Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 326 (TS)

Macherla Nagaraj Goud v. State of Telangana

2024-05-03

KUNURU LAKSHMAN

body2024
ORDER : Kunuru Lakshman, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 and respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. No.9451 of 2024, Mr. S. Srinivas Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P. No.9451 of 2024, Mr. M. Rama Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 Municipality in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 and respondent No.3 in W.P. No.9451 of 2024 and Mr. M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 and the petitioners in W.P. No.9451 of 2024. 2. W.P. No.8424 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4, particularly, respondent No.3 not to enforce the impugned notice dated 21.03.2024 by holding it illegal and to set aside the same. 3. Whereas, W.P. No.9451 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners therein to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 declaring Ac.0-22 guntas of land towards west side of NH167K in Survey No.110, situated at Choutabetla Village, Kollapur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District as disputed land; directing respondent No.3 to revoke the approved DTCP layout of the petitioners in respect of the said land; for a consequential action of respondent No.3 in issuing rejection letter dated 04.12.2023 rejecting DTCP layout of the petitioners in respect of the said land, the further action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in granting approval for tentative layout plan of respondent Nos.4 and 5 vide application dated 15.03.2024 by including disputed Ac.0-22 guntas of west side land as illegal; against the orders dated 04.03.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. No.5456 of 2024; and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to restore the DTCP layout of the petitioners as granted earlier vide application dated 04.06.2023 by rejecting the layout of respondent Nos.4 and 5, dated 15.03.2024. 4. The petitioners in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 are arrayed as respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. No.9451 of 2024, while the petitioners in W.P. No.9451 of 2024 are arrayed as respondent Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the parties arrayed in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 are hereinafter referred as the parties according to their ranks. 4. The petitioners in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 are arrayed as respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. No.9451 of 2024, while the petitioners in W.P. No.9451 of 2024 are arrayed as respondent Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the parties arrayed in W.P. No.8424 of 2024 are hereinafter referred as the parties according to their ranks. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS IN W.P. No.8424 OF 2024: 5. Originally, one Mr. Jambulaiah and Mr.Yellanna, brothers, were original owners of the land admeasuring Acs.10.38 guntas in Survey No.110, Choutabetla Village, Kollapur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. They owned equal rights in the said extent (i.e., Acs.5-19 guntas each) vide registered sale deed bearing document No.339 of 1977, dated 07.04.1977. (i) The father of the petitioners, late Eadanna, had purchased an extent of Acs.5.19 guntas from Mr.Jambulaiah and gifted an extent of Acs.2.29 guntas of land to petitioner No.1 and an extent of Acs.2.30 guntas of land to petitioner No.2 under registered documents bearing Nos.3069 and 3068 of 2009, both dated 28.08.2009. Pursuant to the same, their names were mutated in revenue records and were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds, and thereby they are the absolute owners and possessors of the said respective extents in Survey No.110/A. (ii) The other extent of Acs.5.19 guntas pertaining to Mr. Yellanna was inherited by his legal heirs i.e., respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein. (iii) While so, during the year 2022, the National Highway Authority had laid road for Highway No.167-K through Survey No.110 to an extent of Acs.1.18 guntas of land. The said land was acquired from the portion of respondent Nos.5 and 6 out of Acs.5.19 guntas, which is evident from the notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer. The land of the petitioners herein is on the western side of the National Highway, while the land of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is on the eastern side of the Highway as is evident from the sketch map of Public Information Office, Survey and Land Records, Nagarkurnool. (iv) After acquisition proceedings, the land of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was reduced to Acs.4.06 guntas which is lying on the eastern side of the National Highway. (v) Apart from losing certain extent of land by respondent Nos.5 and 6, they have also sold an extent of Ac.0.08½ guntas towards eastern side of their land to one Mr. (iv) After acquisition proceedings, the land of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was reduced to Acs.4.06 guntas which is lying on the eastern side of the National Highway. (v) Apart from losing certain extent of land by respondent Nos.5 and 6, they have also sold an extent of Ac.0.08½ guntas towards eastern side of their land to one Mr. B. Ramulu and thereby respondent Nos.5 and 6 remained as absolute owners and possessors of Acs.3.32½ guntas as admitted by them in the plaint