IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 783 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 14/07/2008 in WP NO : 12384 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Lahari Homes , Rep. by its Managing Partner A. Venkateswara Rao S/o. Suryanarayana Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Kondapur Lahari Homes Owners Association Sy.Nos. 165, 166 and 167 , Lahari Homes Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, GHMC Serilingampalli Circle, Rep. by its Presidnet M. Ravi Kumar 2 Smt. Padma W/o. M. Ravi Kumar Plot No.3,. Lahari Homes, Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Marellapudi Nageswara Rao S/o. M. Veerabhadra Rao Plot No.8,. Lahari Homes, Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Special Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, G.H.M.C. Building, Hyderabad. 5 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, G.H.M.C. Building, Hyderabad. 6 The Assistant Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampally Division, 7 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Rep., by its Vice Chairman, Green Lands, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Upon hearing the learned Advocates and in view of the consent given by all the learned Advocates, the following order is passed: 1) The present appellant stands impleaded in the petition as respondent No.5. 2) The impugned order dated 14-7-2008 passed in W.P.No. 12384 of 2008 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for deciding it afresh, after hearing the present appellant, who ought to have been heard at the time when the said writ petition was disposed of. 3) The writ petition shall be heard and decided de novo by the learned Single Judge. Needless to say that the present appellant has been impleaded as a party and, therefore, the present appellant shall also be heard by the learned Single Judge while deciding the matter afresh. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant undertakes that for a period of four weeks from today no construction shall be put up by the appellant on the land which has been earmarked as park area and which is also a water bed. The writ petition shall be notiﬁed within fortnight before the learned Single for hearing and we hope that it shall be decided as soon as possible Subject to the above, the appeal is disposed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 31st July, 2008. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR