[ 3301 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NOs: 11'145 OF 2021.14057.25088 & 25090 of 2024 W.P.No.1't145 OF 2021 Between: M/s. Suncore Power Projects Private Limited, Represented by Datla Srinivasa Raju Having its registered office at Room No. 203. H. No. 8-3-224141N11 and 12. Madhura Nagar. Yusufguda. Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department. Represented by its Principal Secretary. Secretariat Building. Hyderabad. Telangana. 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District. Hyderabad. Telangana. 3. Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairtabad Mandal. 6-3-6281911. Anand Nagar Colony. Khairtabad-500004. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent authorities in interfering with the possession of the schedule Property belonging to petitioner company as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequenfly restrain the Respondent authorities from interfering with the possession of the rand admeasuring 14gs.72 square yards forming part of sy No 116/4, prot No 11, bearing door no g-2-24BrN1, g-2-24grN1rp, petitionerKhairtabad village and Mandar, Hyderabad Diskict beronging to the Company except in accordance with law. I.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petltion, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent authorities from interfering with the possession Schedule Property including construction on the land admeasuring 1495.72 square yards forming part of Sy No 1'16/4. Plot No 11, bearing door no 8-2-2481N1,8-2-2481N11P, Khairtabad village and Mandal, Hyderabad District belonging to Petitioner Company. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: 1. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department. Represented by its Principal Secretary. Secretariat Building. Hyderabad. Telangana. 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District. Hyderabad. Telangana.

3. Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairtabad Mandal. 6-3-6281911. Anand Nagar Colony. Khairtabad-500004. ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS AND M/s. Suncore Power Projects Private Limited, Represented by Datla Srinivasa Raju Having its registered office at Room No. 203. H. No. 8-3-224141N11 and 12. Madhura Nagar. Yusufguda. Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the afficlavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled.27.o4.2O21 in lA.No.1/2021 in WP.No.1114512021 and dismiss the writ petition. counser for the Petition"' counser ' :.Xl,irli+3ior=o.#,,Tr,., counserf ortheResponr""Er:TIg'H0;|"r^TJa:t-tdSL WP NO:1 7 0F 2024 Between: M/s Suncore Power Projects Private Limited, Represented by Chilukuri Kirthi S/o Rajender, aged about 40 years Room No 203, H. No 8 - 3 - 22414tN1,t and 12, Madhura Nagar, Yusoufguda, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, Telangana 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad 5. The Sub - Registrar, Erragadda, Hyderabad 6. The Sub - Regiskar, Punjagutta, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Arlicle 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 Mandamus, (a) Declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 in issuing the Letter bearing LR. No. C135212006 dated 20. 04.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 4 to the Respondent 5, wherein, the Respondent No.4 had directed the Respondent No. 5 not to register the property belonging to the Petitioner hereln, admeasuring 1495 Sq. Yards in Plot No. 11 of Sy. No. 116/ A situated at Khairatabad Village, Journalist Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, for being without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently, set aside the Letter bearing LR. No. C135212006 dated 20. 04.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 4 to the Respondent No. 5 and (b) set aside all the consequent actions taken by the Respondents pursuant to issuance of the Letter bearing LR. No. cl3s2tz006 dated 20. 04.2024 by the Respondent No. 4 to the Respondent 5 incruding the act of incruding the property belonging to the .tPetitioner herein, admeasuring 1495 Sq. yards in plot No. 1 of Sy. No. 116/ A situated at Khairatabad Village, Journalist colony, Baryara Hills, Hyderabad, in the list of prohibited lands under Section 22 - A ot the Regishation Act, 19og and (c) Pass such other order(s) that this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 15'1 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 operation of the Letter bearing LR. No. c/3s2l2006 dated 20. 04.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 to the Respondent 5 and all consequential actions taken by Respondents pursuant to issuance of the Letter bearing LR. No. c/352/2006 dated .20.04.2024 by the Respondent No. 4 to the Respondent 5 including the act of including the property belonging to the petitioner herein, admeasuring 14g5 sq. Yards in Plot No. 1'1 of Sy. No. 'l 16/ A situated at Khairatabad Village, Journalist oolony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, in the list of prohibited lands under section 22 - A of the Registration Act, 1 908 pending disposal of the Writ petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: principal 1. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, Telangana 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad 5. The Sub - Registrar, Erragadda, Hyderabad 6. The Sub - Registrar, Punjagutta, Hyderabad ... PETITIONERYRESPONDENTS AND M/s Suncore Power Projects Private Limited, Represented by Chilukuri Kirthi S/o Rajender, aged about 40 years Room No 203, H. No 8 - 3 - 224141N11 and 12, Madhura Nagar, Yusoufguda, Hyderabad

... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER F'etition 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 vacate the interim orders dt.06.06.2024 in W.P.No.'14057 ol 2024 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AVINASH DESAI, Senior Counsel rep., SRI T.P.S.HARSHA GounserrortheRespont""E;lThtH0s'^TJa:r-:-T. P NO: 5088 F 2024 Between: M/s suncore Power Projects private Limited, Room No 203, H. No B - 3 - 22414tN11 12, Nagar, yusoufguda, Hyderabad Represented Uy nritoiii"O 114 lladhura Signatory Chilukuri Kirthi S/ o. K. Rajender, aged about 40 years, AND ...PET|T|oNER 1 principar . The state of relangana,. Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad 5. The District Registrar, S.R Nagar, Hyderabad ,..RESPONDENTS

Petition under Anide 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 pa'ticurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in lssuing the Letter bearing Lr. No. E1l15591 2024 dated 24.07.2024, to the Respondent 5 to be in violation of the orders of this Hon'bre High court, without jurisdiction, iilegar, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequenfly, set aside the Letter bearing LR. No. Elllssgl 2024 dated 24.07 .2024, issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent 5 and all the actions taken by the Respondents pursuant to issuance of the Letter bearing LR. No E'rl1559/2024 dated 24.07.2024, incruding but not rimited to pracing the Petitioner's property into the prohibited list. I.A. No:'l oF 2024 Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the Letter bearing Lr. No. E1l1559/2024 dated 24.02.2024, issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent 5. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive action/steps against the petitioner company. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 Between:

principar l The State of relangana, Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad 5. The District Registrar, S.R Nagar, Hyderabad ... PETTTIONER/RESPONDENTS AND M/s suncore Power Projects private Limited, Room No 203, H. No g - 3 - 224141N11 and 12, Madhura Nagar, Yusoufguda, Hyderabad Represented by Authorized Signatory Chilukuri Kirthi S/ o. K. Rajender, aged about 40 years, ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 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 vacate the interim orders dt 11.09.2024 passed in lA.No. '1 ol 2024 in WP.No.25088 ot 2024 and dismiss the writ petition. counser ror the Petition"' counser ' :"Ti,i'#+;i?=ot#'rT''" counserf ortheRespont"":;:Tl='xJ0#'^TJe:t":ff . WP NO: 25 90 0F 2024 Between: M/s Suncore Power Projects private Limited, Room No 203, H. No g - 3 - 22414rN11 l.Z, Nagar, yusoufguda, Hyderabad Represented UV nrinoii""a 1yA !|3!hura Signatory Chilukuri Kirthi S/o. K. Rajender, aged about 40 years, ,..PETITIONER AND principal 1. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary, Sbcretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad, Telangana.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsitdar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in issuing the Letter bearing Lr. No. E1l1559r 2024 dated 24.07.2024, issued by the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent 5, wherein, the Respondent No. 2 had directed the Respondent No. 5 to direct the concerned to cancer the Buirding permission aflotted vide No. 1lcl17l1140gr 2020 daled 04.11.2020, to ailegedry protect the interest of the government, to be in violation of the orders of this Honorable High court, without jurisdiction, illegar, arbitrary, unconstitutionar and consequenfly, set aside the Letter bearing LR. No. E1r1ss9t2o24 dared 24.07.2024, issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent 5, and aU consequent actions taken by the Respondents pursuant to issuance of the Letter bearing LR. No. E'u1ssgt2o24 dated 24.02.2024, issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent 5. LA. NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the Letter bearing Lr. No. E1ll559/2024 dated 24.07.2024, issued by the Respondent No 2 to the Respondenl5, 04.11.2020. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive action/steps against the Petitioner Company. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: 1 . The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS AND lt4/s Suncore Power Projects Private Limited, Room No 203, H. No I - 3 - 224141N11 and 12, Madhura Nagar, Yusoufguda, Hyderabad Represented by Authorised Signatory Chilukuri Kirthi S/o. K. Rajender, aged about 40 years, ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt. 11.09.2024 passed in WP.No.25090 ol 2024 and dismiss the writ petition.

Gounsel for the Petition"' , counsel :"Tiir#ffiior=oft,rT"'". co u nser for th e Res po n dents N o. 1 tos :, ?[[. ?'JJ33^1=I3 ;i,?hf I The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION Nos. 11145 of2O21 14057 25O88 and 25O9O of 2024 Dated lOtt July,2026. Between: M/s. Suncorc Pou,cr projccts l)rivate Limited Pctitioner AND The State of Telangana, Revenur: Department, Rcprescntcd bl its Irrincipal Scr rt,ta11.. Secrerariat I3uilding, Hyderabad, 'lelangana ald others. RespondcntsCOMMON ORDER: Sincc thc 1ls raiscd in all rhosc. q,riL pctit jons ls utter se relatcd u,ith each oLhcr, rhcy zrrc Li,{kcn up Logethcr, hcard ancl being drsposcd of by this common order. 2) Writ Pctjtion No.I 1 14,5 ot 2O2j is tilcd qucstioning rhc action ol Ihc respondcnL au thorities in in Lcrforing \4,irh thc posscssion of the petitioncr Company rn respect of thr: land admeasuring l4gi.72 square yards forming part of survcl, No. I I6/4, Plot No. l1 beanng l)oor No.8 2 248/A/ t, I 2_2+8/Al t /t) at Khalra ra bad Village and - 2 PK. .I .1 I,|:1'. vo ] 1 1 r af )A) I &. bat(h Mandal. Ilr-clr:rabad l)istrict (in shori subjcct property ) and consequentl\. io dLrect thc respondents n()t to interfere with the lrossr:ssion rrt thc pcli ionr:r' ir-r rcspcct. ol thc sultject propcrtv

3) \'rit Pctirion No. 1.1057 ol 2024 rs Iilcrl sceking to declare thc lettcr bearing l-r.No.C i 352/2006 datcd 20.O1 .2024 addressed by rhe Tahsildar. Kh:rirathabad. to thc Sub-Registrar, Erragadda, not to regls[er lhe sut)-rc.t l)ropcrt\,. as illetgal and arl-,itrary 4) WnL l)ctirion No.25088 ol 2a24 is fiicd seeking to declare the lcttcr bearilrg. 1-r,No.ll I 1,559 12024 daLed 24.O7.2024 addressed by thc [)rstrrr:l (]olLcctor to thc [)islnct llcgistrar. S,]1. Nagar, not to enterLain anr salcs-/tr:rns:lctiolts in rcspccL ol thr: sutrjcct propcrt\', t1s illega) and arbitrar,,, . 5) Wrrt Pctition No.25090 of 2024 is filed questioning the letter bearing No.F,l/ l:tl'9 12024 dated 24.o7.2o2.1 addresscd b1' the (iflNlC, to cancel thc buildingDisrrict Collectr.ir. to rhe Cornmissioncr, permisslon qr:rntcrl in respecI ofthe subject pro]rerty. 6)F-acLsleacltngLOf.i]rncolthcpr(SCnIrttitpctltirlnsasr'r,cllatslht. case of lhe l)etitir)nt'r. in a llrrtshell, ;lrc Lh.rt ongLnalll' the land to an cxtent of Acs.,: 3r guntas ln surve,v No.1 16/ 1 of Khairatabad Village was purchasecl in public.Iuction bv one late Sri Ping'lli Venkat Ram / 3 I'K, J W.t).No.1I14r of )0)] & batch