filed by them vide O.S. No.56 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur. (vi) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 applied for layout permission to sell their land by way of plots by showing an extent of Ac.0.29 guntas belongs to the petitioners herein situated on the western side. On the basis of such misrepresentation, they got layout permission vide proceedings dated 14.06.2023. The petitioners submitted their objections on 15.06.2023 to the Municipal Commissioner, Kollapur, the District Collector and the Additional Collector. A show-cause notice dated 19.07.2023 was issued to respondent Nos.5 and 6 calling for their explanation. Challenging the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.23760 of 2023, which was dismissed as withdrawn. After hearing both parties, the said layout granted to respondent Nos.5 and 6 was cancelled by the District Collector vide proceedings dated 04.11.2023. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the Commissioner revoked the layout permission vide proceedings dated 24.11.2023. (vii) The petitioners also obtained layout permission in respect of their land vide proceedings dated 15.03.2024. They have also filed a suit vide O.S. No.175 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur for perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of Ac.0.29 guntas of land which was wrongly claimed by respondent Nos.5 and 6. The said suit is pending and the interim injunction granted in the said suit is subsisting. (viii) Suppressing the aforesaid suit and subsistence of interim injunction, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed a suit, vide O.S.No.56 of 2024 against the petitioners and obtained ex parte interim injunction order in respect of their entire extent as well as the extent of Ac.0.29 guntas. (viii) Suppressing the aforesaid suit and subsistence of interim injunction, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed a suit, vide O.S.No.56 of 2024 against the petitioners and obtained ex parte interim injunction order in respect of their entire extent as well as the extent of Ac.0.29 guntas. (ix) While so, respondent Nos.5 and 6 gave a representation to respondent No.3, who in turn had issued impugned notice dated 21.03.2024 to the petitioners calling for their explanation as to why their layout permission should not be cancelled on account of interim injunction order obtained by respondent Nos.5 and 6. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners filed W.P.No.8424 of 2024. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.5 & 6 (PETITIONERS IN W.P. No.9451 OF 2024): 6. The case of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is that they are the owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.5.10 guntas in Survey No.110/AA/1. Pursuant to their application, the said land was converted into non-agricultural land vide orders dated 17.04.2023. Thereafter, they obtained tentative layout vide proceedings dated 14.06.2023 by paying an amount of Rs.5,45,728/- on 12.06.2023. While so, an extent of Acs.1.20 guntas of their land out of Acs.5.10 guntas was acquired by the National Highway Authority. In view of the same, still they are having an extent of Ac.0.22 guntas of land towards west side of NH167K and the remaining land is existing towards east side of the said Highway. (i) The petitioners did not have any land abutting the Highway. But, they filed a complaint falsely stating that Ac.0.22 guntas of land towards west side of the Highway belongs to them and that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have illegally got included in their DTCP layout. Basing on the said complaint, respondent No.2 without giving any notice and opportunity to them, passed orders dated 04.11.2023 declaring the said Ac.0.22 guntas of land as disputed land and accordingly directed the Municipality to revoke the approved layout of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent No.4 Municipality also without giving any notice and opportunity revoked the DTCP layout of respondent Nos.5 and 6 by issuing rejection letter dated 04.12.2023. In view of the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed W.P. No.9451 of 2024 declaring the action of respondent No.2 and the Municipality as illegal. (ii) When the petitioners tried to interfere with the possession of respondent Nos.5 and 6, they have filed a suit vide O.S. No.56 of 2024. In view of the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed W.P. No.9451 of 2024 declaring the action of respondent No.2 and the Municipality as illegal. (ii) When the petitioners tried to interfere with the possession of respondent Nos.5 and 6, they have filed a suit vide O.S. No.56 of 2024. The trial Court granted ex parte interim injunction. CONTENTION OF OFFICIAL RESPONDENT Nos 2 & 3: 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has produced written instructions of respondent No.2 - District Collector in W.P. No.9451 of 2024, wherein, it is stated specifically stated that the Phodi map of Survey No.110 prepared by the Survey Department during proposed National Highway land acquisition put Acs.4.06 guntas on the east side of the proposed National Highway. Acs.1.18 guntas comes under National Highway land acquisition and Acs.5.14 guntas on west side of proposed National Highway. The total extent of respondent Nos.5 and 6 would lie towards east side of the National Highway only, whereas the extent of Acs.5.19 guntas belonging to the petitioners would lie on the west side of the National Highway. In fact, only