WA/956/2026 of Ruhina Khan Vs Smt. D. Andhra Devi on 30 September 2026

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum. Aged Major, Ryo 9331, PtvlAN Ave, #209, Garden Grove. California 92841 Rep by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, bcc. Business, Fl/o. 1-90/B/C/311-213O8, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

2. Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, 14137, Mbrning View Drive, Chino Hills, California. Rep. by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 1-90/B/C/311-21308' Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

...APPELLANTS/3.d PARTIES AND

1. Sri D.Rameswar Rao, S/o. D- Parameswara Rao. Aged about 56 years, Occ' Business, Fl/o. H.No.1-9-3121E, Yidyanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State 500044. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

3. cyberabad Municipal corporation, National Academy of construction, Hitex, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner

4. The Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampally, Hyderabad.

t.A. NO:1 OF 2026 . 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 grant leave to the petitioners to challenge the interim orders dated 31.07.2026 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2026 in w.P.No.24685 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2026 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 suspend the operation of interim orders dated 31.07.2026 passed in l.A. No 1 of 2026 in W.P.No. 24685 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO, Sr' COUNSEL, REP'

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI N.NAVEEN KUMAR, REP' SRI K.MAHIT REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Ms. V.JAYASREE' AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI K'RAVI MAHENDER'

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred against the order dated 05-08-2026, in l.A.No.2 0f 2026 in w.P.No.25B41 0f 2026 0n the file of the High Court. Between:

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, R/o' 9331 , PMAN Ave, #209, Garden Grove, California - 92841 .

2. Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, 14137, Morning View Drive, Chino Hills, California. Both petitioners Rep. by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunla Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ Business, R/o, 1-g}lE,lct3tl-2t308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/3.d PARTIES AND

1. Mallireddy Sai Gautham Reddy, S/o. M. Rajasekhar Reddy, aged about 45 years, O"". Business, Rl/o. 7-4-2123, Tirumala Colony, L B' Nagar, Chintalakunta, K. V. Rangareddy, T.S. - 500074. ...RESPONDENTAA'RIT PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3, The Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, at NAC Building' Hitex' Madhapur, Hyderabad, T.G.

4. The Zonal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Zone, Kukatpally, HYderabad. ...RESPONDENTS

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 grant leave to the petitioners to challenge the interim orders dated 05.08.2026 passed in l.A.No.2 of 2026 in W.P. No. 2584'1 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal.

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 suspend the operation of interim orders dated. 05.08.2026 passed in l.A.No.2 of 2026 in w.P. No. 25841 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO, Sr' COUNSEL, REP' SRI MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI D'JAIPAL REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Ms. V.JAYASREE,

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC / CMC WRIT APPEAL No.908 0F 2026 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 05/08/2026 in l.A.No.2 of 2026 in w.P.No.25873 of 2026 on the file of the High Court Between:

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, R/o 9331' PMAN Ave, #209, Garden Grove, California - 92841'

2. SyedZiauddinAhmed,S/o.LateSayeedUnnisaBegum,AgedMajor'14137' Morning View Drive, Chino Hills, California. Both petitioners Rep. by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunla Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ Business' R/o' 1-gol}tcl3tl-2t30s,CharmyGaneshNilayam,VittalRaoNagar,Madhapur' Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/3,.I PARTIES AND

Peram Maddileti Reddy, S/o. P.Thimma Reddy, Aged about 52 years' Occ' Business, R:io. Plot t'to.zss, Flat No.201, Mithili Nivas, Matrusri Nagar' Near Temple Park, MiyaPur, T.S. 500049. Padala Bhavani Sankar Reddy, C/o' P. V' Subha Reddy, Aged about 58 v""r., o"i. Business, F/o. Ploi No. 755, Flat No. 201, Mithili Nivas' Matrusri 'Nlagar, NearVijetha, Miyapur, T.S. - 500049

..RESPONDENTSMRIT PETTTTONERS

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. The Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, at NAC Building' Hitex Madhapur, HYderabad, T.G.

5. TheZonalCommissioner,CyberabadMunicipalCorporation,Kukatpally Zone, KukatPallY, HYderabad.

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners to challenge the interim orders dated 05.08.2026 passed in l.A. No.2 of 2026 in W.P. No. 25873 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under Section 15'1 cPC praying that in the circunstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of interim orders dated 05.08.2026 passed in l.A. No. 2 of 2026 in W.P.No. 25873 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO, Sr' COUNSEL, REP'

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI D'JAIPAL REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: Ms. V.JAYASREE, AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 06,108/2026 in l.A.No.2 ol 2026 in w.P.No.2601 4 ol 2026 on the file of the High Court

Between:

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Alma Begum, Aged lMajor, R/o.9331, PMAN Ave, #209, Garden Grove, California- 92841

2. Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major' 14137, Morning View Drive, Chino Hills, California. Both petitioners Rep by their General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunla Venkatesh, S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ Business, Ri./o' 1-g}t5t?tgtl-21308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/3'd PARTTES AND

1. K Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o. Late K Subba Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ Business, F/o. 3-5-7111 , Vivekananda Nagar Colony Opp Sai Apartment Kukatpally Medchal Malkajgri (D) TS-500072. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, Rep by Principal secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation at NAC Building, Hitex' Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana.

4. The Zonal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Zone, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

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 grant leave to the petitioners to challenge the interim orders dated 06.08.2026 passed in l.A.No.2 o1 2026 in W.P.No.2601 4of 2026 pending disposal of the main writ appeal. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2026 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 suspend the operation of interim orders dated 06.08.2026 passed in l.A. No. 2 of 2026 in w.P. No. 26014 ot 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal

Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI D.JAIPAL REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Ms. V.JAYASREE, AGP FOR MCPL AOMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC / CMC WRITAP PEAL No.910 0F 2026 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred against the order dated 05-08-2026, in l.A.No.2 0f 2026 in w.P,No.25833 01 2026 0n the file of the High Court.

Between: l.RuhinaKhan,D/o.LateSayeedUnnisaBegum,AgedlV'lajor,Rl/o9331' PMAN Ave, #209, Garden Grove, California - 92841'

2. SyedZiauddinAhmed,S/o.Late.SayeedUnnisaBegurn,AgedMajor,'14137' Morning View Drive, Chino Hills, California. Both appellants Rep. by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunla Venkaiesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ Business, Rl/o' 1-g)tBl)t3ll-2l30s,CharmyGaneshNilayam,VittalRaoNagar,Madhapur' Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/3'd PARTIES AND

1. Sri. M. Anjaneyulu, S/o. M. Rama Kotaiah, Aged about 66 years, Occ' Business, RJo. H. No. 3-32-11242, Sapthagiri Colony, Near Ayyappaswamy temple, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, T.S.-500072. ..RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

2. The state of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, at NAC Building, Hitex Madhapur, Hyderabad, T.G.

4. fhe Zonal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Zone, Kukatpally, Hyderabad

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 grant leave to the petitioners to challenge the interim orders dated 05.08.2026 passed in l.A.No.2 of 2026 inW.P.No.25833ot2026, pendingdisposal of themainwritappeal.

the operation of interim orders dated 05.08.2026 passed in l.A.No.2 of 2026 in W.P.No.25833 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. SRI MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRl. D JAIPAL REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Ms. V.JAYASREE, AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER,

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated31to712026inl.A.No.1 of2026inW.P.No.24666of2026onthefileoftheHigh Court. Between:

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, r/o. 933'1 , PMAN Ave, #239, Garden Grove, California 92841 . Rep. by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 1-90/B/C/311-21308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

2. Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o. Late. Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, '14137, Mbrning View Drive, Chino Hills, California. Rep. by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, F/o. 1-90/B/C/311-21308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

...APPELLANTS/3'd PARTIES AND

1. Smt. Menneni Aparna, Wo. Sri Menneni Pramodh Kumar' Aged about 53 ' ;;;;t; o;;. oocior, Rvo. H.No. 15-2'1-32161, Balaji Nagar' Near Kukatpallv bus Stop, Hyderabad, Telangana 500072' ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary' Municipal

- AJministration and Urban Development Department, secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, , National Academy of Construction' Hitex' M-adhapur, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner'

t.A. NO: 10F 2026 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave tothepetitionerstochallengetheinterimordersdated3l,0T.2026passedin l.A.No.1 cf 2026 inw.P.No.24666 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal' I.A. NO: 3 OF 2026 PetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe theoperationofinterimordersdated3ltoTt2o26passedinl.A.No.lof2026inW.P. No. 24666 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal'

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N'NAVEEN KUMAR' REP' SRI K.MAHIT REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No'2: Ms' V'JAYASREE, AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV' Gounsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER'

WRIT APPEAL NO.9120F 2026 WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentpreferredagainsttheorder dated 05/08/2026 in l.A.No.2 of 2026 in w.P.No.25863 of 2026 on the file of the High Court. Between:

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major' Ri/o 9331 ' PMANAve,#20g,GardenGrove,California-92841Rep'byherGeneral Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh Sio Bapanaiah' aged ,Ooui ++ y"ur., i)..- Business, Ryo. t-SOBlClStl-21308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad'

2. Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o. Late. Sayeed Unnisa Begum' Aged Major' 14137'

- ftlti.i"g View Drive, Chino Hills, Cilifornia Rep by her Genera.l e9w9r 9f Attorr""V Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S19, Bapanaiah' aged about 44 y"ur., b""- Business, iio. 1-90/B/C/311-2l3oB, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam' Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/3'd PARTIES AND

Janaki Rani Bezawada, W/o.Koteswara Rao Bezawada, aged 62 yrs' Occ- S;"in""t, Rl/o.Flat No. 302, Kanchan Towers, Panjagutta' Hyderabad' SOOOAZ. burrently residing at Flat No. 301, JK Nest, 1-7-85lA' Sree Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Near Marrichettu, Manikonda, Hyderabad-500 089 ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad '

3. TheCommissioner,CyberabadMunicipalCorporation,atNACBuilding,Hitex Madhapur, HYderabad, T.G.

4. The zonal commissioner, cyberabad Municipal corporation, Kukatpally Zone, KukatPallY, HYderabad

I.A. NO:1OF 2026 PetitionunderSectionl5lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtograntleave tothepetitionerstochallengetheinterimordersdated05.0S.2026passedin l.A.No.2ol2026inW.P.No.25863of2026,pendingdisposalofthemainwrit appeal.

t4

affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of interim orders dated 05.08.2026 passed in l.A,No.2 of 2026 in W.P.No.25863 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO, Sr. COUNSEL' REP' SRI MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI D.JAIPAL REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Ms. V.JAYASREE,

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC / CMC wRIT APPEAL No.913 OF 2026 writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order datedo3io712026inl.A.No.1 of2026inw,P.No.20789of 2026onthefileoftheHigh Court. Between:

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, r/o. 9331, Plt/AN Ave, #209, Garden Grove, California - 92841. Rep' by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 1-90/B/C/311-21308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

2. Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o. Late. Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, 14137, Mbrning View Drive, Chino Hills, California. Rep. by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, Flio. 1-90/B/Ci3l1'21308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/3.d PARTIES AND

1. Allam Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o, Late. Sri. A. Show Reddy, Aged about42 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o. F.No. 4O1,402, Uttam Nagar, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. ..RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Hitex, Madhapur' Hyderabad' Represented bY its Commissioner,

4. TheDeputyCommissioner,CyberabadMunicipalCorporation,Serlingampally Zone, Hyderabad.

5. The Zonal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporaiton' Hitex' Madhapur, HYderabad.

6. The City Planner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally' Hyderabad'

t.A, NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtograntleave tothepetitionerstochallengetheinterimordersdated03.0T.2026passedin l.A.No.1 of 2026 in W.P. No. 20789 oI 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal. I.A. NO:4OF 2026 PetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe the operation of interim orders dated 03 '07 '2026 passed in l A' No l of 2026 in W.P.No 20789 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO, Sr' COUNSEL' REP' SRt MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSART Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI A'PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Ms' V'JAYASREE, AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6: SRI K'RAVI MAHENDER'

WRIT APPEAL NO.915 0F 2026 WritAppealUnderclausel5oftheLettersPatentpreferredagainsttheorder dated28.07.2026inl.A.No.1ol2O26inW.P.No.20254ol2026onthefileoftheHigh Court

Between:

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged. 70, F/o. 9331, PMAN Ave, #209, Garden Grove, California - 92841 Rep. by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ.Business, R/o. 1-9)lBl0l3ll-21308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

2. Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o. Late. Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged 68, F/o. 141 37, Morning View Drive, Chino Hills, California. Rep. by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 1-90/B/C/311-21308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/3.d PARTIES AND '1 . M. Karthik, S/o. M V Ranga Rao, age 40 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, RUo Kavya Nurshing Home, Kukatapally, Hyderabad - 500072 ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Adminstration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad,

3. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal, Rep. by its Commissioner, Town Planning Section, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

4. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporaiton, Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

5. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle 21, Serilingampally, Hyderabad.

Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners to challenge the interim orders dated .28.07.2026 passed in l.A. No.1 of 2026 in W.P. No. 20254 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal.

t7 the operation of interim orders dated 28.07 '2026 passed in l A'No 1 of 2026 in W.P.No.20254 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal'

Counsel for the Respondent No'1: SRt MD'NAWAZ HYDER ALI' FOR M/S. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms' V'JAYASREE, AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI K'RAVI MAHENDER' SC FOR GHMC / CMC WRIT APPEAL No.91 6 0F 2026 WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentpreferredagainsttheorder dated14lO712026inl.A.No.1 0f2026inw.P.No.224540f2o260nthefileoftheHigh Court Between:

Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, Ryo.9331' pff,fnU er", #209, Garden Grove, California - gZBq' Rep' by her General power of Attorn"y Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh' S/o Bapanaiah' aged about 44 year", bcc. Business, Pio l-90/B/C/3t1-2t3o8' Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, vittat Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad' Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum' Aged Major' 14137' ftfti"i"S Vew Orive, Chino Hills, Cilifornia' Rep' by her General Power of Ati;r;""y Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh Sio' Bapanaiah' aged about 44 ;;;;.-b... Business, RJo. 1-90/B/C/3t1-21308, Charmv Ganesh Nilavam' Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad' ...APPELLANTS/3,d PARTIES

AND

CH.Draksha Mani, W/o. R.Hari Babu Aged about 60 years' Ot". 99I E;pl"t;;, R/o. Fiat No.509' Vijava Hills, 1'1-4-656' A'C'Guards' Lakdi Ka Pool, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER The State of Telangana' Rep. by Principal Secretary' Municipal Administration unJ Urbrn Develofment, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad'

l8

3. The Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Hitex, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Represented by its Commissioner.

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation Serilingampally Zone, Hyderabad.

5. The Zonal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Hitex, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

6. The City Planner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

to the oetitioners to challenge the interim orders dated. 14.07.2026 passed in l.A.No.1 ot 2026 in W.P. No. 22454 ol 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal.

the operation of interim orders dated. 14.07.2026 passed in l.A. No, 1 of 2026 in W.P. No. 22454 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal and to pass Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REP' SRI MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI VENUGOPAL REDDY.J Counsel for the Responaent tto.Z:' Ms. V.JAYASREE, AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 to 6: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER,

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred against the order dated 06-08-2026, in LA.No.2 of 2026 in W.P.No.26059 of 2026 on the file of the High Court.

Between:

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, Fl/o 9331 ' PMAN Ave, #209, Garden Grove, California - 92841'

2. SyedZiauddinAhmed,S/o.LateSayeedUnnisaBegum,AgedMajor'14137' Morning View Drive, Chino Hills, Califomia. BothpetitionersRep.bytheirGeneralPowerofAttomeyHolder,Kondragunta VenkateshSio.Bapanaiah,agedabout44years,OccBusiness'Rlio' 1-g)tBtct3tl-2l308,CharmyGaneshNilayam,VittalRaoNagar,Madhapur' Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/3,d PARTIES AND 'l.K.MallikarjunaReddy,S/o.LateK.SubbaReddy,Agedabout^65years'Occ' Business, No. 3-5-i1t1, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, opp Sai Apartment' Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgri (D), T.5-500072' ...RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad'

3. TheCommissioner,CyberabadMunicipalCorporation,atNACBuilding'Hitex Madhapur, HYderabad, T.G.

4. TheZonalCommissioner,CyberabadMunicipalCorporation,Kukatpally Zone, KukatpallY, HYderabad.

t.A. NO: 'l OF 2026 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 grant leave to the petitioners to challenge the interim orders dated 06.08.2026 passed in l.A' No.2of2026inW.P.No.26059ot2026,pendingdisposalofthemainwritappeal. r.A. NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtosuspend the operation of interim orders dated 06.08 2026 passed in l'A' No'2 of 2026 in W.P.No.26059 ot 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal'

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REP' SRI MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI D.JAIPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. V.JAYASREE, AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Gounsel forthe Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred against the order dated 05-08-2026 in l.A.No.1 0t 2026 in W.P.No.25818 ot 2026 0n the file of the High Court. Between: 1 . Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged lvlajor, Fl/o. 9331' PIrilAN Ave, #209, Garden Grove, California -92841 '

2. Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o. Late. Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Maior' 1 4137' Morning View Drive, Chino Hills, Califomia. Both Rep. by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ Business, F/o. 1-90iB/C/311-21308' Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad. ..,APPELLANTS/3,d PARTIES AND

1. Esa Madhava Rao, S/o. E. Punnaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. H.No.1-22-108/1A, Abahaya Anjaneya Residency, Vijyanagar Colony, Montessori school, Allwyn Colony road, Kukatpally, Hyderbaad, T.S.

2. Esa Malleswari, W/o Esa Madhava Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. H.No. 1-22-10811A, Abahaya Anjaneya Residency, Vijyanagar Colony, Montessori school, Allwyn Colony road, Kukatpally, Hyderbad, T S. ...RESPONDENTSMRIT PETITIONERS

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. The Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, at NAC Building, Hitex, Madhapur, Hyderabad, T.G.

