1. Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.Bharadwaj Associates, appears for the appellant.

Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. T.P.S.Harsha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/writ petitioners.

Mr. K.Shantan Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce Department, appears for respondent No.3.

Mr. M.Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC), appears for respondent No.4.

Mr. A.Yadava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (TSEWIDC), appears for respondent No.5.

Mr. M.Sandeep, learned counsel represents Mr. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), for respondent Nos.6 and 10.

Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, appears for respondent No.7.

Mr. P.Maheshwar, learned counsel represents Mr. R.Sameer Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), for respondent Nos.8 and 9.

Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appears for respondent No.11.

2. The leave applicant is a third party to W.P.No.25663 of 2026 said to be adversely effected by the interim order dated 06.08.2026 whereby the learned writ Court directed the respondent authorities all of whom were official respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the writ petitioners with respect to land admeasuring Acs. 4.20 guntas in Survey No.83 at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and permit the writ petitioners for ingress and egress along with the buses of the writ petitioners for a period of four weeks. The matter has been posted for 10.09.2026. Leave applicant, claiming himself to be the General Power of Attorney holder executed by one Mir Jaffer Ali Khan in respect of the subject land measuring Acs. 4.23 guntas in Survey Nos.83 (part) and 84 (part) of Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and further claiming that the predecessors of the leave applicant have already succeeded against Chinthala family people in O.S.No.658 of 2010 on the file of District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, alleged to be effected by the interim order dated 06.08.2026 passed in W.P.No.25663 of 2026 in respect of the subject property. The leave applicant had filed W.P.No.6405 of 2026 in respect of the subject land measuring Acs. 4.23 guntas in Survey Nos.83 (part) and 84 (part) of same Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District against the action of the respondent authorities including HYDRAA in putting up fencing along with sign boards on the subject land. The learned writ Court passed an interim order on 02.03.2026 to the effect that taking into note the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for HYDRAA that the entire property of the leave applicant had been fenced and the sign board of HYDRAA had been erected, status quo to be obtained as on that date concerning the subject property till further orders. The matter was posted to 30.03.2026. The writ petitioners herein had moved W.P.No.7503 of 2026 seeking declaration against the action of respondents particularly respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein, who are HYDRAA and Municipal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Ranga Reddy District, from illegally entering and demolishing structures by interfering with the ownership and peaceful possession of the writ petitioners’ privately owned land measuring Acs. 4.20 guntas in Survey No.83 at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District including a high-handed laying of fence around the writ petitioners’ privately owned land and erecting public notice boards as wholly arbitrary, perverse, illegal and unconstitutional. They also sought consequential direction upon the respondents not to interfere with the writ petitioners’ peaceful possession over the subject land and including but not limited to ingress and egress into the subject property and further take action against the respondent officials who have illegally entered into, demolished fence and erected public notice boards on the writ petitioners’ subject land. Another Single Bench of this Court by an interim order dated 12.03.2026 in the said writ petition, after taking note of an order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the learned Division Bench in W.A.No.603 of 2011 directing that status quo shall not be disturbed by any party, directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein to immediately remove the fencing as well as the board erected on the subject land within a period of one week and report compliance by filing counter affidavit. These two writ petitions referred above apart from W.P.No.18768 of 2011 from which W.A.No.603 of 2011 arose are pending before the concerned appropriate Bench of this Court. In that background, the writ petitioners herein preferred the impugned writ petition this time impleading also the State of Telangana, Industries and Commerce Department; the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation; the Telangana State Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation; GHMC; HYDRAA and Municipal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Hitex, Madhapur, Hyderabad, with a prayer to declare the action of the respondents more specifically respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein in illegal fencing and erecting a notice board by illegally entering the writ petitioners’ privately owned land and interfering with the writ petitioners’ ownership and peaceful possession of the privately owned land measuring Acs. 4.20 guntas in Survey No.83 at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District i.e., the same subject land. They also sought a consequential direction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the writ petitioners’ land. This time, another Single Bench of this Court where the subject matter was allotted, taking into consideration the order dated 05.08.2011 passed in W.A.No.603 of 2011 and order dated 12.03.2026 in W.P.No.7503 of 2026, directed the respondent authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the writ petitioners with respect to the land measuring Acs. 4.20 guntas in Survey No.83 at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and permit the writ petitioners for ingress and egress along with the buses of the writ petitioners for a period of four weeks. This interim order became the subject matter of the present appeal by a non-party i.e., the present leave applicant.