an extent of Acs.5.14 guntas is available on the west side of the National Highway. Though respondent Nos.5 and 6 are already in excess of Ac.0.05 guntas of land than their legitimate share and they are continuously claiming an additional extent of Ac.0.22 guntas of land from the share of the petitioners. CONTENTION OF OFFICIAL RESPONDENT No.4: 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipality has also produced written instructions in W.P. No.9451 of 2024, wherein it is specifically mentioned that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are having their total extent of land towards eastern side of National Highway. The Phodi Map is very clear about the extents owned by them i.e., Acs.4.06 guntas towards eastern side of National Highway and the land acquired for National Highway is Acs.1.18 guntas. Thus, the total extent of land i.e., Acs.4.06 guntas + Acs.1.18 guntas = Acs.5.24 guntas, which was owned by respondent Nos.5 and it is located on the eastern side of the National Highway. As per the report of Municipal Authorities on physical verification of ground reality, the petitioners herein were in possession of the disputed land i.e., Ac.0.22 guntas. There were no orders not to grant layout permission in favour of the petitioners. As per the report of Municipal Authorities on physical verification of ground reality, the petitioners herein were in possession of the disputed land i.e., Ac.0.22 guntas. There were no orders not to grant layout permission in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, they have granted tentative approval of layout plan in favour of the petitioners. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT: 9. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is dispute between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 with regard to the land in Survey No.110 of Choutabetla Village, Kallapur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. There is no dispute that originally Mr. Jambulaiah and Mr.Yellanna were the owners of the land admeasuring Acs.10.38 guntas in Survey No.110 of Choutabetla village. They had purchased the said property under registered sale deed bearing document No.339, dated 07.04.1977. It is also not in dispute that the father of the petitioners i.e., Mr. Eedanna had purchased the land admeasuring Acs.5.19 guntas from Mr. Jambulaiah. Thereafter, he had executed two registered gift settlement deeds bearing document Nos.3069 and 3068 of 2009, both dated 28.07.2009, bequeathing an extent of Acs.2.29 guntas in favour of petitioner No.1 and Acs.2.30 guntas in favour of petitioner No.2. Their names were also mutated in revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour. (i) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.5.10½ guntas of land in Survey No.110/AA/1 of Choutabetla village. Respondent No.5 is holding passbook to an extent of Acs.2.30.25 guntas of land in Survey No.110/AA/1 and respondent No.6 is holding an extent of Acs.2.20.25 guntas of land in Survey No.11/AA/2. Both of them are claiming that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.5.10½ guntas of land. It is also not in dispute that land admeasuring Acs.1.18 guntas was acquired for laying National Highway No.167K from Kalwakurthy to Somasila. The said land belongs to respondent Nos.5 and 6. On acquisition of the said land of Acs.1.18 guntas, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are possessing an extent of Acs.3.32½ guntas. It is also not in dispute that land admeasuring Acs.1.18 guntas was acquired for laying National Highway No.167K from Kalwakurthy to Somasila. The said land belongs to respondent Nos.5 and 6. On acquisition of the said land of Acs.1.18 guntas, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are possessing an extent of Acs.3.32½ guntas. In the plaint, the petitioners have mentioned the following suit schedule property: (ii) While so, when respondent Nos.5 and 6 tried to occupy the land of the petitioners, they filed a suit vide O.S. No.175 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kollapur, against respondent Nos.5 and 6 seeking perpetual injunction restraining them and their agents etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' property. (a) In the plaint, the petitioners herein have mentioned the suit schedule property as follows: "The suit land to the extent of 029 guntas as shown in the sketch map in red colour, out of the total extent of Ac.5-19 guntas of the land in Sy.No.110a of the plaintiffs i.e., an extent of Ac.2-29 guntas of the plaintiff No.1 in Sy.No.110A1 and an extent of Ac.2-30 guntas of the plaintiff No.2 in Sy.No.110A2 situated in the limits of Choutabetla village of Kollapur mandal, Nagarkurnool district as shown in sketch map and as described in the schedule. BOUNDARIES East Proposed National Public Way of 167 K, West The remaining land of plaintiffs in Sy.Nos.110A1 & A2 North Land Sy.NO.103, South Land Sy.No.117.” (b) Learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge vide orders dated 16.08.2023 granted ex parte ad interim injunction in I.A. No.248 of 2023 in O.S. No.175 of 2023. According to the petitioners, the said suit is pending and the said ad interim injunction is subsisting. (iii) When the petitioners herein tried to interfere with their possession over the said property, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed a suit vide O.S. No.56 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur against the petitioners herein for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession of the