THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.15070 of 2005 BETWEEN: 1. T. Suresh, and others. PETITIONERS And 1. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Vice-Chairman, having its office at 1-8-323, Paiga Plaza, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy Sri V.V. Ramana & Sri C. Damodar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders of the 1st respondent in Letter No.6100/P4/MISC/Plg/H/05, dated 4.07.2005 as illegal. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of different extents of sites situated at Ward No.11, Block No.13 of Saroornagar village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners jointly obtained technical approval from the 1st respondent for construction of multi-storied complex vide proceedings No.3613/PLG/P4/HUDA/2004 dated 19.02.2005 and in pursuance of the same, the 2nd respondent-municipality sanctioned permission for construction by orders dated 23.04.2005. It is stated that the petitioners have also paid an amount of Rs.38,56,211/- towards development charges etc., to respondents 1 and 2. However, by means of the impugned order dated 4.07.2005, while keeping the sanction plans in abeyance the petitioners have been directed to stop construction. Contending that the 1st respondent is not competent to pass such an order in the manner in which it has been done, this writ petition has been filed. Heard Sri Raghuveera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Peri Prabhakar learned counsel representing Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.3. All the learned counsel fairly submitted that the issue involved and the relief sought for in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.10333 of 2003 dated 29.01.2004. In view of the said submission the writ petition is allowed in terms of the said judgment. A copy of the said judgment be annexed to this order. Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that in so far as the rights over the land is under challenge at the instance of the 3rd respondent in L.G.C.No.53 of 2005 pending along with a contempt case on the file of the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act 1982. If that be so, it is clarified that the orders allowing the writ petition does not in any way affect the said proceedings before the Special Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 4th February, 2011 Js.