5. The Zonal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally ' Zone, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS

2l affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners to challenge the interim orders dated 05.08.2026 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2026 in W.P. No. 25818 ot 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal.

the operation of interim orders dated 05.08.2026 passed in l.A. No. 1 of 2026 in W.P. No. 2581 8 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. SRI MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI D.JAIPAL REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: Ms. V.JAYASREE, AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SG FOR GHMC / CMC

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred against the Order dated 05i08/2026 in l.A.No.2 of 2026 in W.P.No.25846 of 2026 on the file of the High Court. Between:

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, Ryo. 9331' PMAN Ave, #209, Garden Grove, California - 92841 .

2. Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged Major, 141 37, Morning View Drive, Chino Hills, California. Both petitioners Rep. by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, Fi./o. 1-9OlBlCl3t1-21308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS

AND '1 . Ayuluri Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Janardhan Reddy..Aged aboul^64 I"'f' O9t: eiiin".r, Rl/o. H. No. Plot No. 36, Road No 9, Dhana Laxmi Co-Op Housing S".i"tV,tr.t Marredpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad' T S' - 500026'

2. Ayuluri Hema Latha,,Wo. A. Srinivasa Reddy, Aged about 59 years' Occ'

- H;G; wife, Rl/o, u. uo. ptot No. 36, Road No' 9, Dhana Laxmi Co--op Housing Society, East Marredpally, Secunderabad' Hyderabad' T'S' - 500026. ...RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER

3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary' Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad '

4. TheCommissioner,CyberabadMunicipalCorporation'atNACBuilding'Hitex MadhaPur, HYderabad, T.G.

5. The Zonal commissioner, cyberabad Municipal corporation, Kukatpally Zone, KukatPallY, HYderabad.

t.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 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 grant leave tothepetitionerstochallengetheinterimordersdated0sl0sl2026passedin l.A.No.2 of 2026 in w.P.No.25846 of 2O26, pending disposal of the main writ appeal' t A. NO: 3 OF 2026 t. PetitionunderSection,l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe theoperationofinterimordersdatedo5tosl2o26passedinl.A.No2of2026inW.P. No. 25846 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal'

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI' D JAIPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Ms. V.JAYASREE' AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRt K.RAVI MAHENDER'

WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentpreferredagainsttheorder dated 14t0712026 in l.A.No.1 0t 2026 in w.P.No.224O3 0',f 2026, on the file of the High Court. Between:

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Aged T0years' R!/o 9331' PMAN Ave, #209, Garden brove, California - 92841 Rep by her General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o' Bapanaiah' aged about 44 years, bcc. Business, R/o. 1-90/B/C/311-213O8, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad'

2. SyedZiauddinAhmed,S/o.Late.sayeedUnnisaBegum,Aged65years'

- ft4trning View Drive, Chino Hills, California. Rep by her General e9w9r 9f Attorn""y Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh SJg Bapanaiah, aged ab-out 44 y""tt, b".. Business, Ryo. 1-90/B/C/311-21308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam' Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/3,d PARTIES AND

Smt. D.Andhra Devi, Wo. D. Ramesh, Aged about 61 years, Occ Housewife' RL/o. Plot No.146, Mastrusri Co-operative House Building Society Ltd'' Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dsitrict' Telangana' ,..RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

2. TheStateofTelangana,Rep.byPrincipalsecretary,MunicipalAdministration and Urban Development, Secretarlat Building, Hyderabad'

3. The Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Hitex, Madhapur' Hyderabad' Represented bY its Commissioner'

4. TheDeputyCommissioner,CyberabadMunicipalCorporationSerilingampally Zone, Hyderabad.

5. The Zonal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation' Hitex' Madhapur, HYderabad.

6. The City Planner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation Kukatpally' Hyderabad'

t.A. NO:1OF 2026 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtograntleave tothepetitionerstoChallengetheinterimordersdatedl4.0T.2026passedin l.A.No.1 o1 2026 inw.P.No.22403 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal l.A. NO: 3 OF 2026 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the the operation of interim orders dated 14107 t2O26 passed in l A No'1 oI 2026 in W.P.No. 22403 of 2026, pending disposal of the main writ appeal and to pass

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI VENUGOPAL REDDY'J Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Ms. V.JAYASREE' AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6: SRI K'RAVI MAHENDER'

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 17/1012025 in l A.No.2 ot 2025 in w.P.No.31738 oI 2025 on the file of the High Court Between: Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Age 70 years, RJo 933'1' PMAN Ave, #209, Garden Grove, California - 92841 ' Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Age 67 years' '14137, lv'lorning View Drive, Chino Hills, Califomia- Both petitioners rep. by their General Power of Attorney Holder, Kondragunta VenkateshS/o.Bapanaiah,agedabout44years,OccBusiness'Rl/o1- g)tBtcl3tl-2t3}8,CharmyGaneshNilayam,VittalRaoNagar,Madhapur' Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/3.d PARTIES AND

Mr. Numburi Krishna Mohan, S/o Seetha Rama Rao, Age about 45 years Occ. Business, Rep. by his G.P.A. Holder, M/s. Lakshmimahadeva Constructions, Rep. by its Partner Mr. Amarnadh Kantheti S/o. Janardhanrao

Kantheti aged about 38 years, Occ Business, R/o Flat No. 302, Plot No' 552, Sri Sai Giridham Apartments, Matrusri Nagar, Hyderabad - 500049 Namburi Sri Kanya, Wo. Numburi Krishna Mohan, Age about 43 years Occ Business, Rep by his G.P.A. Holder, M/s. Lakshmimahadeva Constructions, Rep. by its Partner Mr. Amarnadh Kantheri S/o. Janardhanrao Kantheti aged about 38 years, Occ Business, Ri/o. Flat No. 302, Plot No' 552, Sri Sai Giridham Apartments, Matrusri Nagar, Hyderabad. 500049 ...RESPONDENTSMRIT PETITIONERS State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Develop-ment Department, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad' The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep' by its Commissioner' Town Planning Section, GHMC, Tankbund, Hyderabad. The Zonal commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation, circle No. 21, Chandanagar, HYderabad.