aforesaid property. (iii) When the petitioners herein tried to interfere with their possession over the said property, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed a suit vide O.S. No.56 of 2024 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur against the petitioners herein for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession of the aforesaid property. (a) In the plaint, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have mentioned the suit schedule property as follows: "Non-agricultural land bearing Sy.No.110AA2 extent Ac.1-31 25 guntas of the plaintiff No.1 and Sy.No.110AA1 extent Ac.2-01 25 guntas of the plaintiff No.2 totally measuring Ac.3-32½ guntas, situated within the limits of Chowtabetla village sivar of Kollapur mandal, Nagarkurnool district, bounded commonly as under. East Road West Land of defendants North Others plots South Land of Chukka Narsimha Goud.” (b) Learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge vide orders dated 19.03.2024 granted ex parte ad interim injunction in I.A. No.53 of 2024 in O.S. No.56 of 2024. According to the petitioners, the said suit is pending and the said ad interim injunction is subsisting. (iv) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein have sold an extent of Ac.0.08½ guntas of land towards eastern side of their land to one Mr. B. Ramulu and, therefore, in all, they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Acs.3.32½ guntas. (v) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have applied for layout permission to sell their land by way of converting into plots by showing the extent of Ac.0.29 guntas. According to the petitioners, the said land shown by respondent Nos.5 and6 belongs to them situated on the western side. Thus, according to the petitioners, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have made misrepresentation and got approved tentative layout No.0003/LO/3062/2023, dated 14.06.2023 as per G.O.Ms.No.105 of MA, dated 05.07.2021 under Section - 172 (5) of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 from respondent No.4. (vi) The petitioners herein have submitted objections dated 04.07.2023 to respondent No.4 Municipality and also respondent Nos.2 and 3. A show-cause notice dated 15.06.2023 was issued to respondent Nos.5 and 6 calling for their explanation. Challenging the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed a writ petition vide W.P. Nos.23760 of 2023. They have also filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.1444 of 2024 challenging the rejection of approval layout granted in their favour. A show-cause notice dated 15.06.2023 was issued to respondent Nos.5 and 6 calling for their explanation. Challenging the same, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed a writ petition vide W.P. Nos.23760 of 2023. They have also filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.1444 of 2024 challenging the rejection of approval layout granted in their favour. They have also filed W.P. No.5525 of 2024 challenging the action of official respondents in issuing impugned rejection letter dated 04.12.2023 rejecting their DTCP layout and considering the application of the petitioners for approval of DTCP layout. However, all the said writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 05.02.2024, 05.02.2024 and 04.03.2024 respectively. (vii) The petitioners herein have also filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.2113 of 2024 for not considering their online application submitted by them through TSbPASS for sanction of layout. However, vide orders dated 05.02.2024, the said writ petition was disposed of on the submission made by learned Government Pleader that the petitioners' application would be processed in accordance with law. (viii) Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have also filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.5456 of 2024 to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 4 herein in going ahead to consider the DTCP layout of the petitioners herein in respect of the land in Survey No.110, situated at Choutabetla village, Kollapur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District after reject their DTCP layout in respect of the same survey number on the ground that there is title dispute without considering their objections and though the petitioners herein got included Ac.0.22 guntas of their land as illegal and for a consequential direction to the said respondents to reject the DTCP layout of the petitioners herein. (a) The said writ petition came up for hearing on 04.03.2024, on which day, respondent No.4 herein has placed written instructions dated 02.03.2024 stating that this Court vide order dated 05.02.2024 in W.P. No.2113 of 2024 directed the respondents therein to consider the application made by the petitioners herein for grant of DTCP layout permission and to take further action in accordance with law. In compliance with the said directions, they are processing the application filed by the petitioners, and as of date, no final orders were passed. It is further stated that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed objections on 26.02.2024 objecting to the consideration of the application made by the petitioners herein. In compliance with the said directions, they are processing the application filed by the petitioners, and as of date, no final orders were passed. It is further stated that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed objections on 26.02.2024 objecting to the consideration of the application made by the petitioners herein. Thus, respondent No.4 herein submitted that they would consider and dispose of the objections raised by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in consultation with respondent No.2 before passing final orders. Considering the said submissions and written instructions, vide order dated 04.03.