3. The leave applicant contends that the writ petitioners have not impleaded him as a party and despite an order of status quo passed not only in his case in W.P.No.6405 of 2026 concerning the subject property which is in Survey Nos.83 (part) and 84 (part) and their own case in W.P.No.7503 of 2026 concerning the same subject property, have persuaded the learned writ Court to pass an interim order to the aforesaid effect which vitally effects the interests of the leave applicant also. Learned Senior Counsel for the leave applicant, therefore, submits that the interim order which goes on to acknowledge the possession of the writ petitioners on the subject land and permit ingress and egress along with the buses of the writ petitioners is unsustainable in law and on facts.

4. On behalf of the writ petitioners, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Avinash Desai submits that the present writ petition was filed in view of the action being taken by the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation in setting up boards on the subject land. The Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and Telangana State Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, were not parties in W.P.No.7503 of 2026 which operated against HYDRAA and Municipal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, a fresh writ petition was preferred in respect of the same subject property on account of the impugned action taken by these respondents. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order of status quo dated 05.08.2011 passed in W.A.No.603 of 2011, which reads as under, to contend that as back as 2011, the possession of the writ petitioners on the subject land were acknowledged:

               “After hearing the learned Senior Counsel on either side and other appearing learned Counsel, a consensus to maintain status quo during the pendency of the writ petition, was arrived at between the learned counsel for the parties with the request and expectation of disposal of writ petition itself at the earliest.

               In the aforementioned backdrop, we direct that all the parties shall maintain status quo as on date until disposal of the writ petition with a further direction to the Registry to post the Writ Petition in the week commencing from 29th of the current month, with a request to the learned single Judge to take up the matter for final disposal. Disposed of along with miscellaneous petition.”

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners has referred to certain documents annexed at page No.61 and the G.O.Ms.No.455, Revenue (U.C.I) Department dated 29.07.2002.

6. Let it be indicated herein that the W.P.No.18768 of 2011 which is at Page No.117 and has been relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners seeks a declaration that the first respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh through Revenue (ULC-II) Department has no power or authority of law to subject the land in Survey No.78 of 93 admeasuring Acs. 237.27 guntas at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for allotment under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008 as being arbitrary, without jurisdiction and ultra vires the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the subject property of the writ petitioners is of course confined to Acs. 4.20 guntas in the entire area of Acs. 237.27 guntas of land. Therefore, by virtue of the order of status quo by the writ appellate Court, the possession of the writ petitioners remained acknowledged and intact by the impugned interim order. The learned writ Court, acknowledging the possession of the writ petitioners by virtue of the order dated 05.08.2011 passed in W.A.No.603 of 2011 and order dated 12.03.2026 passed in W.P.No.7503 of 2026, has not only directed the concerned respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the writ petitioners with respect to the land measuring Acs. 4.20 guntas in Survey No.83 at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, but also permitted the writ petitioners for ingress and egress along with the buses of the writ petitioners, which is a reiteration of the physical possession of the writ petitioners over the subject land. The present leave applicant do not have a locus to assail the impugned interim order as there are no documents to substantiate his claim over the subject land.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation-respondent No.5 submits that there was a proposal for allotment of the land in Survey No.83 to the Corporation in the last month or so and therefore, they had put up certain sign boards on the said land which did not fructify. Those sign boards were removed. That has been pointed out by learned Special Government Pleader before the writ Court when the impugned writ petition was taken up.

