THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3878 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is a partnership firm owning property in different survey numbers of Kukatpally Revenue Village of Ranga Reddy District, to an extent of 76 acres. It is said to have entered into an agreement of sale with M/s Irrigation Co-operative Society, i.e. the 6th respondent herein, in respect of Ac.47.09 guntas. Efforts made by the petitioner to seek exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceilings and Regulation Act) 1976 (for short the Act) did not fructify. O.S.No.389 of 1989 was filed by the 6th respondent in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioner, for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The suit is said to have been decreed, and that the sale deed was executed by the Court itself, through proceedings in E.P.No.24 of 1989. In the meanwhile, the proceedings under the Act ensued, and substantial extent of the land was declared as surplus. The 6th respondent applied for regularization of lay-out, under a scheme, recently introduced by the State Government. The contention of the petitioner is that, even while the dispute as to the demarcation of the land owned by the petitioner, on the one hand, and the 6th respondent, on the other hand, is pending, the application for regularization of the lay-out, submitted by the 6th respondent, cannot be considered, by respondents 1 and 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel respondents. In a way, it can be said that the 6th respondent derived rights, vis-à-vis the land from none other than the petitioner. If the petitioner has any serious objection for regularization of the lay-out, in respect of the land of the 6th respondent, it can certainly put forward its contentions, before the respondents 1 and 2. This Court cannot express any final opinion as to the rights of the parties, at this stage. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondents 1 and 2, and they, in turn, shall take the same into account, before passing final orders on the application of the 6th respondent, for regularization of the lay-out. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.18-02-2011. KO