1943 In 30'000/- in I353 Fasli i.e' in the YearRecldY ior a sum of Rs had sold the said land to one K Gopalturn, said Venkat Ram Reddy Deed bearing documentRao and others through registered Sale ie in the year 1946 Thereafter, K.GoPal RaoNo.216 of 1356 Fasli and others have obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad vide File No 139/ 1'4Ol2F dated 15 07 1963 and divided sevcral thc same to ol plots and sold the property into number re l16/1 was persons and lhe above said land in survey No numbered as 116/4 Out o[ the said land' one Pan Rai Pannalal Pitti MemorialCharitable.I.IuSthadpurchasedtheland,inwhichthc from K Gopal Rao and others vide registered subject property fa1ls, sa-1e deed No.2O41/ 1963 dated 09 03'1963 Thereafter' the said Trust executed a sale deed vide document No 1694/ 1994 dated 20'06'1994 in favour of Gayathri Devi Badruka and three olhers in respcct of the property bearing municipal Nos 8-2-248lA ll' 8-2'248lAll lP' 8-2-survev in plot No 11 in 248lAlllPlt and 8-2-248lAlIlPl2 No.I 16/4 situated at Khairatabad Villagc, Journalist Colony' Banjara Hills, Flyderabad, consisting ol building and land appurtenant thereto admeasuring 747.a6 Sq. Yards and also document No'1695/ 1994 in I 8-2- respect of property bearing municipal Nos.8-2-248 /A/ , 248lAl1lP,8-2-248lAl1lPlt andS'2'248lAl llPl2 in plot No,1 1 in \-- 4 W. p Na. I I t 4 5 oj 20, I & ;[;./,

survcr. No. 1 I 6/4 sit uated at Khairatabad !.i11 .ruu.r"rist BanJara LIirs, Iivderabad, colony, consistrng oro*",building and land appurtenant thereto admeasuring 747.g6 Sq yards admeasuring totalry 14gs.72 Sq. yards. rhereafte'r, said Gayathri Badruka Devi and others havs g)<ssu1s6 a Memorardum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 72.O8.2O10 in favour of Bajaj Auto Finance Limited mortgaged the subiect property and vide documenL No.317g/2010. I,'urthcr, rhc IlaJai Ari Lo I..inancc Limttcd had turther assignc.d rights in respect its of Ihc subject property to Asset Reconstruction ,ARC]I_) Compan,y India Ltd (in short through an Assignment Agrccment dared 30, 11.2O17 vidc document No.351/IV/ 17, In view of such assignment, Cal,athri Devi Badruka and others have to clear the loan by paying amounts to ARCIL. As Gayathri Devi Badruka and others have failed to repay the loan amounts, they were declared as lvon-Profitable Asset (NI']A) in accordancc with the provisions or Sccuntization and Rr:construction of Financial Assets and ,SARFAESIEnforcement of Securitv Intcrcst AcL, 2OO2 (in short Act,). Further, on an applicarion being made b,y the ARCIL in Cr1.M.P. No.5567 of 20\7. rhe Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampalll-, Hyderabad, vide order dated 09.O3.201g had appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who took possession of the subject propcrty 5 PK, J W.P.No.1 1145 of 2O21 & batch

and handed over the same to ARCIL in execution of warrant and a Sale Certificate dated 2O.O9.2O18 was also issued in favour ol the ARCIL. Thereafter, after following due procedure, the ARCIL has auctioned the subject property wherein the petitioner has participat.ed and being the highest bidder, thc petitionnr has purchascd the subject property in the auction conducted under the provisions of SARFAESI Act from ARCIL vide document No.797O/2018 dated 16.11.2018. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner Company has been in continuous possession of the schedule property and also obtained building permission bearing No.1./CI7/1I4O9 l2O2O dated 04.ll.2O2O for construction of building and also started conslruction. 6 l) Whilc so, on I7. I 1.2020, rhc rcspondcnI zru[hurirics cermc to the subjcct properLy and tried to inLcrfcrc with the possession of the petitioner slating that the same belongs to Government. Immediately, on 18.11.2O2O, petitioner made a representation to respondent No.3 clearly explaining thc flow of titlc and requesting the authorities to refrain from taking any illegal action. However, on 31.O3.2021, again the authorities have tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. During the interrcgnum period i.c. on 21.I 1.2020, the pctitroner Company rcccivcd a noticc lrom thc Inspcctor of l)olice, Panjagutta, Ilyderabad, informing about registration of crime 6 PK, J W.P.\o 11 145 of 2021 & batch

No.634 l2O2O date(l 17.11.2020 against the petitioner Company and re(luesting the lfircctor ol thc pctitioner Coml;any to appear before the Policc SLatron. Onll';,rfter rcgrstration of the said crime , the petltioner Nos. 13497 andCompany' camc to knou' about pendency of W.P. 1319 I oi 2012 filt:c] br (lara[hri l)cvi I]adruka and others s'herein intcrim ortlcrs of stllLus cluo \\'crc passed by this llonblc Court' filedHencc, thc pctltroner has approached this Court and respondentW.P.No. 1L145 of 2021 sceking a direction to the authorities not to interfcre u'ith the possession of the petitioner in passed rcspcct of thc schcclult: property wherein lhis Court has interim ordcr clatcd 27 .O1.2O21 restraining the respondent authorities from interfcring r,,,ith the posscssion ol the pctitioni:r in rcspect of the 5u llj r'c I I)r()pcrl\. pe titioner that during the pendency 6.2\ lt is the lurther case of the of sard r,"'rit pelition i.e . W.P. No.11145 of 2027 and the interim orders passed bl this Court in the said writ pctition, the 'l'ahsildar, bearing Khairatabad Tahsil, had addressed a letter Sub-l?egtstrar, Lr.No.C/352/2006 dated 20.O4.2021 to the Erragadda. rcqucsting not lo rcgister the subject propcrty No 14057 ol 2024 Challcngrnr. rht' :;iLid lcttcr. pe ti[roncr hacl filcd W [) 7 PK, J W.P.No I 1145 of 202j & batch

wherein this Hon'ble Court vide ordcr dated 06.06.2024 has grantcd lnterim suspension of t-he lerter daLcd 20.O4.2024 6.3) While so, based on the reporr submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer & Tahsildar, Khairatabad, the District Collcctor, Hyderabad, had addressed a letter bearing Lr.No.El/ lSSg/2024 daLed 24.07.2024 to the District Registrar, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, requesting not to entertain any sales/ transaction in the subject property. Questroning rhc samc, rhc. pctitioncr lilcd W.lr. No.2S0gti of 2024 wherern this Court vidc order datecl I l.Og.2024 has granted interim suspension of the letter daled 24.O7 .2024. 6.4) Similarly, the Districr Collcclor, Hyderabad, had addrcsscd the letrer vide Lr.No.tr1l1559/2024 dared 24.OT.2024 to the Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad, to cancel the building permission granted to the petitioner in respect of the subject property. Challenging the same, thc peri[ioncr had l-r]ed W.p. No.25O9 O ot 2024 wherein this Hon'ble Court vidc order dated ll.Og.2024 has granted interim suspension of the letter daLed 24 .O7 .2024. 7l IIeard Sri Avinash [)csaj. ]carncd senior counscl, representing Sri T.P.S. Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Divya 8 PK, J V'l).iro 1 I l4:t ol 20)1 & bcLtch Adcpu, learncd Spccial (lovernmcnt Plcader, representing the learned Advocate General. for the respondents.

8) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, while drarving the attention of this Courl to severaL sale deeds, to explain the title flow to the pclitioncr in rcspect o[ the subject property, has hard purchased the schedule propcrtf inconLended thal thc I)clitioncr the public :ru( tion coniluctcd b] AItCIL under thc provisions of SAIRITAESL\ct and at the time ol purchase, tl-re subject property was not included in thc list of prohibited proporties. Learned scnior counscl has contendecl rhat the status quo orders wcre passcd by this Court aftcr tht: iand was mortgaged by Ga1'athri Devi Badruka & others to Bajaj Auto Finance. Therefore, the status quo orders are not appJicablc Lo thc pre cxisting rights accruecl by' tlaj aj Auto Iiinanr:c lrv ua-r ol rrorLgrlgc. uhich sr-Lbscqucntly resultcd tn public auctlon shelcin thc pctitioncr has purchased thc subject propcrty. It is settled princrple of lau, that under Order XXXVIll Rule 10 o[ the Code of Civil Proccdure, anv attachment shall not affect the rights existing pricir lo the a Ltachment. Therefore, the status quo orders passed b1. this Court cannot affect the pre-existing rights accrued throu gh mortgal<e to the Baj aj Auto Finance and later to the ARCIL, u,hich arc tl)c prr)dccrcssor in-tit1c to thc peti[ioner, Further, thc 9 PK, J W l,.Na. 1 11.1J oJ 2A)t & batctt

status orders do not come in the way of petitioner,s right to enjoy thc subject property and the respondent authorities without any basis or ma[erial to support thcir rit]c to thc subject property have issued the impugned notices, which is illegal and arbitrary. Further, it is settled law that the State cannot declare themselves to be the owners of the property in a summ:iry m:tnncr and cannol rcsorl to summary proccr:dings undcr Lhc Ltrnd l.lnr:roachment Act without proving their title over the subject properly bcforc appropriatc l..orum. Whcn thc petitioner Company has clcarly established the title flow to it from the year 1356 Fasli i.c. 1946. the respondent authoritics cannot unilatcrally dcclare thc property to be the property of the State and try to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. Further, while placing rcliance on rhe order datod t1.10.2006 passed by this Cour[ in W.l). No.2lOl3 ol 2016. rhc lcarned Senior counsel has con[cnded that thc r(]spondent authorities cernnot claim fhc subjcct property to be Government land merely relying on the'I.SLR entries. I,-urthcr, thc pctiLioncr rs irr continous possession ol the subject propcrty and obtatncd al) ncc:r:ssary pr:rmissions lrom the competent authorities for development of the subject property. That apart, thc ARCIL i.e. the vendor of the pel.itioner was put in possession of the subjccr propcrty on 20.OC).2O 18 by thc n dvocal.e Commissioner by 10 PK,.I \4t P No.1 1 11t. of )02 1 & btltch

NletrcipoLttanvirtuc ol ('xc('u1ion o1 \\ arranl issLted br tltc (lhici Magistratc. \amnir1lr. Ilrdcrarbad. in Crl.M.P.No.5567 of 2017 dated 09.0,1..2018. lfrr ri'fcrc. lhr: rcspondcnt artLhr,ril.ics cannot in[erfcre \\,llh tho poss('sslon ol thc pctrtioner clarming thc plopcrtv to bc thc GovernmenI propcrt-\ \\ irhout proVing iLs titlc bt:lore the Civil Court. 13.1) l,carnccl scnior colrnscl has lurthcr srLbrnitted that ignoring and rlisobel ing rhc intcrim ordi'r datcd ),7.O4.2021 passcd by lhis Corrrt 'l'ahsildar. Khair :ilaba(1, has adctrcsscdin W.P. No. 1 1 1,1.r ot 20-l 1. thc - llegistrar. Drragadda,the Icrtcr d.ttc(l 20.()1 .2O2+ lo thc S rrb ir-rforrnit:s ,rot to ralisl{:. ilrr: subjccl propcrl\. \\'itho,it anv auLhorlt-\ of lar.r . As pcr S('.Lron .12 ,\ lll (b) ol thc l(r'gistration Act, 1908, onlr the Distrir:t Clollecto: is thc compctcnt au tl-rorit.\- to issue such direclrons. F urther, u'hcn thc strong prima facie casc and balilnce of convenicncc llcs rn favour ol thc petitioner, issuance of thc lctter dated 20.0.+.2021 is in cicar violation o{ Iau and contrary to thc r he [ul] l]cnch ol Lhis Court irt Vinjamuri Rajagopala.ludgmcnt ol Chary u, Principal Secretary, Relenze Department, Hgderabadl. 8.2) I.-urther'. tlrc lcarnerl st'nior coLtt-tscl has cot.ttctrrlcd tirat thc vidr: t)istricl (lo1lc'cLor-, I lr cler':rbad, had addressed thc lctter 2015 SC(l OLrl-rLrr I1!(i 40',' 11 PK, J W.P.No.1 1 l4 5 of 202 ) & batch