9. Learned counsel for the HYDRAA submits that the fencing on the subject land remains since long intact. He also has questioned the impugned interim order so far as it allows ingress and egress along with the buses of the writ petitioners stating that they have filed a stay vacate petition in W.P.No.7503 of 2026.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners submits that W.P.No.20343 of 2026 has been preferred by the writ petitioners for removal of tinshed gate put up by HYDRAA after the interim order dated 12.03.2026 passed in W.P.No.7503 of 2026. There is no interim order has yet passed in the said case. He also submits that a contempt case in C.C.No.2499 of 2026 has been preferred against alleging violation of the interim order dated 12.03.2026 in W.P.No.7503 of 2026.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length and after making strenuous efforts to find the connect between these writ petitions pending before different Benches of this Court, we are of the opinion that without commenting upon the rival claims of the parties as to the subject land, it is clear that W.P.No.6405 of 2026 preferred by the leave applicant concerns an area of Acs. 4.23 guntas in Survey Nos.83 (part) and 84 (part) at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which the leave applicant claims to have got possession by view of a General Power of Attorney dated 30.12.2024 executed by Mir Jaffer Ali Khan and by virtue of having succeeded against the Chinthala family people in O.S.No.658 of 2010 before the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The leave applicant had also not impleaded the present writ petitioners in the said writ petition even though he claims to be affected by the lis generated by the present writ petitioners. The present writ petitioners also claim that the leave applicant do not have a subsisting claim or subsisting foundational basis to seek interference by this Court in the impugned interim order passed by the learned writ Court. While the private parties oppose each other’s rival claims on the subject property, it is but clear from a description of the prayer made in the respective writ petitions including W.P.No.7503 of 2026 and the impugned W.P.No.25663 of 2026 that the present writ petitioners also claim ownership and peaceful possession of the privately owned land measuring Acs. 4.20 guntas in Survey No.83 at Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The writ petitioners in these three writ petitions claim a small chunk of land which was the subject matter in W.P.No.18768 of 2011 from which W.A.No.603 of 2011 arose. The order of the writ appellate Court dated 05.08.2011 indicates that a status quo was directed to be maintained by all the parties as on date until disposal of the writ petition. This Court is unable to draw any further inference on a plain reading of the order of status quo dated 05.08.2011 as to recognition or acknowledgement of possession of one or the other party to the said writ petition/writ appeal. We are also of the opinion that if the writ petitioners had occasion to be aggrieved by certain action taken by the Telangana State Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation in respect of the same subject property in which the writ petitioners had got an order of status quo dated 12.03.2026 in W.P.No.7503 of 2026 which is subsisting, the proper course ought to have been to seek impleadment of the said official respondents in the pending writ petition and seek further clarification of the interim order against the threatened action of the said respondents. However, the impugned writ petition was filed separately and the learned Single Bench of this Court where the subject matter was allotted proceeded to direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the writ petitioners in respect of the subject land and permit their ingress and egress along with the buses of the writ petitioners. In the face of status quo orders passed in W.P.No.6405 of 2026 and W.P.No.7503 of 2026 by the leave applicant and the present writ petitioners, the grievance, if any, of the present writ petitioners would have been taken care of on the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the said board set up by the Telangana State Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation had been removed. The learned writ Court, however, proceeded to issue further directions which permitted the writ petitioners for ingress and egress along with their buses which were beyond the order of status quo dated 05.08.2011 passed in W.A.No.603 of 2011 and the other two writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.6405 of 2026 and 7503 of 2026 by the leave applicant and the present writ petitioners. In view of what has been narrated hereinabove, we are, therefore, of the opinion that all these writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.6405 of 2026, 7503 of 2026, 25663 of 2026, 20343 of 2026 and the contempt petition in C.C.No.2499 of 2026 deserve to be heard by the same Bench in order to avoid conflict of decisions in respect of the subject properties which the private parties claim and may overlap. Therefore, we are satisfied that leave to file appeal should be allowed.

12. Accordingly, the leave application is allowed.

13. Having regard to the reasons recorded hereinabove and upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, we direct all the writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.6405 of 2026, 7503 of 2026, 25663 of 2026, 20343 of 2026 and C.C.No.2499 of 2026 be placed before the same appropriate Bench for being heard analogously. Keeping into mind the different subjects under which the writ petitions have been filed, the Registry, if necessary, would take assignment orders on the administrative side from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.6405 of 2026, 7503 of 2026, 25663 of 2026, 20343 of 2026 and C.C.No.2499 of 2026 be placed before the appropriate Single Bench on 01.09.2026. Till then, the interim order dated 06.08.2026 passed in the present writ petition whereby the learned writ Court had directed the respondents to permit the writ petitioners for ingress and egress along with the buses would be kept in abeyance. It would be open for the learned writ Court to take a decision on the question of continuance of the interim order upon hearing learned counsel for the parties. We further direct that the present appellant and the writ petitioners shall move the learned writ Court for impleadment in the respective writ petitions so that the pending matters could be decided after hearing the concerned parties.

14. The present Writ Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.