S. MURALIDHAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an intra-court appeal preferred, aggrieved by the order dtd. 19/2/2025 passed in W.P.No.36415 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein the appellant sought to declare the action of respondent No.2 in selling an extent of 1210 square yards as a stray bit in Lot No.10 situated in Sy.Nos.124 and 125 (described as Sy.No.26 by the Government) Kancha Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District in favour of respondent No.3 vide confirmation- cum-allotment letter dtd. 1/5/2023 including the road of 30 feet situated on the southern side of plot No.8 belonging to the appellant, as arbitrary and illegal and to direct respondent No.2 to leave the road of 30 feet situated on the southern side of plot No.8 of the petitioner while disposing of the stray bit at any point of time in future.

(2.) Heard Ms. A.Satyasiri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Siddhartha Voruganti, learned counsel representing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA, for respondent No.2.

(3.) The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on three grounds. The first ground is that the case involves serious disputed questions of fact which cannot be considered in writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The disputed questions of facts include identification of the property in Sy.Nos.124 and 125 as contended by the appellant and in Sy.No.26 as contended by respondent No.2, boundaries of the plots in the sale deeds, existence of a public road, etc. The second ground cited by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition is that there is failure to array the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District as party to the writ petition. Lastly, the contention of the writ petitioner about failure of respondent No.3 to pay the complete sale consideration within the stipulated timeline is described as an issue between respondent No.2 and respondent No.3.