1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly that of the 2nd Respondent in not taking appropriate steps to revoke/keep in abeyance the layout allegedly released at the instance of unofficial Respondents in pursuance of the orders of Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16126/2021 dated 06.05.2021, which was set aside by the Hon'ble Division Bench as per the orders in W.A. No. 669/2021, dated 31.12.2021. In spite of the notice dated 01.01.2022 addressed to 2nd Respondent, also marking a copy of 3rd Respondent wherein the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench was also enclosed is challenged in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to revoke/keep in abeyance the layout application for which was submitted by Respondents 4 and 5 on 06.05.2021 in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 82/A1/1, admeasuring 21,680 Sq. Yards (Ac.6.00), situated at Kongarakhurd (A) Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R. District consequence of a representation by the Petitioner dated 05.01.2022 referring to the orders dated 31.12.2021 in W.A. No. 669/2021"

2. Sri K. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners and to revoke/keep in abeyance the lay-out application, which was submitted by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 06.05.2021, in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 82/A/1, admeasuring 21,680 Sq.Yards, equivalent to Ac.6.00 acres situated at Kongarakhurd (A), Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R. District. This Court on 08.02.2022 passed an order directing the office to list this writ petition along with W.P. No. 16126 of 2021 and in the mean time, the respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated 01.01.2022. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the petitioners have given several representations and the said representations were rejected by the official respondents, which made them to come before this Court by filing W.P. No. 24953/2022. He submits that the 5th respondent, claiming to be an agreement-holder of the 6th respondent, filed O.S. No. 91 of 2020 and along with the suit, an interlocutory application was filed seeking temporary injunction. Initially injunction was granted on 21.08.2020 and thereafter the said injunction was vacated on 26.03.2021. Against that order, the 5th respondent has filed C.M.A. No. 48 of 2021 and this Court has granted an order of status quo by order dated 02.04.2021. He further submits that the 4th respondent herein has filed W.P. No. 12787 of 2021 for release of sale deed in respect of the subject land and obtained an interim order dated 22.10.2021. The petitioners herein were not made parties in W.P. No. 12787 of 2021. Questioning the order dated 22.10.2021 passed in W.P. No. 12787 of 2021, the petitioners filed W.A. No. 588 of 2021 and by order dated 08.11.2021, the Division Bench has disposed of the said writ appeal and the matter was remanded to the learned Single Judge. In W.P. No. 16126 of 2021 filed by the 4th respondent, there was a direction by the Learned Single Judge to release the layout as per the application of the petitioner i.e., 4th respondent herein dated 06.05.2021. Questioning the same, the petitioners have filed W.A. No. 669 of 2021 and by order dated 31.12.2021, the Hon'ble Division Bench has set aside orders of the learned Single Judge dated 30.07.2021 and the parties were directed to approach the learned Single Judge. He further submits that the Division Bench took an exception on the conduct of the 4th respondent in not impleading the petitioners in the said writ petition. He submits that the unofficial respondents have not stated in any of the writ petitions about the suit filed by the 5th respondent and the interim order initially being granted and thereafter the said order being vacated and further filing of C.M.A. No. 48 of 2021. There are categorical findings by the Civil Court with regard to the forged/fabricated documents and the fact that the unofficial respondents are not in possession of the property and without disclosing of all these facts, writ petitions are being filed and also filed an application before the HMDA seeking lay-out permission. It is submitted that the petitioners have given several representations dated 31.07.2021, 18.12.2021 and 01.01.2022. In the representation dated 31.07.2021 the petitioners have categorically mentioned about all the pending litigations and the findings of the civil Court with regard to possession and all other aspects. Basing on the representation made by the petitioners dated 19.05.2021, the respondent HMDA has passed the order 19.04.2022, wherein it is observed that:

"In this regard, it is to inform as per Section 53(4) of HMDA Act, 2008 "Any development permission, No Objection Certificate or other clearance given under this Act shall be construed from the planned development point of view and shall ill 110 111 ay either confer the owners/tip rights or affect the ownership under the land revenue laws. The Metropolitan Development Authority shall stand absolved of ally ownership disputes or discrepancies".

Further in view of Section 53(4) of HMDA Act, the permission granted will not confer any title on the applicant nor it will take away any persons right over the land and the HMDA has to consider the application for grant of development permission on merits leaving the objectors free to approach an appropriate forum for redress of their grievance.

Further it is to inform that this office has not received any specific orders from the Hon'ble Court refraining HMDA from issuing layout permission or canceling the layout permission.

In view of the above, since the final order in W.P. No. 21469/2020 & W.P. No. 3636 of 2021 are pending and as per Section 53(4) HMDA Act, 2008, the complaints filed by you vide reference 1st and 4th cited, are hereby dismissed, as there are no merits.

