalpally Municipality, Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State 3. The Town Planning Officer, Jalpally Municipality, Jalpally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State 4. The Hyderabad Metropoplitan Devetopment Authority, (HMDA), Rep.by its _ Swarnajayanthi Commercial Comptex, Ameerpet, iyOeiaOaO !99r9!eaV, 500 038 Telangana State 5. The city Planning officer, shamshabad Zone, Hyderabad Metroporitan Developmnet Authority, Ranga Reddy District.

6. The Mekoppolitan Commissioner / Director (planning) _ ll, I lyderabad -Complex, Metropolitan Development Authority Swarna Jayanthi Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 7. The District Registrar, Prasanth Nagar, lDA. Kukatpally. Ranga Reddy District. 8 The Sub-Registrar, Champapet S.R.O.. Ranga Reddy District. 9. M/.. snehitha Buirders private Limited., Rep.by iti Managing Director sri Vemireddy Narasimha Reddy. s/o.Linga ReddyAge 66 years-. orce. Business, R/o. H. No.3-2-87013, VNR Complex, Station Road. Kacheguda, Hyderabad. 10 Two ccs to Gp FoR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN OeleloptueruT, High Qourt for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 11. One CC to SRI C HANUMANTHA RAO, Advocat,e [OPUC] 12.One CC to SRI D.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, Advocate (OpUb) '13 One CC to SRI J RAVTNDER REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 14. One CC to SRI V.NARASTMHG GOUD, Advocate (OpUC) '15. Two CD Copies SA tuy GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 1710612026 1 \lE STATC- zo (j 1eJuN2o26 _b o , .ar=- .-t * C,'. S,,i.'r';'l ORDER WP.No.22177 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. I l. 1 b \q