Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority v. Kastajeevula Sangatana And 5 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR APPLICATION Nos. 1'110 1111 and 11'12 ot 2010 IN C.S. No. 7 OF 1958 Apolication No. : 11'10 OF 2010 Between:

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. by its Commissioner Block-A, HMDA Complex, Tarnaka , Hyderabad - 500 007 Applicant t 3'd Parly to 109612002 And

1. Kastajeevula Sangatana, Regd No. 9016/99' Ranga Reddy District Committee, Rep. by its President, Sri T. Krishna S/o. Late T. Pochaiah, aged 43 years, R/o. H.No. 2-30, Kottagadda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District.

2. Smt. Y. Anitha W/o. Y.V.N. Prabhaker, aged 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No. 104, Regency Zeenath Apartments, Paniagutta, Hyderabad

3. Smt. Laiqunnisa Begum S/o. Md. Arifuddin, aged 43 years, Housewife, R/o H. No. 6-3-669/D, Panjagtrtta Main Road, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

4. Smt. K. Sulochana Wo. K. Ganga Reddy ; aged 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Plot No. 56, Snehanagar Colony, Street No. 8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad -7

5. Smt. Nazia Parveen Wo. MoM. Mujeebulah Shareef, aged 36 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 20-3-375, Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad

6. My Palace Mutually AkCed Coop Housing Society Ltd., Rep by its President Sri Pad Deshpande, having its Offie at Flat No. 2O2, lll Floot, Pleasant Park, Shantinagar Colony Cross Roads, Hyderabad.

.. Respondents/ Applicants '1 to 5 and R 1 in Appln No 1096 ol 2O02

Application Under Order 22 Rule 10 riw. Section 151 of the C P C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass order as to : i) Why this application should not be complied;

to declare that the order dt. 29-10-2002 passed in application 109612002 ii) CS No. 7 of 1958 is inoperative, null and void as per the declaration of the Division Bench dated 10-06-2003 passed in OSA Nos. 64,65 & 66 of 2002 and batch and consequently terminate the above application, the order thereon and all subsequent proceedings pursuant to the order dt 29-10-2002.

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri PARSA ANANTHA NAGESHWAR RAO, for. Sri V. NARASIMHA GOUD SC for HMDA Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : SRI MIR JAFFER ALI KHAN Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 5 : SRI CH. DHANAMJAYA APPLTCATTON NO. 1111 0F 2010 Between:

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. by its Commissioner Block-A' HMDA Complex, Tarnaka , Hyderabad - 500 007 Applicant / 3'd PartY lo 1097 t2002 And

1. Kastajeevula Sangatana, Regd. No. 9O16/99, Ranga Reddy District Committee, Rep. by its President, Sri T. Krishna S/o. Late T. Pochaiah, aged 43 years, R/o. H.No. 2-30, Koftagadda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R. R. District.

2. Smt. Y. Anitha Wo. Y.V.N. Prabhaker, aged 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No. 104, Regency Zeenath Apartments, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

3. Smt. Laiqunnisa Begum S/o. Md. Arifuddin, aged 43 years, Housewife, R/o H.No. 6-3-669/D, Panjagutta Main Road, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

4. Smt. K. Sulochana Wo. K. Ganga Reddy, aged 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Plot No. 56, Snehanagar Colony, Street No. 8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad -7.

5. Smt. Nazia Parveen Wo. Mohd. Mujeebulah Shareef, aged 36 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H-No. 20-3-375, Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad.

6. My Palace Mutually Arded Coop Housing Society Ltd., Rep by its President Sri Pad Deshpande, having its Oftice at Flat No.202, lll Floor, Pleasant Park Shantinagar Colony Cross Roads, Hyderabad- .. Respondents/ Applicants 1 to 5 and R 1 in Application No. 1097 120O2 Application Under Order 22 Rule l0 r/w. Sec. 'l5l of the C P C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass order i) Why this application should not be complied ii) to declare that the order dt. 29-10-2002 passed in application No 1O97of 2OO2 CS No. 7 of 1958 is inoperative, null and void as per the declaration of the Division Bench dated 10-06-2003 passed in OSA Nos. 64, 65 & 66 of 2002 and batch and consequently terminate the above application, the order thereon and all subsequent proceedings pursuant to the order d|.29-10-2002.

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri Parsa Anantha Nageshwar Rao, for SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : SRI MIR JAFFER ALI KHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 5 : SRI CH. DHANAMJAYA APPLICATION NO. 1112 0F 2010 Between:

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority-, rep. by its commissioner Block-A, nilrrbn-Corpi"x, iainata , nydi:raoad - 500 o'07 ' .. Applicant t 3'd . - ^.^^^^ Party to 109812002 And

1. Kastajeevula Sangatana, Regd. No. 9016/99, Ranga Reddy District Committee, Rep. by its President, Sri T. Krishna S/o. Late T- Pochaiah, aged 43 years, R/o. H.No. 2-30, Kottagadda Village' Serilingampally Mandal' R.R.District.