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.3 herein to consider the objections raised by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in consultation with respondent No.2 and if required by getting survey conducted, if not conducted already, through the authorities of survey and land records by putting all the parties concerned on notice and thereafter, take further decision/action on the application submitted by the petitioners herein for grant of DTCP layout permission. (ix) During course of hearing, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have produced notices dated 02.06.2023 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Survey, to conduct survey on 08.06.2023 in respect of the land in Survey No.110. There is no mention about concluding the survey and report, if any, submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey. (x) While the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 herein i.e., Additional Collector, Nagarkurnool, has issued show-cause notice No.F/1688/2023, dated 21.03.2024 to the petitioners herein stating that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed a suit vide O.S. No.56 of 2024 and learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur has passed ad interim injunction order in I.A. No.53 of 2024 and the said suit is pending and the said ad interim injunction order is subsisting. Therefore, he directed the petitioners to show-cause as to why their DTCP layout should not be cancelled as per the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Seven (07) days time was granted to them to submit their explanation. Challenging the said notice, the petitioners have filed W.P. No.8424 of 2024. Therefore, he directed the petitioners to show-cause as to why their DTCP layout should not be cancelled as per the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Seven (07) days time was granted to them to submit their explanation. Challenging the said notice, the petitioners have filed W.P. No.8424 of 2024. (xi) It is also relevant to note that vide proceedings Lr.No.F/TSbPASS/03/2023, dated 04.11.2023, respondent No.2 herein referring to the order in W.P.No.23760 of 2023, objections submitted by the petitioners herein, report of respondent No.4, dated 09.10.2023 stating that there is dispute with regard to the possession and title of the land, held that respondent Nos.5 and 6 failed to demonstrate their prima facie title of the land as well as possession. The same is most important criteria for grant of layout approval. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 based upon false declaration that they are in actual possession of the layout land as well as they have title for the said land got the approval for their layout. Therefore, he ordered to cancel layout permission of respondent Nos.5 and 6 for want of possession on subject land and directed respondent No.4 to revoke the layout approval. Challenging the said proceedings, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed the present W.P. No.9451 of 2024. 10. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there are disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 with regard to the land in Survey No.110 of Choutabetla Village of Kollapur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. Admittedly, the aforesaid two suits vide O.S. Nos.175 of 2023 and 56 of 2024 are pending, and in both the suits ex parte ad interim injunction orders were granted by the very same Court and the same are subsisting. There are disputes with regard to title and possession of both the parties over the land in Survey No.110 of Choutabetla village. (i) The said disputes are as follows: (a) Survey Number i.e., Sy.No.110/AA/1 & Sy.No.11/AA/2; (b) Sub-division of the said survey numbers, since originally the said survey number is 110 of Choutabetla village; (c) Extent of land; (d) Location of the land i.e., eastern side or western side; (e) Land acquired for the purpose of laying NH167-K; (f) Location of the land of the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 to NH167-K; (g) According to respondent Nos.2 and 3, only Acs.5.14 guntas of land is available on the western side of Highway and it belongs to the petitioners. The land of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is on eastern side of Highway. They are in excess possession of Ac.0.05 guntas of land, which they claim as legitimate share. They are continuously claiming another Ac.0.22 guntas of land from the share of the petitioners; and (h) According to respondent No.4, the land admeasuring Ac.5.24 guntas belongs to respondent Nos.5 and 6 is located on the eastern side of the Highway. The petitioners are in possession of Ac.0.22 guntas of the disputed land. 11. The aforesaid aspects are disputed/complicated questions of fact which will be decided only by competent Civil Court after conducting full-fledged trial, but not the official respondents. 