.O7 .2024 Lo the District Registrar, Lr. No. E i / 1559 I 2024 dated 24 t{yderabad, stating that the land in survey No.116/1 is classihed as 'Government land' and that thc pctil.ioner hcrcin had obtaincd building permission from the GFIMC authorities without obtaining any consent from the revenue authorities as the land in question is a government land. Lcarncd scnior counscl has vehemently contcndcd that on one hand the District Collector is stating that the land in survey No. 116/ 1 is a Government Land and on the other the District Collector has requested the District Registrar not to entertain any sale s/ transac tion s in respect of thc property belonging to the petitioner herein, which is in lact situated in survcy No.116/4 or 166/4, which is admittedly not a government land, and not in survev No. l16/1. Learned scnior counsel has lurther contendcd that thc l.'ull Llench of this Court in Vlnjamuri RaJagopalo Chary, s case (reJen'ed. sltptd) has framed the guidelines to be followed for classifying any land / immovable property as government land . However, without lollowing the said guidelincs, the District Collcctor has unilaterally issued the letter dated 24.O7.2024, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Further, the District Cotlector has no power whatsoevcr to drrect rhc I)istrict Rcgistr::r not ro cntcrLain any salcs/transactions in tcspcct o[ thc subjcct property morc so whcn t2 PK, J W.P. \o 11145 of 2021 & batch

thc subject property rs existing in survey No.116/4 or 116/A and not in su rver,' No.1 I61 l 8.3) Learncd senior counsel has lurther contcnded that the l)istrict Collector rs noL vr:sLcd rvith ernt pou.cr to address thc lcILcr No.i'-1/l-5()'202'l d;rtcrl 2,1.07.202,1 to thc Commissioncr, (itlMC, to cani:r:l thc building permission granted to the petitioner and the petil-ioner is noi issued s'ith an,v prior notice. I.lence, the action of the District Collector is in clear violation of principlcs of natural justicc. Thereforc, t.he learned scnior counsel pral'ed thrs Court to allow the writ petitions, as praycd for. Reliance has been placed on: a) lnterinr ordcr ditLcd 06.1 1.2025 passed in \.\.1). No.l I145 oi 12021; bl State of A.P. v. Prameela Modiz. c) Gouernment of Andhra Prad.esh u. Thummala Xrishna Raoa; d) The Special Dg. Collector u, Kond.a La.kshman Bapujia, e) Hgderabo.d. Potteries Priuate Limited u. Collector, Hgderabads; u. Blue Wings Deuelopers6;\ The State of Telangana g) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd.. u. Principal Secretary, Govt. oJ U.P.7; h) Dr Bal Krishna Agarwal u. State o.f U.P.8(service matter-verifyl rl2(10(,r i.l SCC '1, r(1982r : SCC I .la I ()8.., rM A N r- / .1P/ al l4.t / 12001 t.l l-AI) a)(r0 r,MANL. /'l'Ll00 I'/' /:2023 (2004 l3 SCC tr5:l ----== 13 PK, J W.P.No.1l145 o[ 2O2I & betch

9) Per contra, the lcarncd Spccial Government plcader has contended that the subjecr property claimed by the petitioner falls in '1.S. No.75, Block-J, Ward-89. correlating ro Survey No.116/ I of Khairatabad Village and the same is classified as Government land. As per Town Survey records, the land in survey No. 1 l6/ I to an extent of Acs.29-19 guntas is recorded as 'poramboke Sarkari,. Further, the sale deed of the petitioner mentions the survey number as 116/4, which does not even exist, and in fact thc subject land actually lalls in survcy No. i l6/ I, which is a (iovcrnnrcnt lancl. The TSLII rccords. revenuc records and location skel.ch prcpared from the said records clearly identify and Iocalise the subjecr land to be falling in survey No.1 16/ 1 but not in survey No.I 16/4 as claimed by the petitioner. As per the pahanies, survey No.l16/1 of Khairatabad Village to an extent of Acs.29- 19 guntas recorded as ,poramboke Sarkari,. As per Town Survey Record, T.S. No.75, Block-J, Ward-g9 correlated. to ,G_ survcy No.1 16/ I Part is rccordcd as Sarkari in column No. l0 and Govcrnment' in column No.20 and therc is no survey No. I 16/A in Khairatabad Village. As such, the allegcd document No.797O l2Olg relied upon by the petitioner cannot crcatc any right or titlc to the petitioner to claim the subject land. 3(1995) l SCC 614 1.4 PK, J WP.i;o 1l 14 5 o12021 & batch

9. 1l l,earned Spccial Govcrnment Pleader further submitted that the clarm o[ thc peLrtroncr that thu.Advoc.rte Contmissioner has delivered posscssion ol lhc sLrblcct propcrt) and salc certifit<atc was issued by ARCIL arc al1 invcnled to grab the valuable Government property and therefore the same is not binding on the respondents as they are not pariics to thc saicl proccedings. Irurther, thc allegcd building permission darcd 04. I L)O2O u as obtaincd by thc pctrtioncr by supprcssing thc material lacts bclorc thc GI{MC :rnd the aLrthorities of (lllN4C uithout secking lan.i sta[us report {rom the revenue au Ihorirics havc sanctioned construction pet-mrssion without examining the governmcnt interest over the said property. F\rther, mere sanction of construction permission does not create an)' right or titlc to the pctitioner. Thc learned Special Government Pleader has specilicallY contCnclcd that the claim of the petitroner [hat survcy No.I 16/ t has br:cn renumbcrcd as survcy No.1 16/4 is incorrect and furthcr contcnclcd that thi: land Ialling tn survev No.116/4 is classil-iccl .rs pn\ar(' land but thc l:rnd claimed by the petirioner is differcnt and distinct and the same falls in survey No. 116/ 1, which is ciassified as Government land. Thus, under the guise oi the documents relaring to survcy No. 116/4, the petitioner is claiming righLs in rcspect of the land in survey No. I 16/ 1. It is further 15 PK, J W.P.No.I I 145 of 2A21 & batch

contended that as the subject propcrtlr falls in survey No. 116/t corresponding to T.S. No.75, Block-J, Ward No.g9 of Khairatabad Village, which is Government Land, the revenue authorities have initiated proceedings under thc provisions of Andhra pradcsh Land Encroachment Act against Gayatri Devi f3adruka, who is the predecessor-in title of the petitioner. In W.p. Nos.13497 and 13491 of 2012, this Hon'ble Court has issucd in[erim direction on 05.06.20ig rcstraining thc aul.horitics frotn lnlcrl'cring \,,,i th thc posscssion. 'lherelore, the subsequent devclopments averred by the petitioner are not binding on the authorities and the petitioner is bound to honor the said directions and maintain status quo in respect of the subject property till the dispute is resolved. It is further submitted that as W.P.No.21O13 ol 2006 was liled against GHMC questioning non_ issuance of construction pcrmission to the petil.ioner thercin, thc orders in thc said writ pc[it)on cannoL bt madc applicable to thc case on hand. Learned Spccial Govcrnmcnt l)lcadcr has further submitted that the subject land is vacant on ground wilh the custody of the Government and kept in the land bank vide L.B.No. 1129. As the petitioner, under the guise of sale deed d,ated 2O.Og.2O1g stated to have been executed by ARCIL and the construction permission issued by the GHMC, is trying to takc up rhe construction work in the 15 PK, J W P.llo.l I 14 5 of 2021 & batch

subtcct land Changing thc nature of the lands contrary to the order datccl 2 7.0.1.202 I passed br this Court in W.l). No. I 1 145 of 202 l, the autlroritics h.rVC rcslstc(l thc action of thc pctitroncr in order to prolcCt the GOvcrnrnerrt land. 9 2l It is further contended that Town Survey was conducted in Hyderabad District ciuring the period 196.1- 197 1 by the Deputy DirccLor, Survev & I-and Records, Hyderabad Dlstrict, under the provisions ol A P Survcv & Boundary Act, 1923. 'lhereafter, after issurng notices lo all the o\\ners ol the subjec.L propertics and calling their objeclions. rCcorcls',rcrc implcmcntcd in 1981.82. 'lhc Location SkeLch Map rndicating survct No.116/l and 116/4 prepared by the I)cputy Inspccror (S&l,R). and thc Rccord ot- Measurcments (ROM) and Tou n Survel Letnd Rccords (1'SI-R) re',,ea1 that survey No, 1 I6/ 1 co-rclatcs to 'l'.S. No.75. Block-J, Ward No.89 and the subject land is continuouslv included in Lald Book Parcel as well as in POB (Prohibitorv of Book) Furthcr, the issue has zrriscn in the year 2020 u,hcn thc pclitioncr sl:l:tcd constru(.tion in survc,r, No.1 t6/ 1, u.hich is a go\ ernm('llL pr()pcrt\ . on rhc prcmisc ol c.)nstruction permission grantcd in survev No.116/A, and thcrefore, the respondents started taking actton. Horvever, the petitioner has approached this Llonble Court in W.P. No. I 1 145 ol 2021 alicging inrerferencc from the official L7 PK, J W.P.No.11145 oJ 202I & batch

respondents. But, in such a situation, the petitioner ought to have approached the competent Civil Court by filing appropriate civil suit for injunction. Further, the pcti[roner himsell is not clcar as to whether the subject propcrty lies rn survcy No. 116/4 or l I6/4 since in W.P.No.I I145 ol 2021, the petitioner is claiming that the subject property is in survey No. I 16/4 whereas in W.p. No.14057 of 2024. the petitioner is claiming that the subject property is in survey No. 1 i 6/A. Thereflore, the identihcation of the larld of the writ petitioner is in dispute as the claim o[ the respondent authorities is that it falls in survey No,1 16/ 1. which is a government land. The petitioner has approachcd this Court [or adjuclication of disputcd questions of fact withou t approaching the Civil Court. I.-urther, there is no such survey No.1 I6/A in Khairatabad Village. 9 3) Learned Special Governmcnl l)lcader has furlher contonded that it is settled law that pure disputed questions of fact cannot be decided on the basis of documents filed in the writ petition and in such cases evidence has to be led by the parties and the appropriate remedy would be to [ilc a civil suir for ad.judication of the samc. It is furthcr contcnded that thc subjcct land is recorded as governmenI land vide No.8300008 with vacant on the ground to an extent of 1495 Sq. Mtrs. as verificd in the Land tlook Rcgistr:r. F.urther, thc Joint 18 PK, J W.P.Iio.1l145 of 202I & batch