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI D'PRAKASH REDDY' ST. COUNSEL, REP. SRI M.PRANAV Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: Ms. V'JAYASREE,

...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 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 grant leave to the petitioners to challenge the interim orders dated 17.10.2025 passed in l.A.No.2 of 2022 in w.P.No.31738 of 2025, pending disposal of the main writ appeal. t.A. NO: 4 OF 2026 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 suspend the operation of interim orders dated 17.10.2025 passed in l.A.No.2 of 2025 in w.P. No. 31738 of 2025, pending disposal of the main writ appeal' Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI K'RAVI MAHENDER'

Writ Appeal under clause '15 of the Letters Patent Preferred against the Order dated 17 t 10 t2O25 in l.A.No.2 ol 2025 in WP.No.31 72 4 of 2025 on the fi le of the High Co u rt. Between:

1. Ruhina Khan, D/o. Late Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Age 70 years, R/o. 9331, PMAN Ave, #209, Garden Grove, California - 92841.

2. Syed Ziauddin Ahmed, S/o. Late. Sayeed Unnisa Begum, Age 67 years' 1 4137, Morning View Drive, Chino Hills, California. Both petitioners rep. by their General Power of Attomey Holder, Kondragunta Venkatesh S/o. Bapanaiah, aged aboul 44 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. 1-90lBlcl3l1-21308, Charmy Ganesh Nilayam, Vittal Rao Nagar, Madhapur, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS/3,d PARTIES AND L Sri Yenikapati Ranga Rao, S/o. Y.Venkateswarlu, Aged 61 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.246, MLA & MPs Colony, Road No. 10C, Jubilee Hills, Shaikpet, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500033.

2. Sri Kolluri Pavan Kumar, S/o Kolluri Hari Babu Aged 42 years, Occ .Business, Rl/o. H.No. 8-2-293182-ML1182, Road No. 10C, Near Sourya Bhavan, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500033

3. Sri Kolluri Venkat Pradeep Kumar, S/o Kolluri Hari Babu, Aged 43 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. H.No. 8-2-293182-ML1182, Road No. 10C, Near Sourya Bhavan, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500033

4. Sri Venkatappaiah Chowdary Kodali, S/o Kodali Sambasiva Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. H.No.3-5-69/3, Plot No. 664, Vivekanandanagar Colony. Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 5OOO72.

5. Sri Kodali Sambasiva Rao, S/o Venkatappaiah Kodali, Aged. 74 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. H.No. 3-5-69/3, Plot No. 664, Vivekanandanaga r Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500072.

6. Sri Anthaiahgari Naveen, S/o Anthaiahgari Jalavender Rao, Aged 42 yearc, Occ Business, Rl/o. H.No. 3-5-69/4, Plot No. 666, Vivekanandanagar Colony, (ukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500072.

7. Sri Anthaiahgari Narsing Rao, S/o Anthaiahgari Jalavender Rao, Aged 44 years, Occ Business, Ryo. Devistana Homes, Villa No.45, Balakrishna Nagar, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana - 500072.

8. Smt Telidevera Seetha Vijayalakshmi, W/o Telidevera Gopala Krishna Aged 69 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Villa No. 103, Apama County, Matru Sri Nagar, Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy, Telangna - 500049.

9. Smt Vanguri Chaitanya Nandana, W/o Telidevera Satya Venkata famalq

- ng"O aZ'years, Occ Business, Ryo Villa No' 103' Aparna County' Matru Sri ttig"t, nit""rpet, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy, Telangna - 500049' 1O.Sri Madhavaram Krishna Rao, S/o Madhavaram Rama Rao' Aged 69 years'

- Oi. Business, nio. H.flo,' 5-3-225, Venkat Rao Nagar' Kukatpally' Hyderabad, Telangana - 500072'

11. Sri Madhavaram Narendar Rao, S/o Madhavaram Krishna Rao' Aged 43 ;;";;, o.; Business, nyo. H.r'r6. 5-3-225, venkat Rao Nagar' Kukatpallv' Hyderabad, Telangana - 500072

12. Sri Kuramayagari Narsimha' S/o Kuramayagari^Adavaiaha' Aged 73 y-eqrs'

- Occ eusinei., nyo. H.no. S-'S-O3, ftat No'-S0Z' Sri Rama Homes' BJP Office Roid, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500072'

13. Smt Kuramayagari Sulochana, W/o Kuramayagari Narsimha' Aged 70 y-ears' Occ Business, R/o. H.No. S-g-Og, ftut no a-02' Sri Rama Homes' BJP Office Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500072' ...RESPONDENTSMRIT PETITIONERS

14. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary' .Municipal Administration and a;;" Developrient Department, Saifabad' Hyderabad'

15. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation, Tankbund' Hyderabad.

16. The Zonal commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation' circle No. 21 , Serilingampally Zone, Hyderabad'

t.A. NO:1 OF

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners to challenge the interim orders dated 1711012025 passed in t.A.No.2 of 2025 in w.P. No. 31724 of 2025, pending disposal of the main writ appeal. l.A. NO: 40F 2026 PetitionUnderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe the operation of interim orders dated 17t1Ot2O25 passed in l A No 2 ot 2025 in W.P.No.31724 ol 2025,pending disposal of the main writ appeal'

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI GHANTA RAMA RAO, Sr' COUNSEL, REP' SRt MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 13: SRI D'PRAKASH REDDY' Sr. COUNSEL, REP. SRI M.PRANAV Counsel forthe Respondent No.14: Ms. V.JAYASREE, AGP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV. Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.15 & 16: SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC / CMG The Court delivered the following: GOMMON JUDGMENT

