IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 44 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 14/10/2008 in WP NO : 7315 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sd. Saleem S/o. S.A. Hameed, R/o. H.No.5-647 (Old 5-1-178), Mancherial, Adilabad District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Umar Miya Colony House Building Society, (Regd. No. TM 4061), rep. by its President Katla Chandraiah, R/o. Mancherial, Adilabad District 2 The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District. 5 The Mancherial Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 6 Gajelli Shankar S/o. Bodaiah 7 Gajelli Mallaiah S/o. Bodaiah .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.MOHD ISHAQ AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 14.10.2008 made in WP No.7315 of 2008 by a learned Single Judge of this court directing the Municipality, Mancherial, to send fresh proposal to the Director of Town Planning and Country Planning, Hyderabad, subject to the first respondent Society herein paying all the necessary fees, development and conversion charges, the 5th respondent in the writ petition preferred this Appeal. It is case of the writ petitioner Umar Miya Colony House Building Society – first respondent herein that after purchasing plots in Sy. Nos. 474/A, 476/B of Garimetla village, Macherial Mandal, Adilabad District, in auction, they formed into a society and have submitted a representation dated 26.4.2006 to the 4th respondent for sanction of layout, which was in turn forwarded to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad seeking clarification as to whether requisite amounts can be collected from the society. The Director, Town and Country Planning, in turn directed the 4th respondent to submit a proposal afresh for change of land use. In the meanwhile, the first respondent society apprehending that the 6th and 7th respondents herein are trying to influence the Revenue Authorities to dispossess the members of the first respondent Society, it asserted its title and that the land is not a Government land. It is their case that since there was no action on the part of the 4th respondent, they filed the present writ petition. The Revenue Authorities denied the allegation of either supporting the unofficial respondents on inaction on their part. The respondents 6 and 7, against whom there is allegation of trying to dispossess the petitioner society, claim an extent of Ac.8.20 guntas as protected tenants and Ac.1.18 guntas as purchasers. The learned Single Judge observing that the dispute between the petitioner society on the one hand and the respondents 6 and 7 on the other, is outside the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed the fourth respondent society to send fresh proposal to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, subject to the condition of the petitioner society paying all the requisite fees, development and conversion charges. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filed by the 5th respondent in the Writ Petition. Mr. M.T. Ghori, for Mr. Mohd. Issaq Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants contended that he has no notice of the writ petition nor he could file counter and, therefore, the adjudication by the learned Single Judge without affording an opportunity to the appellant, has resulted in prejudice to him. As can be seen from the record, Mr. Mohd. Ishaq Ahmed filed vakalath for the appellant herein and on 14.10.2008 his name is printed in the cause list. As can be seen from the docket proceedings, the writ petition underwent several adjournments from 3.4.2008 till the date of disposal on 14.10.2008. That apart, the interim order granted on 8.4.2008 was extended from time to time, but the appellant did not chose to file counter in the writ petition and ultimately by the order impugned in this appeal, the writ petition was disposed of. We do not find favour with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the papers in the writ petition were not served on him, inasmuch as it is for the appellant to collect the papers from the Registry. Adverting to the merits, we are of the opinion that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, in no way affects the rights of the appellant herein, if any, as the learned Single Judge did not delve on the title of either of the parties, but has simply directed the 4th respondent Municipality to send proposal afresh to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, subject to the first respondent society paying all the necessary fees and other charges. Consequently, we do not see any reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Under the above circumstances, we make it clear that in respect of the proposal to be sent by the Municipality, the appellant shall be at liberty to file his objections. We further make it clear that the parties are at liberty to avail the remedies open to them under law. With the above directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to cost. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy January 29, 2009 MAS