Further it is to inform that this office will take further action based on the final outcome of the Hon'ble High Court orders in W.P. No. 21469 of 2020 & W.P. No. 3636 of 2021."

Learned counsel submits the respondent HMDA has passed the order without even looking at the representation of the petitioner and without properly appreciating the grounds raised by the petitioners. He submits that under Section 22 of the HMDA Act, the HMDA may revoke any permission issued under the where it is found that by obtaining or by making any false statement or mis-representation or suppression of material fact. The petitioners have placed the material before the official respondents that there is suppression of fact and mis-representation. But, the official respondents, without considering the representation of the petitioners dated 19.05.2021, in proper perspective by only quoting 53(4) of HMDA Act, has disposed of the representation, which is highly arbitrary and illegal.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri M.P. Chandra Mouli, representing Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 8, submits that the petitioners have not questioned the draft lay-out that is granted in favour of the 4th respondent. Further, the 2nd respondent has considered as per the power vested with them and they have no authority or jurisdiction to consider the disputed questions of fact and cannot decide the title disputes between the parties. He submits that if the petitioners are aggrieved by such order passed by the 2nd respondent, they have to approach the competent civil Court questioning the said permission granted to the 4th respondent. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 760 of 2018 and I.A. No. 1 of 2018 and submits that the GHMC cannot conclusively adjudicate disputed question of title and hence, the said writ appeal was dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. A perusal of the order of the Civil Court in I.A. No. 241 of 2020 in O.S. No. 91 of 2020, wherein the interim injunction granted on 21.08.2020 is vacated, it is observed that:

"11. Further the counsel for the respondent filed Ex. R26 i.e., Judgment in CC No. 424 of 2011 which is showing that Shankaraiah/A.1 who is the husband of Yelka Lalitha along with 9 others convicted opining that the Dy. Tahasildar issued ORC without following procedure and the ORC is a fabricated one and obtained by fraud.

12. Further the counsel for respondent filed the Gazette publication which is showing that the entire land in Sy. No. 82 belongs to Wakf board i.e., Ex. R35 on such publication he also filed Writ Petition No. 27308 of 2007 and WP No. 21059/2007 dated 22.04.2009 i.e., Ex. R39.

From the above discussion this Court opined that till now it is not decided whether the suit schedule property belongs to Wakf board or not.

13. The counsel for respondent filed Ex. R37 i.e., proceeding No. B/2273/2020 dated 05.01.2021 which is showing that on the application of A. Srinivas Goud dated 02.01.2021 and 22.09.2017, on the instructions of RDO, Kandukur 02.01.2021 passed the endorsement stating that "on verification of concerned file, the applicant Yelka Srinivas Goud, S/o. Pandu Goud has filed an application for restoration of entries in Sy. No. 82 to the extent of Ac.11.17 guntas. The subject land is notified as Wakf land as per the Gazette No. 6 dated 08.02.2007 and also listed in 22A register of Kongarakurdh A village, the then Tahsildar, Maheshwaram was already issued an endorsement vide file No. B/2373/2019, dated 03.09.2019 and copy of acknowledgment received from Sri A. Srinivas Goud again vide reference 1st cited A. Srinivas Goud has requested for cancellation of Pattedar Pass No. T05160190202 in the name of Yelka Lalitha, w/o. Lalitha. Further on verification of on-line Pahani of Kongarakurd A village Yelka Lalitha name was already deleted in on line and pattedar pass book is cancelled against the Sy. No. 82 situated within the limits of Kongarakurd A village.

Considering the latest order on 05.01.2021 by MRO, Maheshwaram this court opined that Yelka Lalitha is not in possession of the petition schedule land and her name is deleted earlier.

Under these circumstances, Yelka Lalitha cannot give vacant possession to the petitioner. No document filed by the petitioner to show her possession.

Hence, the injunction order which is passed on 21.08.2020 is vacated.

14. In the result, the petition is dismissed."

Thereafter, C.M.A. is preferred and order of status quo is granted by the Court. The observation of the Court is that the unofficial respondents are not in possession of the property and in C.M.A. only an order of status quo is passed, which is a crucial aspect. The finding that the unofficial respondent is not in possession of the property is undisturbed as of now. The respondent HMDA ought to have taken into consideration whether at the time of filing of the application the unofficial respondents have disclosed about the pending proceedings between the parties. The order impugned appears to be without application of mind and they have passed this order as a mere formality. When the representation contains several material aspects, nothing has been discussed by the HMDA. Hence, in the considered view of this Court, the order dated 19.04.2022 has no legs to stand and has to be set aside.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 19.04.2022 and the respondent HMDA, taking into consideration the pending civil litigation between the parties, shall consider the representation of the petitioners in the light Section 22 of the HMDA Act and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, there shall be an order of status quo. No order as to costs.

6. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.