CollccLor. Hydcrzrbacl District. has rejected lhe request of the petitioner Ibr NOC vide File No.N213123 12006 dated O7.10.2007 on the ground that the subject land is government land and further directed thc' N,lunicrpal Corporation. Ilvdcrabad, not to accord any buikling pcrmissron. Supprcssing thc satnc, thc pctitioner has obtained thc burlding permission dated 04. l1.2O2O from GIIMC. llenct--. thc sairl building permission does not create anv right or title to thc pctitioncr. Furthcr, it is rvcll settlcd principle of lar,"' that any building permrssion accorded over the Government land is not valid under la\. and Ls null and void. 91) Lcarned Spi:cral (lor,,ernmcnt l)lcadcr as further contcnded that tr., Vinjamuri Ra.jagopala Chary's ca-se (referred supral, it has been categoricalll hcld Lhat anv gricvance ol the parlics with relerence to thc propcrtics corcr<'d br clauses (a) to (d) will have to be questroncd b1 rhc aggricved partics only by appropriate proceedings before a competent Civil Court and the adju<lication of such courts would be final. If the petitioner is aggrieved by rhe action of the authorities in piac:ing thc subject property in prohibitory list, it ought [o havc appro:rchccl the compctcnt Civi] Court lbr proper adj udication. 'l'he petitioner had approached thrs Hon'ble Court wir hou t therc being :rny',iolaLion of fundamcntal right that too whcn thcrc exjsts a proper PK, J W. P No.11 14 5 of 2A2t & batch

remedy available lor redressal of lts grievance. Further, in W.P.No.28300 of 2OO7 vlde order dated 19.I0.2023, this Hon'ble Court has hcid that thc subjcct propcrtv kcpt undcr Scction 22 A of the Registration Act does not violate the right to hold the property. Learned Special Government while referring to the judgment in Prq.meela Modi's case (reJerred. supra). has contended that the [Ionble Apex Court has upheld that survey No. 116/1 is a Government land. Relying on thc same, the petitioner contended that survey No.1l6 is divided into sub-parts. The authoritics arc not disputing sub-division of survcl, No. l1(r. but it is the spccific claim of the authoril.les that thc property clatmed by the petitioner falls in survey No. 1 16/ 1, which is admittedly a government land. 9 5) Learned Special Government Pleader has further contended that the petitioner has prematurely approached this Court in W.P. No.2509O of 2024 challenging the letter dated 24.07.2024, which is merely an inter departmental communication between thc District Collcclor and Commrssioncr, (lllNIC, and thcrclorc thc said writ petition is liablc to bc dismissccl sincc there is no cause of action. The Flon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Ortssa v. Mesco Steels 2a PK, J W P.''ta 1 1 14 5 oJ 2021 & l)at(h

Limitede. has held that thc rvrit pctition lilcd seeking interl'erence at prt clecisional stagr: u'ith provisional dccisior-r which constituted only a sr"ep in proccss of taking final decision by lhe authority must be treated as premature. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss all the writ petitions as devoid of merits, Reliance has also been placed on: a) Judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed by tl-re Divrsion Bench in Writ Appeal No.4 84 ol 2017: bl M.Yadagiri Reddg u. V.C. Bro.hmanna' c) Nli s. Inv( (La 'l ccnnologics [)riratc Limitcd r,. Government ol Andhra Pradesh. Wrir I)c[rtron Nos.28300 of 2007 & batch dated 19.1O.2023. d) Comrnon order ciated 21.02.2025 passcd by thr: Division Bench of this Court in LA. Nos. i a:rrd 2 of 2023 in Writ Appea.l No.484 of 2017. 10) ln reply, thc lcarned senior counscl appcaring for the petitioner has submitted that thc survcv No.1 16/ 1 uas divided into survcy Nos. 116/1 to 116/-- anrl thc sutrjcct land ialls within survev No. I16r4. rrhich is a priva[e land and is amrdst ol series of private lanr1s. FLrrthcr. as per salc dced document No.1694/94 dated 20.06.1994. it rvas rightiy described that the subject land forms part '1u o r 3t .r scc :+o 'o:00 t ScC oni,Lie \t, 9,I9 21 PK, J W.P. No. 1 I I45 o1 2021 & batcLl

of survey No.l 16/4, which is not a government land and that i.i transcribing error occurrcd , hcn thc schcclule in thc sale deed No.1694 l9a dated 20.06. 1994, due ro which, survey No. I t6l4 was mentioned as 1i6/A. As such, the revenue records and the Town Survey Record relied by the authoritics do not pcrtain to the sublect land as thc saicl rccorcls pcrterin to survcy No. I I6/ I bul. not survey No.I16/4, u,hich is noL a govcrnnlent [and. FurLhcr, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prameela Modi's case (rcferred supra), tht: factum of division of survcv No.116/t to tl6/l ro I1615 was not carricd out in the TSI,R records erroneously. F-urther, the pctitioner had clearly established thc title flow to the petitioncr from 1356 fasli i.e. year 1946 and the tile of the predecessor-in - title of the petitioner is also clcarlv establishcd in Khasra l)ahani for the year 1954. Ifurtht:r, cv<:n :tc)cordtng lo the rccord of thc authoritics i.e. Area Reconciliation Statemcnt. it rccords that Lhc lands in survel, No. I 16/ [ is governmcnt Iand and it does not include '1.S, No.7S, Illock-J, Ward No.89, as l.rncl bclongrng to Lhc Clovcrnmcnt. Rcliance has been placed on: l1) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by rcspective counsel and perusccl Lhe material on rccord 22 PK, J w.P.Na.11145 of ?021 & batch

1)) 'l'hc rn:t;l-r ,.olrr,,;tllr..:-, ol rhct pcti[ioncr ]s Lhart it is tlrc orlner of ,,rthc sutlr:ct I)1 op('rl\ , ltrclt lalls in srLrvcv N t. 1 16, A or 1 16/4 having pu rchascd (hC sarnc in an auction from /\RCIL and has been in posscssiort oi rhc samr:. l.'urthcr, thc petitioner has also frlcd documenIs substantiating thc litlc flor,", Il-om r.hc vc;ir 1943 onu,ards. 13) I-'rom the pleadings oi both the parties, it is an admitted fact by both the parties that thc land in survcl. No.116/ 1 was sub-divided int. sur'c' Nos. I 16, 1 to 1 la),r5, ollt ,l r itir.lt. tne la.c.l iit survr:r No. L ltri I is th(, go\.('rnrn.'ltt l;rncl and thc letrcl in survcr. No. I 16/4 is a privzr te lalt(i. ,,i l4) ln thc alror.r' ba<.kgrouncl. the lrrlle ing issrrcs :rrisc lrtr adjudication before rhrs (lour[: l) \\'hctbr:r lh(,Governmenr can claim the ownership rights unilatcrall-r'? )) \\ hcLlicr Lht, sutr.jcc.r propcrL\ falls in survcr. No.I 16/ 1 or 116t4 or llii'.-\/ .3) \!'hcLhrtr sr rrt cr No. 1 1 614 was wronglv mentioncd as survcy 15) lnsolar .rs issuc No. I is r.oriccrrrcd, this Court is ol thc r",rcu. that lhc petrtioncr has cslablishecl the title flou, in respect of the schedule 23 PK, J W.I'. No.1 l l4 5 of 2O2l & betctl

property through registcred sale deeds from the year 1943 onwards and ir is rts specrlic casc that thc subjecr property falls in survel' No.116/A \l16l4). IIowevcr, the rcspondcnt authorities contcnd rhat the subject propert-v" falls in survcy No. I l6/ I , which is the (]overnment land. From lhe above, it rs clcar that both the parties are unablc to rdentify ihc location of the land wherc the su bjecr construction is being undertaken. llowcvcr, thc rcspondcnts havc unilaterally declared themsclves as owners of the subject land. 15. l) In this context, thrs Court deems it apt to refcr that the Hon'blc Supreme Court in Thumtnalq Krishna Rco's ccse (reJerred suprd), which reads as under: ''f hc Oor.cr nrncrt caDltot dccidc sucl'r qucstions LLnilalerally in its ourr favour and evict any pcrson summaril\ on tl'to basrs oi such decisron. Ilut duration ol occr,Lpation is relevant in Lhe sense that a person who is in occLlpation of a property openl) Ior an apprecrable length of tLme can bc takcn, prima tacie. ro havc a bonafide claim to thc propertv rcquiring an impartial ad1Lrchcation accordrng to the established procedure of law." 15.2) ln view ol lhc abovc settied proposition of' lar.r., this Court is ol the view that the action of thc I)istrict Collector in addrcssing Ietters to the Regislcring authoritics noL Lo cnterIatn rcgistrations in respect ol thc subjcct property and ro the Commissioner, GtlMC, Lo cancel thc burlding permissions granted in lavour ol the petitioner, 24

PK,,I l{.. /) \ir I / I 1i al ).!)2 1 & but h unilateralh decl:rring that the subject property lrrlls in government Iand. is unsustainabl(r undcr thc law 15.31 If the S:ar( . bt ir-rq thc i:ustodian ol Lhi: govcrnmcnt land, is of the opinion Lhat ih,' Pctilioncr is making ConsLruction in Govcrnmcnt Land, Llrc ,rutitor itlcs ougirt Io havc :rpproa,'hcd rrpplopriarLc lrorrrrrr for redrr:ssal ol' lhcir grcivance. instcad of :rcting urlilalcrallv, and u'ilhout doing so. thi. authonties cannot intet-ferc \,\'ith the possession of the pe titioncr. I6) [ssuer Nos.2 and.] raise disputecl qlcstio;'rs of fact, which cannot be gonr: inLrr Dy thrs Court rvhilc cxcrcislng inherent powers unrlcr Arlick' 22o ot thc Ccins[i[urron of lndia. It is settled iau under Artir:1e .226 of Lltc (lonslitu lion ol India. thc Coults should imposc self reslriction lrr inlr'r{i,rrnq into disputccl rl.rcstions rclatjltg lo title ancl possessior 16.-) In lhis corltcxt, ir is apropos to rclcr Lo thr judgment in Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad through its Commissi oner us. State of Maharashtrq.r r. rvhcrein thc IIon'ble Apcx Court held that rhe High Cour-1 crrccl in cxerc'ising its lurisdiction under Article 226 of thc (.20 5 1,, s(.i a8, 25 I'K, J

1,t'l'i\0 1 I 1 1.) al 202 t &, bcu.lt Constitutron of lnctia in dcciding thc disputcd qucstions of lact regarding titlc ovcr disputcd Iand rarscd bY thc partics rhurcin. 16.2) Similarlv. in S urati Ferro Allogs Priuate Limited. us. Orissa Industrial Infra.structure Developrnent Corporation (IDCO)L2, |nc IIon'blc Apex Court hc-ld rhat matrcr involving drspurcd clr.tcstion ot' lat:t about [hc ou,ncrship r;]'thc lr-rncl in clucslion could nol bt: dccidccl in a nrit pcLition unclcr ,\r Lir'le 22(> ol' thc: ConsLiLution of India and that thc lligh Court s as justilicd in dircr_-rrng rhc partics to approach the civil Court for resolving such disputc. l7) lfor the aforc-mcnrioncd rcasons. all thc WriL pctitions are alloucrl ars ptrary'cd for. Ilour',,,cr, it is mudc clear th:rt thjs order does not precludc the rcspondt:nI authorjtics in rrvailtng approprialr: 1cgaL rcrncdics, sLricrly in accordancc r,r'ith lrrl . Miscr-'llirnct.rr,rs i.rpplic.aLiotrs. iI anr,, peltding in these writ petilions, shall stand closcd. No costs. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFTCERTo, 1 Principal The Secretarv. St"g of Telangana, Department, . . Secretariat Building. "-"-' Revenue Hyderabad. tetangana.-2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District. Hyderabad. Telangana. 3 The Mandar Revenue officer, Khairtabad Mandar. 6-3-62grgt1 . Anand Nagar Colony. Khairtabad-500004. 4. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, Telangana

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 6. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad 7. The Sub - Registrar, Erragadda, Hyderabad 8. The Sub - Registrar, punjagutta, Hyderabad ?ro 9. The Commissioner, GHIMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad '10.One CC to SRI T P.S.HARSHA, Advocate [OPUC] 'l '1 .Two CCs to THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 12.Two CD Copies. BSK GJP PAA --- A :'! HIGH COURT DATED: 1010712026 CC TODAY COMMON ORDER sr1t€ ilir- c WP.Nos.1 1145 OF 2021, 14057, P lio 2 0 JUL 2026 11,..,25088 & 25090 ot 2024 \r :; -\$ l< k tt::.' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS r9 P^q. \>t c\d

[ 3301 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NOs: 11'145 OF 2021.14057.25088 & 25090 of 2024 W.P.No.1't145 OF 2021 Between: M/s. Suncore Power Projects Private Limited, Represented by Datla Srinivasa Raju Having its registered office at Room No. 203. H. No. 8-3-224141N11 and 12. Madhura Nagar. Yusufguda. Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department. Represented by its Principal Secretary. Secretariat Building. Hyderabad. Telangana. 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District. Hyderabad. Telangana. 3. Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairtabad Mandal. 6-3-6281911. Anand Nagar Colony. Khairtabad-500004. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent authorities in interfering with the possession of the schedule Property belonging to petitioner company as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequenfly restrain the Respondent authorities from interfering with the possession of the rand admeasuring 14gs.72 square yards forming part of sy No 116/4, prot No 11, bearing door no g-2-24BrN1, g-2-24grN1rp, petitionerKhairtabad village and Mandar, Hyderabad Diskict beronging to the Company except in accordance with law. I.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petltion, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent authorities from interfering with the possession Schedule Property including construction on the land admeasuring 1495.72 square yards forming part of Sy No 1'16/4. Plot No 11, bearing door no 8-2-2481N1,8-2-2481N11P, Khairtabad village and Mandal, Hyderabad District belonging to Petitioner Company. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: 1. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department. Represented by its Principal Secretary. Secretariat Building. Hyderabad. Telangana. 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District. Hyderabad. Telangana.

3. Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairtabad Mandal. 6-3-6281911. Anand Nagar Colony. Khairtabad-500004. ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS AND M/s. Suncore Power Projects Private Limited, Represented by Datla Srinivasa Raju Having its registered office at Room No. 203. H. No. 8-3-224141N11 and 12. Madhura Nagar. Yusufguda. Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the afficlavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled.27.o4.2O21 in lA.No.1/2021 in WP.No.1114512021 and dismiss the writ petition. counser for the Petition"' counser ' :.Xl,irli+3ior=o.#,,Tr,., counserf ortheResponr""Er:TIg'H0;|"r^TJa:t-tdSL WP NO:1 7 0F 2024 Between: M/s Suncore Power Projects Private Limited, Represented by Chilukuri Kirthi S/o Rajender, aged about 40 years Room No 203, H. No 8 - 3 - 22414tN1,t and 12, Madhura Nagar, Yusoufguda, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, Telangana 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad 5. The Sub - Registrar, Erragadda, Hyderabad 6. The Sub - Regiskar, Punjagutta, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Arlicle 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 Mandamus, (a) Declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 in issuing the Letter bearing LR. No. C135212006 dated 20. 04.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 4 to the Respondent 5, wherein, the Respondent No.4 had directed the Respondent No. 5 not to register the property belonging to the Petitioner hereln, admeasuring 1495 Sq. Yards in Plot No. 11 of Sy. No. 116/ A situated at Khairatabad Village, Journalist Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, for being without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently, set aside the Letter bearing LR. No. C135212006 dated 20. 04.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 4 to the Respondent No. 5 and (b) set aside all the consequent actions taken by the Respondents pursuant to issuance of the Letter bearing LR. No. cl3s2tz006 dated 20. 04.2024 by the Respondent No. 4 to the Respondent 5 incruding the act of incruding the property belonging to the .tPetitioner herein, admeasuring 1495 Sq. yards in plot No. 1 of Sy. No. 116/ A situated at Khairatabad Village, Journalist colony, Baryara Hills, Hyderabad, in the list of prohibited lands under Section 22 - A ot the Regishation Act, 19og and (c) Pass such other order(s) that this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 15'1 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 operation of the Letter bearing LR. No. c/3s2l2006 dated 20. 04.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 to the Respondent 5 and all consequential actions taken by Respondents pursuant to issuance of the Letter bearing LR. No. c/352/2006 dated .20.04.2024 by the Respondent No. 4 to the Respondent 5 including the act of including the property belonging to the petitioner herein, admeasuring 14g5 sq. Yards in Plot No. 1'1 of Sy. No. 'l 16/ A situated at Khairatabad Village, Journalist oolony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, in the list of prohibited lands under section 22 - A of the Registration Act, 1 908 pending disposal of the Writ petition. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: principal 1. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, Telangana 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad 5. The Sub - Registrar, Erragadda, Hyderabad 6. The Sub - Registrar, Punjagutta, Hyderabad ... PETITIONERYRESPONDENTS AND M/s Suncore Power Projects Private Limited, Represented by Chilukuri Kirthi S/o Rajender, aged about 40 years Room No 203, H. No 8 - 3 - 224141N11 and 12, Madhura Nagar, Yusoufguda, Hyderabad

... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER F'etition 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 vacate the interim orders dt.06.06.2024 in W.P.No.'14057 ol 2024 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI AVINASH DESAI, Senior Counsel rep., SRI T.P.S.HARSHA GounserrortheRespont""E;lThtH0s'^TJa:r-:-T. P NO: 5088 F 2024 Between: M/s suncore Power Projects private Limited, Room No 203, H. No B - 3 - 22414tN11 12, Nagar, yusoufguda, Hyderabad Represented Uy nritoiii"O 114 lladhura Signatory Chilukuri Kirthi S/ o. K. Rajender, aged about 40 years, AND ...PET|T|oNER 1 principar . The state of relangana,. Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad 5. The District Registrar, S.R Nagar, Hyderabad ,..RESPONDENTS

Petition under Anide 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 pa'ticurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in lssuing the Letter bearing Lr. No. E1l15591 2024 dated 24.07.2024, to the Respondent 5 to be in violation of the orders of this Hon'bre High court, without jurisdiction, iilegar, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequenfly, set aside the Letter bearing LR. No. Elllssgl 2024 dated 24.07 .2024, issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent 5 and all the actions taken by the Respondents pursuant to issuance of the Letter bearing LR. No E'rl1559/2024 dated 24.07.2024, incruding but not rimited to pracing the Petitioner's property into the prohibited list. I.A. No:'l oF 2024 Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the Letter bearing Lr. No. E1l1559/2024 dated 24.02.2024, issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent 5. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive action/steps against the petitioner company. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 Between:

principar l The State of relangana, Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad 5. The District Registrar, S.R Nagar, Hyderabad ... PETTTIONER/RESPONDENTS AND M/s suncore Power Projects private Limited, Room No 203, H. No g - 3 - 224141N11 and 12, Madhura Nagar, Yusoufguda, Hyderabad Represented by Authorized Signatory Chilukuri Kirthi S/ o. K. Rajender, aged about 40 years, ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 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 vacate the interim orders dt 11.09.2024 passed in lA.No. '1 ol 2024 in WP.No.25088 ot 2024 and dismiss the writ petition. counser ror the Petition"' counser ' :"Ti,i'#+;i?=ot#'rT''" counserf ortheRespont"":;:Tl='xJ0#'^TJe:t":ff . WP NO: 25 90 0F 2024 Between: M/s Suncore Power Projects private Limited, Room No 203, H. No g - 3 - 22414rN11 l.Z, Nagar, yusoufguda, Hyderabad Represented UV nrinoii""a 1yA !|3!hura Signatory Chilukuri Kirthi S/o. K. Rajender, aged about 40 years, ,..PETITIONER AND principal 1. The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary, Sbcretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2. The District Collector, Hyderabad, Telangana.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsitdar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in issuing the Letter bearing Lr. No. E1l1559r 2024 dated 24.07.2024, issued by the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent 5, wherein, the Respondent No. 2 had directed the Respondent No. 5 to direct the concerned to cancer the Buirding permission aflotted vide No. 1lcl17l1140gr 2020 daled 04.11.2020, to ailegedry protect the interest of the government, to be in violation of the orders of this Honorable High court, without jurisdiction, illegar, arbitrary, unconstitutionar and consequenfly, set aside the Letter bearing LR. No. E1r1ss9t2o24 dared 24.07.2024, issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent 5, and aU consequent actions taken by the Respondents pursuant to issuance of the Letter bearing LR. No. E'u1ssgt2o24 dated 24.02.2024, issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent 5. LA. NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the Letter bearing Lr. No. E1ll559/2024 dated 24.07.2024, issued by the Respondent No 2 to the Respondenl5, 04.11.2020. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 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 restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive action/steps against the Petitioner Company. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: 1 . The State of Telangana, Revenue Department, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, Telangana 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 4. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad. 5. The Commissioner, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS AND lt4/s Suncore Power Projects Private Limited, Room No 203, H. No I - 3 - 224141N11 and 12, Madhura Nagar, Yusoufguda, Hyderabad Represented by Authorised Signatory Chilukuri Kirthi S/o. K. Rajender, aged about 40 years, ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt. 11.09.2024 passed in WP.No.25090 ol 2024 and dismiss the writ petition.

Gounsel for the Petition"' , counsel :"Tiir#ffiior=oft,rT"'". co u nser for th e Res po n dents N o. 1 tos :, ?[[. ?'JJ33^1=I3 ;i,?hf I The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION Nos. 11145 of2O21 14057 25O88 and 25O9O of 2024 Dated lOtt July,2026. Between: M/s. Suncorc Pou,cr projccts l)rivate Limited Pctitioner AND The State of Telangana, Revenur: Department, Rcprescntcd bl its Irrincipal Scr rt,ta11.. Secrerariat I3uilding, Hyderabad, 'lelangana ald others. RespondcntsCOMMON ORDER: Sincc thc 1ls raiscd in all rhosc. q,riL pctit jons ls utter se relatcd u,ith each oLhcr, rhcy zrrc Li,{kcn up Logethcr, hcard ancl being drsposcd of by this common order. 2) Writ Pctjtion No.I 1 14,5 ot 2O2j is tilcd qucstioning rhc action ol Ihc respondcnL au thorities in in Lcrforing \4,irh thc posscssion of the petitioncr Company rn respect of thr: land admeasuring l4gi.72 square yards forming part of survcl, No. I I6/4, Plot No. l1 beanng l)oor No.8 2 248/A/ t, I 2_2+8/Al t /t) at Khalra ra bad Village and - 2 PK. .I .1 I,|:1'. vo ] 1 1 r af )A) I &. bat(h Mandal. Ilr-clr:rabad l)istrict (in shori subjcct property ) and consequentl\. io dLrect thc respondents n()t to interfere with the lrossr:ssion rrt thc pcli ionr:r' ir-r rcspcct. ol thc sultject propcrtv

3) \'rit Pctirion No. 1.1057 ol 2024 rs Iilcrl sceking to declare thc lettcr bearing l-r.No.C i 352/2006 datcd 20.O1 .2024 addressed by rhe Tahsildar. Kh:rirathabad. to thc Sub-Registrar, Erragadda, not to regls[er lhe sut)-rc.t l)ropcrt\,. as illetgal and arl-,itrary 4) WnL l)ctirion No.25088 ol 2a24 is fiicd seeking to declare the lcttcr bearilrg. 1-r,No.ll I 1,559 12024 daLed 24.O7.2024 addressed by thc [)rstrrr:l (]olLcctor to thc [)islnct llcgistrar. S,]1. Nagar, not to enterLain anr salcs-/tr:rns:lctiolts in rcspccL ol thr: sutrjcct propcrt\', t1s illega) and arbitrar,,, . 5) Wrrt Pctition No.25090 of 2024 is filed questioning the letter bearing No.F,l/ l:tl'9 12024 dated 24.o7.2o2.1 addresscd b1' the (iflNlC, to cancel thc buildingDisrrict Collectr.ir. to rhe Cornmissioncr, permisslon qr:rntcrl in respecI ofthe subject pro]rerty. 6)F-acLsleacltngLOf.i]rncolthcpr(SCnIrttitpctltirlnsasr'r,cllatslht. case of lhe l)etitir)nt'r. in a llrrtshell, ;lrc Lh.rt ongLnalll' the land to an cxtent of Acs.,: 3r guntas ln surve,v No.1 16/ 1 of Khairatabad Village was purchasecl in public.Iuction bv one late Sri Ping'lli Venkat Ram / 3 I'K, J W.t).No.1I14r of )0)] & batch

