Common Judgment:

1. Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for appellants.

Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appears for Mr. K. Mahit Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.906 and 911 of 2026.

Mr. D. Jaypal Reddy, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.907, 908, 909, 910, 912, 917, 918 and 919 of 2026.

Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. M. Pranav, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 13 in W.A.No.966 of 2026 and for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.A.No.965 of 2026.

Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel appears for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation/Cyberabad Municipal Corporation.

Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appears for respondent No.1/writ petitioner in W.A.Nos.904 and 913 of 2026.

Mr. Md. Nawaz Hyder Ali, learned counsel appears for Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, in W.A.No.915 of 2026.

Ms. V. Jayasree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appears for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department.

2. The appellants have filed the instant Writ Appeals against the interim orders of similar nature passed by the learned writ Court on different dates in the respective Writ Petitions.

3. The earliest of the interim orders impugned in these Writ Appeals is dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned writ Court, in Writ Petition No.31724 of 2025. The interim relief sought by the writ petitioners therein reads as under:

               “Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No.2 and 3 to re-consider the Building Permission Application bearing No. File No.000744/GHMC/0345/SLP1/2025-BP dated 23.01.2025 in respect of land bearing Plot Nos.137, 138, 138/part, 139 and 140, totally admeasuring 4,017.33 Sq. Yds., situated in Sy.No.44/1, at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without reference to the interim order dated 25.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in WP No.8648 of 2019, pending disposal of WP 31724 of 2025, on the file of the High Court.”

The interim order passed therein by the learned writ Court reads as under:

               “Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in similar circumstances, the order dated 26.09.2025 was passed by this Court in W.P. No.29659 of 2025.

               Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that typographical error has crept in the operative portion of the order dated 26.09.2025. Instead of “…without reference to the order dated 25.04.2019 in I.A. No.3 of 2019 in W.P.No.8648 of 2019….”, it was wrongly mentioned as “….without reference to the order dated 16.11.2007 in W.P.No.12861 of 2007 and ….”.

               In view of the above, there shall be interim direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to reconsider the building permission application of the petitioners bearing File No.000744/GHMC/0345/SLP1/2025-BP dated 23.01.2025 in respect of the land bearing Plot Nos.137, 138, 138/part, 139 and 140, admeasuring 4,017.33 square yards in Survey No.44/1, situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without reference to the impugned shortfall intimation letter dated 11.02.2025 and without reference to the interim order dated 25.04.2019 passed by this Court in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in W.P.No.8648 of 2019, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

               Post on 14.11.2025.”

4. The appellants have pleaded that the lands in Survey No.44/1 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are the subject matter of O.S.No.866 of 1980, renumbered as O.S.No.38 of 1993, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in which, the predecessors of the appellants were plaintiffs and the interim injunction order was passed on 20.03.1998 in I.A.No.1118 of 1997 in O.S.No.38 of 1993. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

               “9. Absolutely there is no documentary evidence of the possession of the petition schedule property by the 25th respondent with regards to the aspect as to whether it acquired title of the property by adverse possession. Further, in any case at stage it is difficult to go into the merits of the case and establish whether it really acquired the title of the property by adverse possession. Further, coming to the sale of the property by the first respondent, it is well established principle of law that the purchasers of a joint share in property cannot have any right to get possession of such extent of the property and the remedy to get possession of such extent is only by way of filing of the suit for partition and separate possession of the against the other sharers of the property or by way of coming to some settlement among himself and the other sharers out of the court. It is also to be borne in mind that the persons who got joint share in a property were entitled to very fraction of the property to the extent of their shares and therefore, it is necessary to take necessary measures for the partition and separate possession of their shares therein by metes and bounds in order to have respectively exclusive control to the same extents respectively. Further, unless the quality of said the suit lands is ascertained. It is also not possible to say at this stage that certain extents can be allotted to the 25th respondent out of the petition schedule property.

               10. Therefore, the petitioners have shown that they have got prima facie case and balance of convenience and therefore, unless the relief prayed for is granted it is quite likely that they will suffer irreparable loss.

               11. In the result, this petition is allowed and the interim injunction pending disposal of suit is granted in favour of the petitioner, but in the circumstances without costs.”

5. One M/s.Matrusri Cooperative House Building Society Limited (society), which was impleaded as defendant No.25, contested the said suit claiming that the subject property is the exclusive property of Mohd. Baquar Khan which was negatived. The judgment and decree in the said suit was passed on 29.12.2000 and shares were allotted to the plaintiffs therein. Appeal Suit No.1008 of 2001 preferred by the society and another Appeal Suit No.1161 of 2001 preferred by the Commercial and Industrial Finance Limited were dismissed by the unified High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide common judgment dated 16.12.2011, as a result of which, the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2000 passed in the said suit had attained finality.