12. In the aforesaid proceedings, there is specific mention about dispute with regard to the title and possession of the parties and the extent claimed by them. Even then, respondent No.3 has issued the aforesaid notice dated 21.03.2024 to the petitioners directing them to show cause as to why their DTCP layout permission should not be cancelled. There is no reference about submission of any representation by any of the parties. It appears he has issued the said show-cause notice suo motu. In fact, the tentative layout approval dated 15.03.2024 was granted by respondent No.4 - Municipality. Therefore, respondent No.3 has no power to issue show-cause notice dated 21.03.2024 directing the petitioners to show cause as to why their DTCP layout permission should not be cancelled as per Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. He has not mentioned as to the provision under which he has issued such show-cause notice. There is no provision in Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 to issue such a show-cause notice by respondent No.3. (i) It is also relevant to note that the order in I.A. No.53 of 2024 in O.S No.56 of 2024 passed by learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur, is only an ad interim injunction passed ex parte. The said IA is pending. Therefore, on the said ground, respondent No.3 cannot issue impugned show-cause notice dated 21.03.2024 as he has no power. Thus, the said show-cause notice dated 21.03.2024 is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. 13. The said IA is pending. Therefore, on the said ground, respondent No.3 cannot issue impugned show-cause notice dated 21.03.2024 as he has no power. Thus, the said show-cause notice dated 21.03.2024 is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. 13. Vide proceedings, dated 04.11.2023, respondent No.2 referring to the aforesaid orders and also the contentions of the parties, observed that the only question that he has to consider is who is in possession of the disputed parcel of land and presumably who has the title of that disputed land. He has also drawn a map. Thus, according to respondent No.2, there is dispute with regard to the title and possession. He has also referred to the report of respondent No.4 stating that the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not in actual possession of the layout land and they made false declaration. With the said observations, he has canceled layout permission granted to respondent Nos.5 and 6 for want of possession. On the said ground, he has directed respondent No.4 to revoke the layout approval granted to respondent Nos.5 and 6. (i) Respondent No.2 failed to mention any provision under which he has conducted enquiry and issued the said proceedings dated 04.11.2023. He cannot decide title and possession of the parties over a property. It is for the competent Civil Court to decide the said aspects after conducting full-fledged trial. Respondent No.2, having held that there is title and possession dispute cannot cancel DTCP layout approval granted in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. He cannot direct respondent No.4 to revoke the DTCP approval. Thus, the proceedings dated 04.11.2023 of respondent No.2 are illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, on the said ground, the same are liable to be set aside and accordingly the same are set aside. 14. As stated above, there is dispute between the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 with regard to the title and possession in respect of the land in Survey No.110 of Choutabetla Village. Admittedly, the aforesaid two suits are pending. The trial Court has granted ex parte ad interim injunction orders and the same are subsisting in both the suits. During pendency of the said suits and subsistence of interim injunction orders, both respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot pass proceedings dated 04.11.2023 and issue show-cause notice dated 21.03.2024, respectively. Admittedly, the aforesaid two suits are pending. The trial Court has granted ex parte ad interim injunction orders and the same are subsisting in both the suits. During pendency of the said suits and subsistence of interim injunction orders, both respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot pass proceedings dated 04.11.2023 and issue show-cause notice dated 21.03.2024, respectively. The same are without jurisdiction. 15. As stated above, both the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed aforesaid multiple writ petitions apart from the aforesaid two suits. They have to wait for the outcome of the result in the aforesaid two suits, then they have to approach competent authority seeking approvals and proceed with layout. They cannot approach respondent Nos.2 to 4 by way of submitting representations and objections seeking approval or revocation of the same. CONCLUSION: 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, both these writ petitions are disposed of, setting aside the show-cause notice dated 21.03.2024 issued by the Additional District Collector, Nagarkurnool as well as the proceedings dated 04.11.2023 issued by the District Collector, Nagarkurnool. However, both the parties shall maintain status quo in all respects with regard to the subject property till disposal of the aforesaid suits i.e., O.S. No.56 of 2024 and O.S. No.175 of 2023 pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur or the dispute is resolved by a competent Civil Court. Liberty is also granted to the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 to seek declaration of title in respect of their extent. Thereafter, they are at liberty to approach competent authority either to approval of layout or revocation of layout in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petitions shall stand closed.