1943 In 30'000/- in I353 Fasli i.e' in the YearRecldY ior a sum of Rs had sold the said land to one K Gopalturn, said Venkat Ram Reddy Deed bearing documentRao and others through registered Sale ie in the year 1946 Thereafter, K.GoPal RaoNo.216 of 1356 Fasli and others have obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad vide File No 139/ 1'4Ol2F dated 15 07 1963 and divided sevcral thc same to ol plots and sold the property into number re l16/1 was persons and lhe above said land in survey No numbered as 116/4 Out o[ the said land' one Pan Rai Pannalal Pitti MemorialCharitable.I.IuSthadpurchasedtheland,inwhichthc from K Gopal Rao and others vide registered subject property fa1ls, sa-1e deed No.2O41/ 1963 dated 09 03'1963 Thereafter' the said Trust executed a sale deed vide document No 1694/ 1994 dated 20'06'1994 in favour of Gayathri Devi Badruka and three olhers in respcct of the property bearing municipal Nos 8-2-248lA ll' 8-2'248lAll lP' 8-2-survev in plot No 11 in 248lAlllPlt and 8-2-248lAlIlPl2 No.I 16/4 situated at Khairatabad Villagc, Journalist Colony' Banjara Hills, Flyderabad, consisting ol building and land appurtenant thereto admeasuring 747.a6 Sq. Yards and also document No'1695/ 1994 in I 8-2- respect of property bearing municipal Nos.8-2-248 /A/ , 248lAl1lP,8-2-248lAl1lPlt andS'2'248lAl llPl2 in plot No,1 1 in \-- 4 W. p Na. I I t 4 5 oj 20, I & ;[;./,

survcr. No. 1 I 6/4 sit uated at Khairatabad !.i11 .ruu.r"rist BanJara LIirs, Iivderabad, colony, consistrng oro*",building and land appurtenant thereto admeasuring 747.g6 Sq yards admeasuring totalry 14gs.72 Sq. yards. rhereafte'r, said Gayathri Badruka Devi and others havs g)<ssu1s6 a Memorardum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 72.O8.2O10 in favour of Bajaj Auto Finance Limited mortgaged the subiect property and vide documenL No.317g/2010. I,'urthcr, rhc IlaJai Ari Lo I..inancc Limttcd had turther assignc.d rights in respect its of Ihc subject property to Asset Reconstruction ,ARC]I_) Compan,y India Ltd (in short through an Assignment Agrccment dared 30, 11.2O17 vidc document No.351/IV/ 17, In view of such assignment, Cal,athri Devi Badruka and others have to clear the loan by paying amounts to ARCIL. As Gayathri Devi Badruka and others have failed to repay the loan amounts, they were declared as lvon-Profitable Asset (NI']A) in accordancc with the provisions or Sccuntization and Rr:construction of Financial Assets and ,SARFAESIEnforcement of Securitv Intcrcst AcL, 2OO2 (in short Act,). Further, on an applicarion being made b,y the ARCIL in Cr1.M.P. No.5567 of 20\7. rhe Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampalll-, Hyderabad, vide order dated 09.O3.201g had appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who took possession of the subject propcrty 5 PK, J W.P.No.1 1145 of 2O21 & batch

and handed over the same to ARCIL in execution of warrant and a Sale Certificate dated 2O.O9.2O18 was also issued in favour ol the ARCIL. Thereafter, after following due procedure, the ARCIL has auctioned the subject property wherein the petitioner has participat.ed and being the highest bidder, thc petitionnr has purchascd the subject property in the auction conducted under the provisions of SARFAESI Act from ARCIL vide document No.797O/2018 dated 16.11.2018. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner Company has been in continuous possession of the schedule property and also obtained building permission bearing No.1./CI7/1I4O9 l2O2O dated 04.ll.2O2O for construction of building and also started conslruction. 6 l) Whilc so, on I7. I 1.2020, rhc rcspondcnI zru[hurirics cermc to the subjcct properLy and tried to inLcrfcrc with the possession of the petitioner slating that the same belongs to Government. Immediately, on 18.11.2O2O, petitioner made a representation to respondent No.3 clearly explaining thc flow of titlc and requesting the authorities to refrain from taking any illegal action. However, on 31.O3.2021, again the authorities have tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. During the interrcgnum period i.c. on 21.I 1.2020, the pctitroner Company rcccivcd a noticc lrom thc Inspcctor of l)olice, Panjagutta, Ilyderabad, informing about registration of crime 6 PK, J W.P.\o 11 145 of 2021 & batch

No.634 l2O2O date(l 17.11.2020 against the petitioner Company and re(luesting the lfircctor ol thc pctitioner Coml;any to appear before the Policc SLatron. Onll';,rfter rcgrstration of the said crime , the petltioner Nos. 13497 andCompany' camc to knou' about pendency of W.P. 1319 I oi 2012 filt:c] br (lara[hri l)cvi I]adruka and others s'herein intcrim ortlcrs of stllLus cluo \\'crc passed by this llonblc Court' filedHencc, thc pctltroner has approached this Court and respondentW.P.No. 1L145 of 2021 sceking a direction to the authorities not to interfcre u'ith the possession of the petitioner in passed rcspcct of thc schcclult: property wherein lhis Court has interim ordcr clatcd 27 .O1.2O21 restraining the respondent authorities from interfcring r,,,ith the posscssion ol the pctitioni:r in rcspect of the 5u llj r'c I I)r()pcrl\. pe titioner that during the pendency 6.2\ lt is the lurther case of the of sard r,"'rit pelition i.e . W.P. No.11145 of 2027 and the interim orders passed bl this Court in the said writ pctition, the 'l'ahsildar, bearing Khairatabad Tahsil, had addressed a letter Sub-l?egtstrar, Lr.No.C/352/2006 dated 20.O4.2021 to the Erragadda. rcqucsting not lo rcgister the subject propcrty No 14057 ol 2024 Challcngrnr. rht' :;iLid lcttcr. pe ti[roncr hacl filcd W [) 7 PK, J W.P.No I 1145 of 202j & batch

wherein this Hon'ble Court vide ordcr dated 06.06.2024 has grantcd lnterim suspension of t-he lerter daLcd 20.O4.2024 6.3) While so, based on the reporr submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer & Tahsildar, Khairatabad, the District Collcctor, Hyderabad, had addressed a letter bearing Lr.No.El/ lSSg/2024 daLed 24.07.2024 to the District Registrar, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, requesting not to entertain any sales/ transaction in the subject property. Questroning rhc samc, rhc. pctitioncr lilcd W.lr. No.2S0gti of 2024 wherern this Court vidc order datecl I l.Og.2024 has granted interim suspension of the letter daled 24.O7 .2024. 6.4) Similarly, the Districr Collcclor, Hyderabad, had addrcsscd the letrer vide Lr.No.tr1l1559/2024 dared 24.OT.2024 to the Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad, to cancel the building permission granted to the petitioner in respect of the subject property. Challenging the same, thc peri[ioncr had l-r]ed W.p. No.25O9 O ot 2024 wherein this Hon'ble Court vidc order dated ll.Og.2024 has granted interim suspension of the letter daLed 24 .O7 .2024. 7l IIeard Sri Avinash [)csaj. ]carncd senior counscl, representing Sri T.P.S. Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Divya 8 PK, J V'l).iro 1 I l4:t ol 20)1 & bcLtch Adcpu, learncd Spccial (lovernmcnt Plcader, representing the learned Advocate General. for the respondents.

8) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, while drarving the attention of this Courl to severaL sale deeds, to explain the title flow to the pclitioncr in rcspect o[ the subject property, has hard purchased the schedule propcrtf inconLended thal thc I)clitioncr the public :ru( tion coniluctcd b] AItCIL under thc provisions of SAIRITAESL\ct and at the time ol purchase, tl-re subject property was not included in thc list of prohibited proporties. Learned scnior counscl has contendecl rhat the status quo orders wcre passcd by this Court aftcr tht: iand was mortgaged by Ga1'athri Devi Badruka & others to Bajaj Auto Finance. Therefore, the status quo orders are not appJicablc Lo thc pre cxisting rights accruecl by' tlaj aj Auto Iiinanr:c lrv ua-r ol rrorLgrlgc. uhich sr-Lbscqucntly resultcd tn public auctlon shelcin thc pctitioncr has purchased thc subject propcrty. It is settled princrple of lau, that under Order XXXVIll Rule 10 o[ the Code of Civil Proccdure, anv attachment shall not affect the rights existing pricir lo the a Ltachment. Therefore, the status quo orders passed b1. this Court cannot affect the pre-existing rights accrued throu gh mortgal<e to the Baj aj Auto Finance and later to the ARCIL, u,hich arc tl)c prr)dccrcssor in-tit1c to thc peti[ioner, Further, thc 9 PK, J W l,.Na. 1 11.1J oJ 2A)t & batctt

status orders do not come in the way of petitioner,s right to enjoy thc subject property and the respondent authorities without any basis or ma[erial to support thcir rit]c to thc subject property have issued the impugned notices, which is illegal and arbitrary. Further, it is settled law that the State cannot declare themselves to be the owners of the property in a summ:iry m:tnncr and cannol rcsorl to summary proccr:dings undcr Lhc Ltrnd l.lnr:roachment Act without proving their title over the subject properly bcforc appropriatc l..orum. Whcn thc petitioner Company has clcarly established the title flow to it from the year 1356 Fasli i.c. 1946. the respondent authoritics cannot unilatcrally dcclare thc property to be the property of the State and try to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. Further, while placing rcliance on rhe order datod t1.10.2006 passed by this Cour[ in W.l). No.2lOl3 ol 2016. rhc lcarned Senior counsel has con[cnded that thc r(]spondent authorities cernnot claim fhc subjcct property to be Government land merely relying on the'I.SLR entries. I,-urthcr, thc pctiLioncr rs irr continous possession ol the subject propcrty and obtatncd al) ncc:r:ssary pr:rmissions lrom the competent authorities for development of the subject property. That apart, thc ARCIL i.e. the vendor of the pel.itioner was put in possession of the subjccr propcrty on 20.OC).2O 18 by thc n dvocal.e Commissioner by 10 PK,.I \4t P No.1 1 11t. of )02 1 & btltch

NletrcipoLttanvirtuc ol ('xc('u1ion o1 \\ arranl issLted br tltc (lhici Magistratc. \amnir1lr. Ilrdcrarbad. in Crl.M.P.No.5567 of 2017 dated 09.0,1..2018. lfrr ri'fcrc. lhr: rcspondcnt artLhr,ril.ics cannot in[erfcre \\,llh tho poss('sslon ol thc pctrtioner clarming thc plopcrtv to bc thc GovernmenI propcrt-\ \\ irhout proVing iLs titlc bt:lore the Civil Court. 13.1) l,carnccl scnior colrnscl has lurthcr srLbrnitted that ignoring and rlisobel ing rhc intcrim ordi'r datcd ),7.O4.2021 passcd by lhis Corrrt 'l'ahsildar. Khair :ilaba(1, has adctrcsscdin W.P. No. 1 1 1,1.r ot 20-l 1. thc - llegistrar. Drragadda,the Icrtcr d.ttc(l 20.()1 .2O2+ lo thc S rrb ir-rforrnit:s ,rot to ralisl{:. ilrr: subjccl propcrl\. \\'itho,it anv auLhorlt-\ of lar.r . As pcr S('.Lron .12 ,\ lll (b) ol thc l(r'gistration Act, 1908, onlr the Distrir:t Clollecto: is thc compctcnt au tl-rorit.\- to issue such direclrons. F urther, u'hcn thc strong prima facie casc and balilnce of convenicncc llcs rn favour ol thc petitioner, issuance of thc lctter dated 20.0.+.2021 is in cicar violation o{ Iau and contrary to thc r he [ul] l]cnch ol Lhis Court irt Vinjamuri Rajagopala.ludgmcnt ol Chary u, Principal Secretary, Relenze Department, Hgderabadl. 8.2) I.-urther'. tlrc lcarnerl st'nior coLtt-tscl has cot.ttctrrlcd tirat thc vidr: t)istricl (lo1lc'cLor-, I lr cler':rbad, had addressed thc lctter 2015 SC(l OLrl-rLrr I1!(i 40',' 11 PK, J W.P.No.1 1 l4 5 of 202 ) & batch