6. The petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for partition and allotment of 12/28th share to the plaintiffs was allowed and the report was submitted by the Advocate Commissioner on 24.11.2016. The appellants expected that the final decree may be passed at the earliest. In this background, they had approached the respondent Corporation not to grant permission to any prospective purchaser and take action against the illegal construction in the subject plots. Since the respondent Corporation was not taking steps to prevent illegal and unauthorized construction in the subject plots in Survey Nos.44/1 and 69 of Miyapur Village, the appellants approached the learned writ Court in Writ Petition No.8648 of 2019 in which the following interim order dated 25.04.2019 in I.A.No.3 of 2019 was passed.

               “This application is filed seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 not to grant building permission in the land in Survey No.44/1 of Miyapur Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the injunction order dated 20.03.1998 passed in I.A.No.1118 of 1997 in OS.No.38 of 1993 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

               Heard both sides.

               The application is ordered.”

7. It is to be noted that in the said Writ Petition, the society was arraigned as respondent No.4 but none of the writ petitioners was made party. The cause title of the interim order dated 25.04.2019 indicates that respondent Nos.4 to 9 which includes the society were not necessary parties. The learned writ Court directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein not to grant building permission in the subject land in Survey No.44/1 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the injunction order dated 20.03.1998 passed in I.A.No.1118 of 1997 in O.S.No.38 of 1993 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the said Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition is still pending.

8. Despite such interim order, the learned writ Court had directed the respondent Corporation in the individual Writ Petitions herein to reconsider the building permission applications of the writ petitioners in respect of the subject plots in Survey No.44/1 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without reference to the impugned shortfall intimation letters issued by the respondent Corporation and without reference to the interim order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned writ Court, in Writ Petition No.8648 of 2019.

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants have referred to the judgment dated 07.08.2026 rendered by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2026 in/and Writ Appeal No.824 of 2026 wherein a similar interim order was under challenge by the very same appellants.

10. In the said judgment dated 07.08.2026, this Court had directed Writ Petition Nos.8648 of 2019 and 22200 of 2026 be heard together while keeping the impugned interim order dated 13.07.2026 in abeyance and leaving the parties to address the learned writ Court on rival issues on their behalf. It was also observed that the learned writ Court would take a call as to whether the impugned interim order is to be continued or vacated. This Court had not made any comment on the merits of the case of the parties.

11. Interlocutory Applications No.1 of 2026 filed for grant of leave to file the instant Writ Appeals have been strongly opposed by the writ petitioners.

12. The learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners have made specific reference to the interim order dated 10.06.2014 passed in WPMP.No.15629 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.12444 of 2014 and also interim order dated 16.11.2016 in WPMP.No.24734 of 2016 in Writ Petition No.20148 of 2016 which were placed on record before the learned writ Court, when it passed the impugned interim orders.

13. The operative portion of interim order dated 10.06.2014 passed in WPMP.No.15629 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.12444 of 2014 reads as under:

               “In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, and as the second respondent has himself subsequently requested the Commissioner by proceedings dated 08.05.2014 to consider grant of building permissions in Survey No.44/1, I consider it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioners’ application for grant of building permission strictly in accordance with law, including the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the Rules and Bye-Laws made thereunder, and the order of this Court in W.P.No.12861 of 2007, dated 16.11.2007, provided the petitioners submit documentary proof that alienation of the respective plots in favour of their predecessors in title, by Mathrusree Cooperative House Building Society Limited, was prior to 17.09.1996 when the society was impleaded as a party to O.S.No.38 of 1993.”

14. The operative portion of interim order dated 16.11.2016 passed in WPMP.No.24734 of 2016 in Writ Petition No.20148 of 2016 reads as under:

               “Though repeatedly this Court asked Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel to clarify, he could not explain any changed circumstances. He was only stating that further injunction order was passed by the trial Court. Admittedly, even in the subject I.A. when injunction was granted, the petitioners herein are not the parties to the suit. Thus, I am not inclined to pass the same order as passed by this Court in the above Writ Petition.

               The 1st respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for grant of building permission in Survey No.44/1 strictly in accordance with law, including the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the Rules and Bye-Laws made thereunder, and the order of this Court in W.P.No.12861 of 2007, dated 16.11.2007, provided the petitioners submit documentary proof that alienation of the respective plots in favour of their predecessors in title, by Mathrusree Cooperative House Building Society Limited, was prior to 17.09.1996 when the society was impleaded as a party to O.S.No.38 of 1993. It is made clear that the impleaded respondents are entitled to prosecute the legal remedies as available in law.

