APPL/1111/2010 of HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs KASTAJEEVULA SANGATANA AND 5 OTHERS on 29 December 2023

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.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]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.]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]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]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.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 2O02ol 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;ii)to declare that the order dt. 29-10-2002 [passed ][in ][application ][109612002]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.ii)to declare that the order dt. 29-10-2002 [passed ][in ][application ][109612002]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. DHANAMJAYAAPPLTCATTON NO. 1111 0F 2010

Between:

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, [rep. ]by [its ][Commissioner Block-A']HMDA Complex, Tarnaka , Hyderabad - 500 007Applicant / 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.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.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.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.]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.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|.29-10-2002.1O97of 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.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.]Flat No. 104, Regency Zeenath Apartments, [Panjagutta, ][Hyderabad.]

3. smt Laiqunnisa Begum S/o. Md. Arifuddin, aged 43 years, Housewife, R/oH.No 6-3669/D, [panjagutta ]Main Road, panjagutta, Hyderabad.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.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.Housewife, R/o. H.No. 20_3_375, Moosa Bowli, Hyderabad.

6. My Palace Mutually Aided Coop Housing Society Ltd., Rep. by its presidentsri Pad Deshpande, having its office at Frat No. 2o2, fir Froor, preasant park,Shantinagar Colony Cross Roads, Hyderabad.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. prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, theHigh Court may be pleased to pass order

i)Why this application should not be compliedii)to decrare that the order dt. 29-10-2002 passed in apprication No. 1og7of 2002 CS No. 7 of 195g is inoperative, null and void as per thedeclaration of the Division Bench dt. 10_06_2003 passed in OSA Nos.64, 65 & 66 of 2002 and batch and consequenfly terminate the aboveapplication' the order thereon and afl subsequent proceedings pursuantto the order dt.29-1O-ZOO2.ii)to decrare that the order dt. 29-10-2002 passed in apprication No. 1og7of 2002 CS No. 7 of 195g is inoperative, null and void as per thedeclaration of the Division Bench dt. 10_06_2003 passed in OSA Nos.64, 65 & 66 of 2002 and batch and consequenfly terminate the aboveapplication' the order thereon and afl subsequent proceedings pursuantto the order dt.29-1O-ZOO2.

counsel for the Appricant : sRr pARsA ANANTHA NAGESHWAR RAo FoRSri 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 ARADHEAND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

APPLICATION Nos.1110,1111 &llL2 of 2O1OINC.S.No.7 of 1958INC.S.No.7 of 1958

COMMON ORDER : (Per the Hon'bte tle Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. Parsa Analtha Nageshwar Rao, learnedGovernment Pleader attached to the office of learnedAdvocate General for the applicant.

Mr. Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for respondentNo.6.

2. On 24.11.2023, this Court has passed the followingorder:

"Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Developrhent Authority for theapplicants prays for and is granted a week's time by wayof last indulgence. It is made clear that no furtheradjournment 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, thefollowing order was passed:following order was passed:

"Mr. Harender [pershad, ]learned Senior Counseland learned Special Government pleader attached to theoffrce of learned Advocate General for the applicant.

Mr. Gopal Bibarkar, learned counsel representingMr. Ch.Dhanarnjaya, learned counsel for the respondents.

[,earned Special Government pleader for theapplicant prays for adjournment.

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

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

4Again on 15.12.2023, an adjournment was sought forthe following reason:the following reason:

'Mr. D. Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to tl:e oflice of the learned AdvocateGeneral for the State of Telangarra for the applicant.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 foraccommodation on the ground that the matter has to beargued by the leamed Advocate General.List on 22.12.2023."argued by the leamed Advocate General.List on 22.12.2023."

5Thereafter, the matters have come up today.

6. Icarned Government pleader again prays for anadjournment on the ground that the matters have to beargued by the learned Additional Advocate Genera1.

7. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learnedcounsel for respondent No.6.

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

9. These applications applications have been filed seeking recall offiled seeking recall ofseeking recall ofrecall ofoforder dated 29.1O.2OO2 passed in Application Nos.1O96,1097 and 1098 of 2OO2 in C.S.No.7 of 1958 as illegal andvoid as per the orders dated 10.06.2003 of a Hon'bleDivision Bench of this Court in O.S.A.Nos.64, 65 and 66 of2002.

These applications applications have been filed seeking recall offiled seeking recall ofseeking recall ofrecall ofof

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

"2a. Section 151 of the CPC can only bet\applicable if there is no alternate remedy available inaccordance with the existing provisions of law. Suchinherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions orcreate remedies which are not contemplated under theCode. Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to I 2022 SCC Online SC 1063

tI

frling fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or rcviews. A partycannot find solace in Section I51 to allege alrd rectifyhistoric wrongs and bypass procedural safeguards inbuiltin the CPC."

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

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

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed. No order as to costs.

I

sd/'JB ?i?HEtl8f#l

,ITRUE coPY/,

"EcflogdFFtcER

Il ,rro CCs [to Additional ][Advocate General ' High ][Court for the ][State ][of]

,rro CCs , 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

" [i,]

I

HIGH COURT

HCJ k NvskS

OATEOizgl12l2O23

COMMON ORDER

Application Nos. 1110, 1111and 1112ot201OInC.S.No. 7 of 1958

DISPOSING OF THE ALt, APPI-ICATIONS

*\

1t\[g ][STAf6:]\aJo[ [3 ][JLl{ ][?$?4],}{-!tD55or". ,.'..!,