IN THf, HICH COURT F-OR'I'H[, STATD OF TELANGANA AT HYD I'RABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S]U APA]TESII KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY I.A.No.l of 2026 in/a n d WRIl'APPEAL Nos.904, 90s. 906. 907. 908. 909. 910. 911, 912,913. 91s, 916, 917, 918,919, 956, 965 and 966 of 20?,6 DATED :30.09.2026 w.A.No.904 of2026 (CNR No.HBIIC0r05s3792026) Between: Ruhina Kharr and anothcr' ... Appellants ANIT) Aduri Anil Rcddy and ten others W.A.No. 905 of 2026 ... Respo[dents (CNR No.H8HC010553702026) BctrYeen: Ruhina Khan and anotlter ... Appellants ANI) M Advitha and three others ... Resportdcnts W.A.No. 906 of 2026 (CNR No.IIBIIC010553992026) Betwcen: Ruhina Khan and another ... Appcllants AND D Ramesrvar Rito and th rce others ... Respondents w.A .No. 907 o12026 (CNR No.HBHCOl 05s9682026) Between: Iluh ina Khan and anotlter .. Appellants ANT) Mallireddy Sai Gautham I(cd(ly and tllrcc othcrs .. . Respoudents

W.A.No. 908 of 2026 (CNR No.H8HC010559802026) Between: Ruhina Khan and another AND Peram Maddileti Reddy and four others W.A.No. 909 of 2026 (CNR No.HBH C010s597 62026) Between: Ruhina Khan and another AND K. Mallikarjuna Reddy and three others W.A.No. 910 of 2026 (C:NR No.HBHC010559592026) B€tween: Rrrhina Khan and another AND M. Anjancyulu and three others rA'.A.No. 9ll of 2026 ({lNR No.H8HC010s53952026) Between: Ruhina Khan antl another AND Srnt. Menneni Aparna and two others W.A.No. 912 ot 2026 ({lNR No.HBHC010s59652026) Between: Ruhina Khan and a nother AND Janaki Rani Bezaw.ada and three others iic.; r.{(rs, Jl& !RKR, J w.A No 90zl oI2026 and batch . .. Appellants ... Respondents ... Appellants ... Respondents ... Appellants .. Respondents ... Appellants . .. Respondents .., 'Appellants

. .. Respondents

W.A.No. 913 of 2026 (CNR No.HBHC0 10553902026) Between: Ruhina Khan and another AND Allam Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy and five others W.A.No. 915 of 2026 (CNR No.HBH C010s537 42026) Between: Ruhina Khan and another AND M Karthik and four others W.A.No. 916 of 2026 (CNR No.HBHC0l0ss38s2026) Between: Ruhina Khan and anotlter AND CH. Draksha Mani and five others W.A.No.9l7 of 2026 (CNR No.HBHC0l0s59832026) Between: Ruhina Khan and another AND IVlallikarjuna Reddy and three others W.A.No. 918 of 2026 (CNR No.HBHC0 10s59862026) Between: Ruhina Khan and another AND HCJ {AKrS, J) & VRI{R, J w A.No.904 of 2026 and batch ... Appellants ... Respondents .., Appellants . Respond€nts ... Appellants ... Respondents ... Appellants Respondents ... Appellants ? Esa Madhava Rao and four others ... Respondents iCJ ltrs. - &vRKl -i $ A r"o goa cI2025 and barch W.A.No.9l9 of 2026 (CNR No.H8HC010s59732026) Between: Ruhina Khan and a nother .. . Appellants AND Ayulrrri Srinivasa Reddy and four othcrs W.A.No. 956 of 2026 ... Respondents (CNR No.HBHC010s536s2026) Between: Ruhina Khan and another . .. r\ppellants .4ND Smt. D. Andhra Devi and five others . Respondents W.A.No. 965 of 2026 (CNR No.HBH C0t0s9 s47 2026) Betrr €en: Rrrhina Khan and another Appellants AND Mr. Numburi Krishna Mohan and fottr others ... Respondents W.;\.No. 966 of 2026 (CNR No.HBHC010s96062026) Behveen: Ruh ina Khan and anoth€r .. . Appellants AND Yenikapati Ranga Rao and fifteeu others . .. Respondents COMMONJUDGMENT: Mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari. learned counsel for appellants Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel appears for Mt'. K. Mahit ReJd1. learned counsel lbr respondent No.I in W.A.Nos.906 and 9l I ol

HCJ (AKrS, J) & VRKR, J w.A.No 904 ot 2026 and barch Mr. D. Jaypal Reddy, leamed 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' i to i 3 in W.A.No.966 of 2026 and for resportdent Nos.l and 2 in W'A'No'965 of 2026. Mr. K. Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel appears for Greater I{yderabad 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. leamed counsel appears for Pillix Law Firrn, leamed counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, in W.A.No.915 of2026. Ms. V. Jayasree, leamed Assisiant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appears ibr Municipat 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 \trit Court on different dates in the respective Writ Petitions.

3. The earliest of the interim orders impugned in these Writ Appeals is dated 11 .10.2025 passed by the lcarned writ Court, in Writ Petition

HCJ 1A(rS Jr €. VRKR i \\' : \o 90.1 oi 2026 1:d sarcr No.31724 of 2025. 'fhe interim relief sought by the writ petitioners therein reads as under as under "Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thar in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the fligh Court may be pleased to direct iespondent \o.2 and 3 to re-consider the Building Permission Application bearing No. File No.000744/GHM C1O345ISLP 112025-BP dated 23.01 2025 in respect of land bearing Plot Nos.l37, 138, 13S/part, 139 and 140, totally admeasuring 4,017.33 Sq. Yds, sinrated in

