Dismissed

M/s. Ekta Gateway Towers LLP v. A.S.N. Raju and 6others

Telangana HC15 Jul 2022WA/452/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge bench dismissed a writ appeal challenging an interlocutory interim stay order. The Court held that the appellate court should not intervene before the final decision is rendered by the single judge and declined to entertain the appeal without expressing any opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed as not entertained; no order as to costs.

M/s. Ekta Gateway Towers LLP Vs A.S.N. Raju… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 452 OF 2022

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Prcfferred Against Order Dated 0510712022 Passed in W.P.No.28110 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Ekta Gateway Towers LLP, 78, Magadha Village, Kokapet, Gandipet Mandal Ranga Reddy District - 500 0Bl, Represented by. its Authorized Signatory and Designated Partner, lt/usani Sreenivasa Reddy S/o [t/. Narayana Reddy, aged about 43 Years, R/o Villa No. 19, Ektha Prime Highland Park, Sy.No. 338, Puppalguda, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

,..APPELLANTiRESPONDENT NO.5

¶11

AND

¶12

A.S.N.Raju, S/o A.V.S. Raju, Aged about 63 Years, R/o Plot No. 1684, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶13

A. Srinivasa Rama Raju, S/o A.V.S. Raju, Aged about 52 Years, R/o Plot No. 168A, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶14

A. Venkata Narasimha Raju, S/o A.V.S. Raju, Aged about 59 Years, Rl/o Plot No. 1684, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶15

....RESPONDENTSM/RIT PETITIONERS

¶16

State of Telangana, Rep. by it's Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶17

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, having it's office at Mythrivanam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Represented by the Metropolitan Commissioner.

¶18

The Commissioner, Manikonda Municipality, Manikonda Jagir, Telangana.

¶19

The Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶21

¶22

LA.NO:1 OF 2022

¶23

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in th€ circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders dt.05.07.2022^passed in W.P.No.28l 10 of 2021 .

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI.E.AJAY REDDY, ADV FOR SRI.K.RAVI MAI{ENDER

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 :SRl C.V.Mohan R:ddy, Seniour counsel rep. SRI.P-BALAJI VARMA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : G.P FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.S : SRI.Y.RAMA RAO, SC FOR HMDA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI.N.PRAVEEN KUMI\R

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondent No.7: G.P FOR REVENUE

¶30

The Court made the following ORDER

¶31

HCJ & SNJ W.A.No.452 of 2022

¶32

¶33

I t

¶34

Order dated O5.O7.2022 reads as under:

¶35

"This Court by order dated 16.O6.2022 has directed the HMDA to remove the encroachments, if any, on the grid road within two weeks from tJle date of receipt of a copy of the order arld further directed to be listed the matter on Ol.O7 .2022 and by that time, the respondent HMDA is directed to hle action tal<en report before this Court.

¶36

Sri Y.Rama ltao, learned Standing Counsel, seeks time to f e a report before this Court. He submits tJ:at as per the report available with him, there is no encroachment on the grid road.

¶37

Sri P. Balaji Varma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that HMDA have not inspected the site and tJ:ey have not taken the measurements and there is clear encroachment on the grid road. Unless a survey is conducted, the true facts will not come to light.

¶38

In view of the facts and circumstalces, the 4th respondent-Tahasildar is directed to conduct a survey, after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5, and submit a report before this Court by the next date of hearing. The petitioners and respondent No.5 shall also produce necessary documents before the 4fr respondent for the purpose of conducting survey on the grid road.

¶39

List on 15.07 .2022."

¶40

¶41

h,C] & SNJ W.A. No.45.2 of 2022

;

) )

On going through the aforesaid order, $/e find that the same has been passed by way of an interim me€Lsure to obtain a survey report.

¶46

According to learned counsel lo:- the appellant, Tahsildar is not at all competent to carry out such survey. That apart, he submits that by embarking upon the exercise as discernible from the order dated O5.07.2O'.>-2, the scope of the writ petition is being enlarged.

¶47

7 . However, the same is disputed by learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. l, 2 & 3 by contending that by ordering a survey, no substantive right of tht: appellalt has been infringed. The same has been ordere<l to assist the Court in passing the final order.

¶48

B. Without expressing any opinion on rnerit, we are of the view that at the interlocutory stage, the appellate Court should not intervene in the matter, when a fi.-ral decis;on is yet to be rendered by the learned Single Judge.

¶49

HCJ & S'Ir'..r W.A.No.452 of 2022

¶50

¶51

That being the position, we are not incline d^to entertain the appeal.

¶52

1O. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.^However, there sha-ll be no order as to costs.

¶53

As a sequei, miscellaneous^{appiications pending, if} any, in the Writ Appeal,^{shall stand closed.}

¶54

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGIS

//TRUE COPY/i

SECTION OFFICER

1 Two CC to G.P FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶60

2 Two CC to G.P FOR MUNICIPAL ADIVINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶61

3 One CC to SRI.K.RAVI MAHENDER, Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRI.P.BALAJI VARMA, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to SRI.Y.RAN/A RAO, SC FOR HMDA (OPUC) o One CC to SRI.N.PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate (OPUC) 7 Two CD Copies 8 One spare copy

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510712022

ORDER

.:
I
1,,. .,<br>l,'-. (t"
ir-,
,
-4
-a
.

¶69

WA.No.452 of 2022

¶70

DISMISSING THE^{WRIT APPEAL}

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶72

o co('

¶73

&*o w,-

M/s. Ekta Gateway Towers LLP v. A.S.N. Raju and 6others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Ekta Gateway Towers LLP v. A.S.N. Raju and 6others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.M.P.M. Hashmi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Knr Constructions Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner(Ct) Audit

M/s. Knr Constructions Limited Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner(Ct)

Uma Narayan Borbande Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

The a.P.Mineral Dev.Corp.Ltd.,Rep.by Vc.Andmd.,Hyderabad. Vs Kurram Shiva Shankar , Bangaru Shiva SHANKAR,R.R.DIST.,AND50

Sondi Veeraiah Vs The Special Deputy Collector