.O7 .2024 Lo the District Registrar, Lr. No. E i / 1559 I 2024 dated 24 t{yderabad, stating that the land in survey No.116/1 is classihed as 'Government land' and that thc pctil.ioner hcrcin had obtaincd building permission from the GFIMC authorities without obtaining any consent from the revenue authorities as the land in question is a government land. Lcarncd scnior counscl has vehemently contcndcd that on one hand the District Collector is stating that the land in survey No. 116/ 1 is a Government Land and on the other the District Collector has requested the District Registrar not to entertain any sale s/ transac tion s in respect of thc property belonging to the petitioner herein, which is in lact situated in survcy No.116/4 or 166/4, which is admittedly not a government land, and not in survev No. l16/1. Learned scnior counsel has lurther contendcd that thc l.'ull Llench of this Court in Vlnjamuri RaJagopalo Chary, s case (reJen'ed. sltptd) has framed the guidelines to be followed for classifying any land / immovable property as government land . However, without lollowing the said guidelincs, the District Collcctor has unilaterally issued the letter dated 24.O7.2024, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Further, the District Cotlector has no power whatsoevcr to drrect rhc I)istrict Rcgistr::r not ro cntcrLain any salcs/transactions in tcspcct o[ thc subjcct property morc so whcn t2 PK, J W.P. \o 11145 of 2021 & batch

thc subject property rs existing in survey No.116/4 or 116/A and not in su rver,' No.1 I61 l 8.3) Learncd senior counsel has lurther contcnded that the l)istrict Collector rs noL vr:sLcd rvith ernt pou.cr to address thc lcILcr No.i'-1/l-5()'202'l d;rtcrl 2,1.07.202,1 to thc Commissioncr, (itlMC, to cani:r:l thc building permission granted to the petitioner and the petil-ioner is noi issued s'ith an,v prior notice. I.lence, the action of the District Collector is in clear violation of principlcs of natural justicc. Thereforc, t.he learned scnior counsel pral'ed thrs Court to allow the writ petitions, as praycd for. Reliance has been placed on: a) lnterinr ordcr ditLcd 06.1 1.2025 passed in \.\.1). No.l I145 oi 12021; bl State of A.P. v. Prameela Modiz. c) Gouernment of Andhra Prad.esh u. Thummala Xrishna Raoa; d) The Special Dg. Collector u, Kond.a La.kshman Bapujia, e) Hgderabo.d. Potteries Priuate Limited u. Collector, Hgderabads; u. Blue Wings Deuelopers6;\ The State of Telangana g) Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd.. u. Principal Secretary, Govt. oJ U.P.7; h) Dr Bal Krishna Agarwal u. State o.f U.P.8(service matter-verifyl rl2(10(,r i.l SCC '1, r(1982r : SCC I .la I ()8.., rM A N r- / .1P/ al l4.t / 12001 t.l l-AI) a)(r0 r,MANL. /'l'Ll00 I'/' /:2023 (2004 l3 SCC tr5:l ----== 13 PK, J W.P.No.1l145 o[ 2O2I & betch

9) Per contra, the lcarncd Spccial Government plcader has contended that the subjecr property claimed by the petitioner falls in '1.S. No.75, Block-J, Ward-89. correlating ro Survey No.116/ I of Khairatabad Village and the same is classified as Government land. As per Town Survey records, the land in survey No. 1 l6/ I to an extent of Acs.29-19 guntas is recorded as 'poramboke Sarkari,. Further, the sale deed of the petitioner mentions the survey number as 116/4, which does not even exist, and in fact thc subject land actually lalls in survcy No. i l6/ I, which is a (iovcrnnrcnt lancl. The TSLII rccords. revenuc records and location skel.ch prcpared from the said records clearly identify and Iocalise the subjecr land to be falling in survey No.1 16/ 1 but not in survey No.I 16/4 as claimed by the petitioner. As per the pahanies, survey No.l16/1 of Khairatabad Village to an extent of Acs.29- 19 guntas recorded as ,poramboke Sarkari,. As per Town Survey Record, T.S. No.75, Block-J, Ward-g9 correlated. to ,G_ survcy No.1 16/ I Part is rccordcd as Sarkari in column No. l0 and Govcrnment' in column No.20 and therc is no survey No. I 16/A in Khairatabad Village. As such, the allegcd document No.797O l2Olg relied upon by the petitioner cannot crcatc any right or titlc to the petitioner to claim the subject land. 3(1995) l SCC 614 1.4 PK, J WP.i;o 1l 14 5 o12021 & batch

9. 1l l,earned Spccial Govcrnment Pleader further submitted that the clarm o[ thc peLrtroncr that thu.Advoc.rte Contmissioner has delivered posscssion ol lhc sLrblcct propcrt) and salc certifit<atc was issued by ARCIL arc al1 invcnled to grab the valuable Government property and therefore the same is not binding on the respondents as they are not pariics to thc saicl proccedings. Irurther, thc allegcd building permission darcd 04. I L)O2O u as obtaincd by thc pctrtioncr by supprcssing thc material lacts bclorc thc GI{MC :rnd the aLrthorities of (lllN4C uithout secking lan.i sta[us report {rom the revenue au Ihorirics havc sanctioned construction pet-mrssion without examining the governmcnt interest over the said property. F\rther, mere sanction of construction permission does not create an)' right or titlc to the pctitioner. Thc learned Special Government Pleader has specilicallY contCnclcd that the claim of the petitroner [hat survcy No.I 16/ t has br:cn renumbcrcd as survcy No.1 16/4 is incorrect and furthcr contcnclcd that thi: land Ialling tn survev No.116/4 is classil-iccl .rs pn\ar(' land but thc l:rnd claimed by the petirioner is differcnt and distinct and the same falls in survey No. 116/ 1, which is ciassified as Government land. Thus, under the guise oi the documents relaring to survcy No. 116/4, the petitioner is claiming righLs in rcspect of the land in survey No. I 16/ 1. It is further 15 PK, J W.P.No.I I 145 of 2A21 & batch

contended that as the subject propcrtlr falls in survey No. 116/t corresponding to T.S. No.75, Block-J, Ward No.g9 of Khairatabad Village, which is Government Land, the revenue authorities have initiated proceedings under thc provisions of Andhra pradcsh Land Encroachment Act against Gayatri Devi f3adruka, who is the predecessor-in title of the petitioner. In W.p. Nos.13497 and 13491 of 2012, this Hon'ble Court has issucd in[erim direction on 05.06.20ig rcstraining thc aul.horitics frotn lnlcrl'cring \,,,i th thc posscssion. 'lherelore, the subsequent devclopments averred by the petitioner are not binding on the authorities and the petitioner is bound to honor the said directions and maintain status quo in respect of the subject property till the dispute is resolved. It is further submitted that as W.P.No.21O13 ol 2006 was liled against GHMC questioning non_ issuance of construction pcrmission to the petil.ioner thercin, thc orders in thc said writ pc[it)on cannoL bt madc applicable to thc case on hand. Learned Spccial Govcrnmcnt l)lcadcr has further submitted that the subject land is vacant on ground wilh the custody of the Government and kept in the land bank vide L.B.No. 1129. As the petitioner, under the guise of sale deed d,ated 2O.Og.2O1g stated to have been executed by ARCIL and the construction permission issued by the GHMC, is trying to takc up rhe construction work in the 15 PK, J W P.llo.l I 14 5 of 2021 & batch

subtcct land Changing thc nature of the lands contrary to the order datccl 2 7.0.1.202 I passed br this Court in W.l). No. I 1 145 of 202 l, the autlroritics h.rVC rcslstc(l thc action of thc pctitroncr in order to prolcCt the GOvcrnrnerrt land. 9 2l It is further contended that Town Survey was conducted in Hyderabad District ciuring the period 196.1- 197 1 by the Deputy DirccLor, Survev & I-and Records, Hyderabad Dlstrict, under the provisions ol A P Survcv & Boundary Act, 1923. 'lhereafter, after issurng notices lo all the o\\ners ol the subjec.L propertics and calling their objeclions. rCcorcls',rcrc implcmcntcd in 1981.82. 'lhc Location SkeLch Map rndicating survct No.116/l and 116/4 prepared by the I)cputy Inspccror (S&l,R). and thc Rccord ot- Measurcments (ROM) and Tou n Survel Letnd Rccords (1'SI-R) re',,ea1 that survey No, 1 I6/ 1 co-rclatcs to 'l'.S. No.75. Block-J, Ward No.89 and the subject land is continuouslv included in Lald Book Parcel as well as in POB (Prohibitorv of Book) Furthcr, the issue has zrriscn in the year 2020 u,hcn thc pclitioncr sl:l:tcd constru(.tion in survc,r, No.1 t6/ 1, u.hich is a go\ ernm('llL pr()pcrt\ . on rhc prcmisc ol c.)nstruction permission grantcd in survev No.116/A, and thcrefore, the respondents started taking actton. Horvever, the petitioner has approached this Llonble Court in W.P. No. I 1 145 ol 2021 alicging inrerferencc from the official L7 PK, J W.P.No.11145 oJ 202I & batch

respondents. But, in such a situation, the petitioner ought to have approached the competent Civil Court by filing appropriate civil suit for injunction. Further, the pcti[roner himsell is not clcar as to whether the subject propcrty lies rn survcy No. 116/4 or l I6/4 since in W.P.No.I I145 ol 2021, the petitioner is claiming that the subject property is in survey No. I 16/4 whereas in W.p. No.14057 of 2024. the petitioner is claiming that the subject property is in survey No. 1 i 6/A. Thereflore, the identihcation of the larld of the writ petitioner is in dispute as the claim o[ the respondent authorities is that it falls in survey No,1 16/ 1. which is a government land. The petitioner has approachcd this Court [or adjuclication of disputcd questions of fact withou t approaching the Civil Court. I.-urther, there is no such survey No.1 I6/A in Khairatabad Village. 9 3) Learned Special Governmcnl l)lcader has furlher contonded that it is settled law that pure disputed questions of fact cannot be decided on the basis of documents filed in the writ petition and in such cases evidence has to be led by the parties and the appropriate remedy would be to [ilc a civil suir for ad.judication of the samc. It is furthcr contcnded that thc subjcct land is recorded as governmenI land vide No.8300008 with vacant on the ground to an extent of 1495 Sq. Mtrs. as verificd in the Land tlook Rcgistr:r. F.urther, thc Joint 18 PK, J W.P.Iio.1l145 of 202I & batch