51. No.44/1, at Miyapur Village. Serilingarnpally Mandal. Ranga Reddy District, without reference to the illterim order dated 25.04.7019 passed in I A No.3 of 2019 in WP No.8648 of 2019, pending disposal of W? 3l'724 of 2025, on the rile o[ the High Couft." 'fhe interim order passcd therein by the learned writ Cotlrt reads ''Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, tearned Senior Counse l' appearing lor the petitioners. strbrritted that in similar circurnstances, the order d^ted 26.09 2025 was passed b1' this Coun in W.P. No.29659 of 2025 Learrred Senior Counsel further submitted that typographical 91161 ha5 ,:rept in the operative portion ofthe order dated 26.09.2025. Instead of " without reference to the order ciated 25.04.2019 in LA. No.3 ol 2019 in W.P.No.8648 ol 2019....", it was wrongly mentioned as '....withoLrt reference to the order dated 16 ll'2007 in W.P.No.l286l of 2007 and ....". ln vrerr of the aboYe, there sha[] be interim direction to respondents No.2 and J to reconsider the bLrilding peimissiorr application of the petitioners bearing Iile \o.00074.1/CHM CIOS45ISLP Ii2025-BP dated 23.01 '2025 iu respect of the land bearing Ptot Nos.1l7, 138, l381part, 139 and 1.10. admeasuring 4,017.33 square yards in Survey No.44/ t, situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Manrlal. Ranga Reddy District, without reference to the impugrred shortfall intirnation letter dated ll'02 2025 and rrithoLtt rcl'erence to lhe interim order dated 25042019 passed by this Court in I.A.No.l of 2019 in W P No 8648 of 20 19, rvithrn a period of loLrr (4) rleeks fiom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Post on 14.11.2025."

HCJ (AKTS, J) & VRKR, J W.A.No.904 of 2O26 and batch

4. The appetlants have pleaded that the lands in Survey No.44l1 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampatly 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 leamed 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.l118 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 ihe petition schedule propertl b1 the 25'r' respondent with regards to the aspect as to whether it acquired title of the Property by adverse possessiotr. Further, in any case at stage it is difTicult 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 propeny by the first respondent, it is well established principle of law trlat the purchasers of a joint share in property carnot 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 othel sharers of the property or by ''- y 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 properly were entitled to very fraction of the property to the extent oftheir shares and therefore, it is necessary to take necessayrleasures 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. Iittrther, 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 25'h respondent out ofthe 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. I l. In the result, this petition is alloucd and the interim injunction pending disposal of sLrit is gtanted in favour of the petitioner, but in the circLrrnstances withotrt costs."

HG lAKrS, J) & VRKR, J ]I A No.9O.1 oli026 and barch

5. One M/s.Matrusri Cooperative House Buitding Society Limited (society), rvhich rvas impteaded as delendant No.25, contested the said suit claiming that the subject propert). is the exclusive property of Mohd. Baquar Khan uhich was negatived. Thejudgment and decree in the said suit was passed on 29.12.2000 and shares were a otted to the plaintiffs therein. Appeal Suit No.l008 of 2001 preferred by the sociery and anolher Appeal Suit No. l16l of 2001 preferred by the Comrnercial and Industrial Finance Limited were dismissed by the unified High court of Anohra Pradesh vide common judg,rent dated 16.12.2011. as . resurt of which, the judgment and decree i,ated 29.12.2A00 passed in the said suit had attained finality.

6. The petition for appointrnent of Advocate Commissioner for partition and allotment of r2l28th share to the plaintiffs was allowed and the report rvas submitted by the Advocate Commissioner on24.11.2016. The appellants expected that the final decree rnay be'passed at the earliest. In this background. the1, had approached the respondent Coqroration not to grant pennission to any prospective purchaser and take action against the illegal construction in the subject plots. Since the resprndent Corporation was not taking steps to prevent illegal and unar-Lthorized construction in the subject plots in Survey Nos.44ll and 69 of Ivlil'apur Village, the appellants approached the learned wrir Court in Writ Petition No.8648 ol 2019 in which the following interim order d,ated25.04.2019 in I.A.No.3 of 2019 was passed. B

HCJ (AKrS, J) & VRKR, J W.A.No 904 of2026 and batch "This application is filed seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 not to grant building permission in the land in Suruey No.44ll of Miyapur Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the injunction order dated 20.03.1998 passed in t.A.No.l ll8 of 1997 in OS.No.38 of 1993 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, pending disposal ofthe 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 leamed writ Court direcled respondent Nos 2 and 3 therein not to grant building permission in the subject land in Survey No 44l1 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the injunction order dated 20.03.1998 passed in I.ANo 1118 of 1 997 in O.S.No.3 8 of 1993 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposai 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 ol the \'vrit petitioners in respect of the subject plots in Survey No.44l1 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without reference to the impugned shortfall intimation letters issued by the respondent

HC-l (iK:S..)& VRKR i w A.No.9O4 or 20i6 and batch 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' g. 'Ihe 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 judgrnent dated 07'08'2026, this Corrrt had directed Writ Petition Nos,8648 of 2019 ail 22200 of 2026 be heard together while keeping the irnpugned interini order dated 13 01 '2026 in abeyance and leaving the parlies to address the Iearned writ Court on rival issues on their behall 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 vlcated. This Court had not made any comment on the merits of the case of the parties.

11. Interlocutory Applications No 1 o12026 filed for grant of leave to file the instant Writ Appeals have been strongly opposed b1' the writ petilioners. 12TheleamedSeniorCounselandthelearnedcounselappearingfor the writ petitioners have made specific reference to the interim order dateld10.06.20l4passedinWPMP.No.l5629of2014inWritPetition No.12444 ol 2Ol4 and also interim order dated 16 1i2016 in WPMP.No.24734 of 2016 in Writ Petition No.20148 of 2016 which HCJ IAKTS, J) & VRKR, J W.A.No.904 of 2026 and batch 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:

t4 "ln the light ofthe 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.44l1, 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, arrd the order of this Court in W.P.No.l286l of 2007, dated 16.11.2007, provided the petitioners submit documentary proof that alienation of tl,e respective plots in favour of their predecessors in title, by Mathrusree Cocperative House Building Society Limited, was prior to I 7.09. 1996 whln the society was impleaded as a party to O.S.No.38 of 1993." The operative portion of interim order dated I 6. I I .20 16 passed in WPMP.No.24734 of 2016 in Writ Petition No.20148 ol 2016 reads as under "Though repeatedly this Coun asked Sri t). Raghavender Reddy, Iearned counsel to clari!, he could not explain any changed circumstances. He was only stating that funher 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. ThLrs, I arn not inclined to pass the same order as passed by this Court in the above Writ Petition' The I'' respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioners lor grant of building permission in Survey No44/l strictly in accordance with law, including the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the Rules and Bye-Laws made theleunder. and the order of this Court in W.PNo 12861 of2007, dated I6.l1.2007, 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 11.09.1996 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."