               The petition is disposed of.”

15. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants have sought to convey that the learned writ Court has by the aforesaid interim orders made it clear that the respondent Corporation would consider the applications submitted by the writ petitioners for grant of building permissions in Survey No.44/1 strictly in accordance with law provided the documentary proof that alienation of the respective plots in favour of their predecessors in title by the society Limited was prior to 17.09.1996, when the society was impleaded as defendant No.25 in O.S.No.38 of 1993.

16. Learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel for the writ petitioners contend that each of the writ petitioners have purchased the respective plots in respect of which building permissions are being sought prior to 17.09.1996 in support of which they have enclosed the sale deeds to the Writ Petitions. It is also submitted that such interim orders were not made part of the instant Writ Appeals. It is further submitted that in the background of the interim orders dated 10.06.2014 and 16.11.2016, the learned writ Court in the present impugned writ proceedings granted interim relief for considering the building permission applications of the writ petitioners without referring to the interim order dated 25.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.8648 of 2019. It is also pointed out that the appellants were neither made parties in O.S.No.38 of 1993 nor impleaded in Writ Petition No.8648 of 2019. Therefore, the impugned interim direction may not be interfered with.

17. Learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners do not have any objection if all these Writ Petitions are tagged and heard together by the learned writ Court.

18. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances placed on record on the leave applications filed by the appellants and also on the question whether any interference is required in the matter by this Court.

19. At the outset, it may be indicated that when Writ Appeal No.824 of 2026 assailing a similar interim order was heard and disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 07.08.2026, the interim orders dated 10.06.2014 and 16.11.2016 were not brought to the notice of this Court. Even then, this Court taking note of the background facts placed therein and upon consideration of rival submissions of the parties, deemed it proper to club Writ Petition No.22200 of 2026 and Writ Petition No.8648 of 2019 for being heard together by the learned writ Court as the appellants had placed strong reliance on the interim order dated 25.04.2019 in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.8648 of 2019 wherein, the respondent Corporation had been directed not to grant building permission in respect of the plots in Survey No.44/1.

20. In the present batch of Writ Appeals, we find that there is a distinction made by the learned writ Court in two separate writ petitions, W.P.Nos.12444 of 2014 and 20148 of 2016 vide interim orders dated 10.06.2014 and 16.11.2016 as regards the plea for grant of building permission by the respondent Corporation in case where the alienation of property has been made in favour of the writ petitioners prior to 1996 when the society was impleaded as a party defendant in O.S.No.38 of 1993. The writ petitioners also plead that they have purchased the property prior to the impleadment of the society in O.S.No.38 of 1993 which fact was brought to the notice of the learned writ Court when the interim orders impugned were passed in their favour. The learned writ Court being apprised of the interim orders of such nature which are in force granted the prayer by directing the respondent Corporation to consider the building permission applications of the writ petitioners without reference to the interim order dated 25.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.8648 of 2019. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the interim orders impugned in the instant Writ Appeals. However, we are of the view that the present Writ Petition Nos.20655, 12972, 24685, 25841, 25873, 26014, 25833, 24666, 25863, 20789, 20254, 22454, 26059, 25818, 25846, 22403/2026; 31738 and 31724 of 2025 which involve the same issue, be heard along with W.P.Nos.22200 of 2026 and 8648 of 2019 by the learned writ Court.

21. Since W.P.Nos.12444 of 2014 and 20148 of 2016, in which the interim orders dated 10.06.2014 and 16.11.2016 were passed, are also said to be pending, let the said two Writ petitions also be heard together by the learned writ Court.

22. Registry to obtain the administrative orders, if required, from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, for listing of all these matters before the appropriate Bench.

23. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove, leave to the instant Writ Appeals is allowed, however, without interfering in the interim orders impugned herein.

               All these Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of.

24. It is informed that Writ Petition Nos.22200 of 2026 and 8648 of 2019 were directed to be posted on 05.10.2026.

25. Let the instant Writ Petitions also be posted along with those cases. It is left open for the parties to address the learned writ Court on the rival issues on their behalf. Let it be made clear that we have not made any comment on the merits of the case of the parties and any of the observations made hereinabove shall not influence the decision to be taken by the learned writ Court.

26. Learned counsel for the parties have pointed out in some of the Writ Appeals that building permission has been granted pursuant to the interim orders which are being made subject matter of separate Writ Petitions. We refrain from making any comment thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.