CollccLor. Hydcrzrbacl District. has rejected lhe request of the petitioner Ibr NOC vide File No.N213123 12006 dated O7.10.2007 on the ground that the subject land is government land and further directed thc' N,lunicrpal Corporation. Ilvdcrabad, not to accord any buikling pcrmissron. Supprcssing thc satnc, thc pctitioner has obtained thc burlding permission dated 04. l1.2O2O from GIIMC. llenct--. thc sairl building permission does not create anv right or title to thc pctitioncr. Furthcr, it is rvcll settlcd principle of lar,"' that any building permrssion accorded over the Government land is not valid under la\. and Ls null and void. 91) Lcarned Spi:cral (lor,,ernmcnt l)lcadcr as further contcnded that tr., Vinjamuri Ra.jagopala Chary's ca-se (referred supral, it has been categoricalll hcld Lhat anv gricvance ol the parlics with relerence to thc propcrtics corcr<'d br clauses (a) to (d) will have to be questroncd b1 rhc aggricved partics only by appropriate proceedings before a competent Civil Court and the adju<lication of such courts would be final. If the petitioner is aggrieved by rhe action of the authorities in piac:ing thc subject property in prohibitory list, it ought [o havc appro:rchccl the compctcnt Civi] Court lbr proper adj udication. 'l'he petitioner had approached thrs Hon'ble Court wir hou t therc being :rny',iolaLion of fundamcntal right that too whcn thcrc exjsts a proper PK, J W. P No.11 14 5 of 2A2t & batch

remedy available lor redressal of lts grievance. Further, in W.P.No.28300 of 2OO7 vlde order dated 19.I0.2023, this Hon'ble Court has hcid that thc subjcct propcrtv kcpt undcr Scction 22 A of the Registration Act does not violate the right to hold the property. Learned Special Government while referring to the judgment in Prq.meela Modi's case (reJerred. supra). has contended that the [Ionble Apex Court has upheld that survey No. 116/1 is a Government land. Relying on thc same, the petitioner contended that survey No.1l6 is divided into sub-parts. The authoritics arc not disputing sub-division of survcl, No. l1(r. but it is the spccific claim of the authoril.les that thc property clatmed by the petitioner falls in survey No. 1 16/ 1, which is admittedly a government land. 9 5) Learned Special Government Pleader has further contended that the petitioner has prematurely approached this Court in W.P. No.2509O of 2024 challenging the letter dated 24.07.2024, which is merely an inter departmental communication between thc District Collcclor and Commrssioncr, (lllNIC, and thcrclorc thc said writ petition is liablc to bc dismissccl sincc there is no cause of action. The Flon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Ortssa v. Mesco Steels 2a PK, J W P.''ta 1 1 14 5 oJ 2021 & l)at(h

Limitede. has held that thc rvrit pctition lilcd seeking interl'erence at prt clecisional stagr: u'ith provisional dccisior-r which constituted only a sr"ep in proccss of taking final decision by lhe authority must be treated as premature. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss all the writ petitions as devoid of merits, Reliance has also been placed on: a) Judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed by tl-re Divrsion Bench in Writ Appeal No.4 84 ol 2017: bl M.Yadagiri Reddg u. V.C. Bro.hmanna' c) Nli s. Inv( (La 'l ccnnologics [)riratc Limitcd r,. Government ol Andhra Pradesh. Wrir I)c[rtron Nos.28300 of 2007 & batch dated 19.1O.2023. d) Comrnon order ciated 21.02.2025 passcd by thr: Division Bench of this Court in LA. Nos. i a:rrd 2 of 2023 in Writ Appea.l No.484 of 2017. 10) ln reply, thc lcarned senior counscl appcaring for the petitioner has submitted that thc survcv No.1 16/ 1 uas divided into survcy Nos. 116/1 to 116/-- anrl thc sutrjcct land ialls within survev No. I16r4. rrhich is a priva[e land and is amrdst ol series of private lanr1s. FLrrthcr. as per salc dced document No.1694/94 dated 20.06.1994. it rvas rightiy described that the subject land forms part '1u o r 3t .r scc :+o 'o:00 t ScC oni,Lie \t, 9,I9 21 PK, J W.P. No. 1 I I45 o1 2021 & batcLl

of survey No.l 16/4, which is not a government land and that i.i transcribing error occurrcd , hcn thc schcclule in thc sale deed No.1694 l9a dated 20.06. 1994, due ro which, survey No. I t6l4 was mentioned as 1i6/A. As such, the revenue records and the Town Survey Record relied by the authoritics do not pcrtain to the sublect land as thc saicl rccorcls pcrterin to survcy No. I I6/ I bul. not survey No.I16/4, u,hich is noL a govcrnnlent [and. FurLhcr, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prameela Modi's case (rcferred supra), tht: factum of division of survcv No.116/t to tl6/l ro I1615 was not carricd out in the TSI,R records erroneously. F-urther, the pctitioner had clearly established thc title flow to the petitioncr from 1356 fasli i.e. year 1946 and the tile of the predecessor-in - title of the petitioner is also clcarlv establishcd in Khasra l)ahani for the year 1954. Ifurtht:r, cv<:n :tc)cordtng lo the rccord of thc authoritics i.e. Area Reconciliation Statemcnt. it rccords that Lhc lands in survel, No. I 16/ [ is governmcnt Iand and it does not include '1.S, No.7S, Illock-J, Ward No.89, as l.rncl bclongrng to Lhc Clovcrnmcnt. Rcliance has been placed on: l1) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by rcspective counsel and perusccl Lhe material on rccord 22 PK, J w.P.Na.11145 of ?021 & batch

1)) 'l'hc rn:t;l-r ,.olrr,,;tllr..:-, ol rhct pcti[ioncr ]s Lhart it is tlrc orlner of ,,rthc sutlr:ct I)1 op('rl\ , ltrclt lalls in srLrvcv N t. 1 16, A or 1 16/4 having pu rchascd (hC sarnc in an auction from /\RCIL and has been in posscssiort oi rhc samr:. l.'urthcr, thc petitioner has also frlcd documenIs substantiating thc litlc flor,", Il-om r.hc vc;ir 1943 onu,ards. 13) I-'rom the pleadings oi both the parties, it is an admitted fact by both the parties that thc land in survcl. No.116/ 1 was sub-divided int. sur'c' Nos. I 16, 1 to 1 la),r5, ollt ,l r itir.lt. tne la.c.l iit survr:r No. L ltri I is th(, go\.('rnrn.'ltt l;rncl and thc letrcl in survcr. No. I 16/4 is a privzr te lalt(i. ,,i l4) ln thc alror.r' ba<.kgrouncl. the lrrlle ing issrrcs :rrisc lrtr adjudication before rhrs (lour[: l) \\'hctbr:r lh(,Governmenr can claim the ownership rights unilatcrall-r'? )) \\ hcLlicr Lht, sutr.jcc.r propcrL\ falls in survcr. No.I 16/ 1 or 116t4 or llii'.-\/ .3) \!'hcLhrtr sr rrt cr No. 1 1 614 was wronglv mentioncd as survcy 15) lnsolar .rs issuc No. I is r.oriccrrrcd, this Court is ol thc r",rcu. that lhc petrtioncr has cslablishecl the title flou, in respect of the schedule 23 PK, J W.I'. No.1 l l4 5 of 2O2l & betctl

property through registcred sale deeds from the year 1943 onwards and ir is rts specrlic casc that thc subjecr property falls in survel' No.116/A \l16l4). IIowevcr, the rcspondcnt authorities contcnd rhat the subject propert-v" falls in survcy No. I l6/ I , which is the (]overnment land. From lhe above, it rs clcar that both the parties are unablc to rdentify ihc location of the land wherc the su bjecr construction is being undertaken. llowcvcr, thc rcspondcnts havc unilaterally declared themsclves as owners of the subject land. 15. l) In this context, thrs Court deems it apt to refcr that the Hon'blc Supreme Court in Thumtnalq Krishna Rco's ccse (reJerred suprd), which reads as under: ''f hc Oor.cr nrncrt caDltot dccidc sucl'r qucstions LLnilalerally in its ourr favour and evict any pcrson summaril\ on tl'to basrs oi such decisron. Ilut duration ol occr,Lpation is relevant in Lhe sense that a person who is in occLlpation of a property openl) Ior an apprecrable length of tLme can bc takcn, prima tacie. ro havc a bonafide claim to thc propertv rcquiring an impartial ad1Lrchcation accordrng to the established procedure of law." 15.2) ln view ol lhc abovc settied proposition of' lar.r., this Court is ol the view that the action of thc I)istrict Collector in addrcssing Ietters to the Regislcring authoritics noL Lo cnterIatn rcgistrations in respect ol thc subjcct property and ro the Commissioner, GtlMC, Lo cancel thc burlding permissions granted in lavour ol the petitioner, 24

PK,,I l{.. /) \ir I / I 1i al ).!)2 1 & but h unilateralh decl:rring that the subject property lrrlls in government Iand. is unsustainabl(r undcr thc law 15.31 If the S:ar( . bt ir-rq thc i:ustodian ol Lhi: govcrnmcnt land, is of the opinion Lhat ih,' Pctilioncr is making ConsLruction in Govcrnmcnt Land, Llrc ,rutitor itlcs ougirt Io havc :rpproa,'hcd rrpplopriarLc lrorrrrrr for redrr:ssal ol' lhcir grcivance. instcad of :rcting urlilalcrallv, and u'ilhout doing so. thi. authonties cannot intet-ferc \,\'ith the possession of the pe titioncr. I6) [ssuer Nos.2 and.] raise disputecl qlcstio;'rs of fact, which cannot be gonr: inLrr Dy thrs Court rvhilc cxcrcislng inherent powers unrlcr Arlick' 22o ot thc Ccins[i[urron of lndia. It is settled iau under Artir:1e .226 of Lltc (lonslitu lion ol India. thc Coults should imposc self reslriction lrr inlr'r{i,rrnq into disputccl rl.rcstions rclatjltg lo title ancl possessior 16.-) In lhis corltcxt, ir is apropos to rclcr Lo thr judgment in Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad through its Commissi oner us. State of Maharashtrq.r r. rvhcrein thc IIon'ble Apcx Court held that rhe High Cour-1 crrccl in cxerc'ising its lurisdiction under Article 226 of thc (.20 5 1,, s(.i a8, 25 I'K, J

1,t'l'i\0 1 I 1 1.) al 202 t &, bcu.lt Constitutron of lnctia in dcciding thc disputcd qucstions of lact regarding titlc ovcr disputcd Iand rarscd bY thc partics rhurcin. 16.2) Similarlv. in S urati Ferro Allogs Priuate Limited. us. Orissa Industrial Infra.structure Developrnent Corporation (IDCO)L2, |nc IIon'blc Apex Court hc-ld rhat matrcr involving drspurcd clr.tcstion ot' lat:t about [hc ou,ncrship r;]'thc lr-rncl in clucslion could nol bt: dccidccl in a nrit pcLition unclcr ,\r Lir'le 22(> ol' thc: ConsLiLution of India and that thc lligh Court s as justilicd in dircr_-rrng rhc partics to approach the civil Court for resolving such disputc. l7) lfor the aforc-mcnrioncd rcasons. all thc WriL pctitions are alloucrl ars ptrary'cd for. Ilour',,,cr, it is mudc clear th:rt thjs order does not precludc the rcspondt:nI authorjtics in rrvailtng approprialr: 1cgaL rcrncdics, sLricrly in accordancc r,r'ith lrrl . Miscr-'llirnct.rr,rs i.rpplic.aLiotrs. iI anr,, peltding in these writ petilions, shall stand closcd. No costs. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFTCERTo, 1 Principal The Secretarv. St"g of Telangana, Department, . . Secretariat Building. "-"-' Revenue Hyderabad. tetangana.-2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District. Hyderabad. Telangana. 3 The Mandar Revenue officer, Khairtabad Mandar. 6-3-62grgt1 . Anand Nagar Colony. Khairtabad-500004. 4. The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, Telangana

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad 6. The Tahsildar, Khairtabad Tahsil, Hyderabad 7. The Sub - Registrar, Erragadda, Hyderabad 8. The Sub - Registrar, punjagutta, Hyderabad ?ro 9. The Commissioner, GHIMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad '10.One CC to SRI T P.S.HARSHA, Advocate [OPUC] 'l '1 .Two CCs to THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 12.Two CD Copies. BSK GJP PAA --- A :'! HIGH COURT DATED: 1010712026 CC TODAY COMMON ORDER sr1t€ ilir- c WP.Nos.1 1145 OF 2021, 14057, P lio 2 0 JUL 2026 11,..,25088 & 25090 ot 2024 \r :; -\$ l< k tt::.' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS r9 P^q. \>t c\d