L2 HCJ AKrS,.J] & VR(R, J W A.l,{o 90.1 ol2C26 and barch

15. The leamed Senior Counsel for the appellants have sought to convel that the learned lvrit court has by the aforesaid interim orders made it clear that the respondent Corporation would consider the applications subrnitted by the ,"vrit petitioners for grant of building permissions in Survey No.44ll strictly in accordance with law provided the documentarl proofthat alienation ofthe respective plots in favour of their predecessors in title by the society Limited u.as prior to 11 .09 1996, when the society was impleaded as def.endant No.25 in O.S.No.38 of 1993.

16. Learned Senior Counsel r,rd 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 souglrt prior to 17 .09.1996 in support ol which they have encrosed 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 submitred that in the background of the interim orders datecl lO.06.2Ol4 and 6.I I .201 6, the learned writ Court in the present irrpugned writ proceedings granred interim relief for considering the building perm Lssion applications of the wrir petitioners without referring to the interir.n order dated 25.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.8648 ol20l9. It is also poinred out that rhe appellants were neithr:r made parties in O.S.No.3 g of 1993 nor impleaded in Writ

HCJ (AKrS, J) & VRKR, J w.A.No.904 of 2026 and batch Petition No.8648 of 2019. Therefore, the impugned interim direction may not be interfered with.

17. Leamed Senior Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the writpetitionersdonothaveanyobjectionifalltheseWritPetitionsare tagged and heard together by the learned writ Court'

18. We have considered the subrnissions made by the leamed 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 vlcy'e 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 ctub 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 rvherein, the respondent Corporation had been directed not to grant building permission in respect of the ptots in Sulvey No'44/1'

t4 iC- (tKrS J & \RKR. - lv A No 9Ca of 2126 a.d ba:.h

20. In the present batch of Writ Appeals, we find that there is a distinction made by the learned writ Court in two separate rvrit petitions, W.P.Nos. 1 2444 ol 2014 and 20 148 of 20 16 vide interim orders dated i0.06.2014 and I6.11.2016 as regards the plea for grant of building perrnission by the respondent Corporation in case where the alienation ofproper[,has been rrade in lavour of the writ petitioners prior to 1996 when the societ)'was impleaded as a party delendant in O.S.No.38 ol 1993. I'he writ petitioners also plead that they have purchased the property prior to the impleadrrenr ol the society in O.S.No.3 8 of 1993 whrch facl was brought to the notice of the learned writ Court when the interim orders impugned were passed in their ihvour. The leamed 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 rvrit petitioners wit.hout reference to the interim order dated 25.04.2019 passed in I.A..No.3 of 2019 in Writ Petition No.8648 of 2019. Therefirre, we are no,: inclined to interfere in thc interim orders impugned in the instant Writ Appeals. However, we are of the view that the present Writ Petition Nos.2065 5. 12972. 24685. 2584 1, 2587 3. 2601 4. 25833, 24666. 25863, 20789. 202s4. 22454, 26059. 2s81.8, 25846. 2240312026.. 3 |738 anl 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 wrir Courr.

HCJ (AKrS, J) & VRKR, J w.A No 9Oa of2026 and balch

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 leamed writ Court.

22. Registry to obtain the adminisrrative orders, if required, from the Hon'bte 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, hotvever, without interfering in the interim orders impugned herein. Att these Writ Appeals are acoordingly disposed of.

24. It is informed that Writ Petitiol 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 ol the parties and any of the observations rnade hereinabove shall not influence the decision to be taken by the leamed writ Court.

26. Leamed counsel for the parties have pointed out in some of the Writ Appeats that building permission has been granted pursuant to the interim orders which are being rnade subject matter of separate Writ _tb I1CJ ru:S, J & \-Ri(R. - w...1 :,,1o 904 oa 202r) and barch Petitions. We refrain frorn rnaking any comment thereon. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, ,b, 'l . The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of Tetangana.

2. The Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

3. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

4. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Town Planning Section, GHMC, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

5. The Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, National Academy of Construction, Hitex, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampally Zone, Hyderabad. 7 . The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No. 21, Chandanagar, Hyderabad. B. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle No. 21, Serilingamaplly Zone, Hyderabad.

9. The Zonal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Hitex, Madhapur, Hyderabad. 1 0. The Zonal Commissioner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Zore, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. '1 1. The City Planner, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 1 2. The Registrar Judicial-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

13. The Section Officer, Writ Non-Service Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

14. The Section Officer, Writ Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. '15, One Two CD Copies to SRI MOHD TSLAMUDDIN ANSARI, Advocate tOpUCl

16. One Two CD Copies to SRI M.PRANAV, Advocate tOpUCl

17. One Two CD Copies to SRI VENUGOPAL REDDY.J, Advocate tOpUCl 'l8.One Two CD Copies to SRI D.JAIPAL REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

19. One Two CD Copies to SRt A.PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate tOpUCl

20. One Two CD Copies to SRt M.V.PRATAP KUMAR, Advocate tOpUCl 21 .One Two CD Copies to SRt K,MAH|T REDDY, Advocate tOpLjCl

22. One CC to M/s. PILLIX LAW FtRM, Advocate [OpUC]

23. One CC to SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, SC FOR GHMC / CMC [OPUC]

24. fwo CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV., High Court for ihe State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

25. Two Two CD Copies Copies BSR

G WITH d 12444 .22200 of &20148 o f 2016. / HIGH COURT DATED: 30109t2026 LIST ALL THE W.P's ALON & 8648 of 2019 an

COMMON JUDGMENT

l.A.No.1 of 2026 IN/AND I .J W.P.Nos ot 2014 t cES, 'r,1c E SI A TEi 1Yt q o C) a .\ 0 7 ocT 2S26 .$- S.r.:. I1.!q:.904, 90S, 9-06,907, 908, 909, 910, 91 1,g12, 913, 915, 916, 917, 91g, 91g, 956, g65 and g66 0f z6za ALLOWING THE !.A. & DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS

I lc

1. b c;, rlu \_1\