2. Smt. Y. Anitha Wo. Y.V.N. Prabhaker, aged 40 years, Occ: Business' R/o' Flat No. 104, Regency Zeenath Apartments, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

3. smt Laiqunnisa Begum S/o. Md. Arifuddin, aged 43 years, Housewife, R/o H.No 6-3669/D, panjagutta Main Road, panjagutta, Hyderabad.

4. Smt. K. Sulochana Wo. K. Ganga Reddy , aged 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Plot No. 56, Snehanagar Colony, Street No. g, Habsiguda, Hyderabad _7.

5. Smt. Nazia Parveen Wo. Mohd. Mujeebulah Shareef, aged 36 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 20_3_375, Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad.

6. My Palace Mutually Aided Coop Housing Society Ltd., Rep. by its president sri Pad Deshpande, having its office at Frat No. 2o2, fir Froor, preasant park, Shantinagar Colony Cross Roads, Hyderabad.

.. Respondents/ Applicants 1 to 5 and R 1 in Appln. No. '1098 / 02 Application Under Order 22 Rule 10 r/w. Sec. 151 of the C.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass order Why this application should not be complied to decrare that the order dt. 29-10-2002 passed in apprication No. 1og7 of 2002 CS No. 7 of 195g is inoperative, null and void as per the declaration of the Division Bench dt. 10_06_2003 passed in OSA Nos. 64, 65 & 66 of 2002 and batch and consequenfly terminate the above application' the order thereon and afl subsequent proceedings pursuant to the order dt.29-1O-ZOO2.

i) ii) counsel for the Appricant : sRr pARsA ANANTHA NAGESHWAR RAo FoR Sri V. NARASTMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & S : SRI CH. DHANAMJAYA Gounsel forthe Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: SRI MIR JAFFER ALI KHAN The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AIOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR APPLICATION Nos.1110,1111 &llL2 of 2O1O IN C.S.No.7 of 1958 COMMON ORDER : (Per the Hon'bte tle Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. Parsa Analtha Nageshwar Rao, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General for the applicant.

Mr. Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

2.

On 24.11.2023, this Court has passed the following order:

"Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Developrhent Authority for the applicants prays for and is granted a week's time by way of last indulgence. It is made clear that no further adjournment will be granted on the next date of hearing. List next week."

3.

However, despite the aforesaid order, again an adjournment was sought on 01.12.2023. Thereupon, the following order was passed:

q "Mr. Harender pershad, learned Senior Counsel and learned Special Government pleader attached to the offrce of learned Advocate General for the applicant. Mr. Gopal Bibarkar, learned counsel representing Mr. Ch.Dhanarnjaya, learned counsel for the respondents. [,earned Special Government pleader for the applicant prays for adjournment.

The aforesaid prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.

However, by way of indulgence, hearing is deferred. List on 15. I2.2O23."

Again on 15.12.2023, an adjournment was sought for the following reason:

'Mr. D. Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to tl:e oflice of the learned Advocate General for the State of Telangarra for the applicant. Mr. Gopal Bibarkar, learned counsel represents Mr.Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Learned counsel for applicant prays for accommodation on the ground that the matter has to be argued by the leamed Advocate General.

List on 22.12.2023."

Thereafter, the matters have come up today.

6.

Icarned Government pleader again prays for an adjournment on the ground that the matters have to be argued by the learned Additional Advocate Genera1.

7.

The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.6.

8.

More than enough opportunities have been granted to the learned Government Pleader for the applicant to argue the matters.

9.

These applications have been filed seeking recall of order dated 29.1O.2OO2 passed in Application Nos.1O96, 1097 and 1098 of 2OO2 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 as illegal and void as per the orders dated 10.06.2003 of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.Nos.64, 65 and 66 of 2002.

10. The Supreme Court in My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society vs. B. Mahesh and othersr has held in paragraph No. 28 as under:

"2a. Section 151 of the CPC can only be t I t \ applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions of law. Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to I 2022 SCC Online SC 1063

" i, '.:4;:

frling fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or rcviews. A party cannot find solace in Section I51 to allege alrd rectify historic wrongs and bypass procedural safeguards inbuilt in the CPC."

1 1 . In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, since the applicant has an alternative effrcacious remedy of frling an appeal against the aforesaid order, the applicant cannot be permitted to take recourse to the remedy provided under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

12. In the result, these applications are disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file arr appeal against the aforesaid order, if so advised.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

I sd/'JB ?i?HEtl8f#l I ,ITRUE coPY/, "EcflogdFFtcER Il ,rro CCs to Additional Advocate General ' High Court for the State of , l*i[';U t*it"'^*AiJi.1'l couD, sc ror HMDA (oPuc)

3. One CC to SRl. JAFFER ALt KHAN' Advocate [OPUCI

4. One CC to SRl. CH' DHANAMJAYA' Advocate [OPUCI

5. Two CD CoPies kul

HIGH COURT HCJ k NvskS OATEOizgl12l2O23 \ 1t\g STAf6:

[ 3 JLl{ ?$?4 a J o ,} { -!

t . ,.'..!, D55or"

COMMON ORDER Application Nos. 1110, 1111and 1112ot201O In C.S.No. 7 of 1958 DISPOSING OF THE ALt, APPI-ICATIONS *\