IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
WRIT PETITION No. 6914 of 2019
Between:
Vijaya Educational Society Chintal,
Regd. No. 511/2016, rep. by its General Secretary,
Padma Nagar, Chintal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
... Petitioner
and
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Hyderabad &
others
...Respondents
Date of Judgment Pronounced: 04-01-2021
Submitted for Approval:
The Hon'ble Sri Justice CHALLA KODANDA RAM
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers No
may be allowed to see the judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether His Lordship wish to No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
_____________________________
(CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J)
2
* The Hon'ble Sri Justice CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No. 6914 OF 2019
% Dated 04.01.2021
Between:
# Vijaya Educational Society Chintal,
Regd. No. 511/2016, rep. by its General Secretary,
Padma Nagar, Chintal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
... Petitioner
and
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Hyderabad &
others
...Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Narasimha Goud
^ Counsel for the respondent : Sri G. Narender Reddy,
Standing Counsel for gram panchayat
GIST:
HEAD NOTE:
? Cases cited:
(2015) 3 ALD 533
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No. 6914 of 2019
ORDER:
Challenging the action of the respondents and their men in
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
petitioner over plot area of 2400 square yards, Sector-B in Survey
Nos. 255, 261, 262 Part, 263 Part, 264 Part in the lay out plan of
Laxminagar Colony situated in Aushapur Village, Ghatkesar
Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, this Writ Petition is filed.
The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, with Registration No. 511/2016, with the object
of running educational institutions. It purchased the subject land
in the lay out in the name and style - Lakshmi Nagar Colony
approved by the gram panchayat on 06.06.1979 with modifications
approved on 06.09.1993, from M/s Amal Ceramics Limited
through its Registered General Power of Attorney Holder
Sri K. Linga Reddy through the registered sale deed No. 2912 of
2016, dated 16.05.2016. The property is bounded with North: 30'
wide road; South -25' wide road; East - Plot Nos. 104 and 105, and
West-30' wide road. Though the property was converted into non-
agricultural land, much prior to the enactment of the Telangana
Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act,
2006, to avoid future controversy, the petitioner approached the
competent authority to convert the subject land into non-
agricultural purposes by paying requisite fee and the same was
granted vide proceedings No. B2/1754/2017, dated 05.02.2018.
While things stood thus, the officers of Respondents 2 and 3
started harassing the petitioner to hand over physical possession 4
of the land, else threatened to initiate proceedings against them.
Though, initially, the petitioner ignored the same, on account of
constant pestering of the authorities for extraneous reasons, it was
constrained to approach this Court by invoking the jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A counter-affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent denying
the allegation of any of his officials interfering with the petitioner's
property. The assertion of the petitioner that total extent of
Acs.65.14 guntas of the land in subject survey numbers was
converted into residential plots and a lay out came to be approved
in 1979 by the gram panchayat which was subsequently modified
on 06.09.1993 is denied as no such Resolutions are available with
the gram panchayat. It is stated that even as per the petitioner, the
subject land was earmarked for construction of a school and
playground which is a public purpose, however, the open spaces
left in a lay out, for whatever purpose it is, automatically vest with
the gram panchayat and the land owner has no manner of right to
deal with the same and thus, the ownership claimed by the
petitioner is not tenable. It is also stated that the entire area
analysis shown in the lay out filed by the petitioner would show
the extent of plotted area, roads area and public purpose area
except those no other area was shown as private area to claim by
the owner who made the lay out and that the open spaces shown
in the lay out other than plotted area and roads area would fall
under the public purpose area and thus, the claim of the petitioner
that the area is a private area is not correct. According to the
counter, the petitioner had failed to file any other proof with
respect to their possession except the sale deed, that as per the lay 5
out copy available with the gram panchayat records, the area is
shown as park and there is every reason to believe that the lay
outs are fabricated. It is further stated that the competent
authority to regularize the unauthorized lay outs being HMDA, the
petitioner ought to have made HMDA as party respondent. It is
alleged that the petitioner is only trying to grab the land which is
vested with the gram panchayat, hence, prayed for dismissal of the
Writ Petition.
The petitioner filed I.A. No. 3 of 2019 to place on record
certain documents annexed thereto. Since unopposed, the
Application is allowed and the documents are made part of the
record.
Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner,
while reiterating the factual aspects pleaded in the affidavit and
making reference to the copy of the lay out, would assert that the
original lay out approved in 1979 was modified on 06.08.1993 and
had become final, wherein the subject area was shown as area
meant for construction / utilization of school and playground.
Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Lakshmi Nagar
Colony Residents Association, R.R. District v. Hyderabad
Urban Development Authority1, he would contend that the land
earmarked in a lay out for a public purpose ie. for open / lung
spaces and amenities are distinct and the land earmarked for
amenities does not belong to / vest with the local authorities and
the owner of the land in an approved lay out is not divested with
the title and ownership over the property. The learned counsel
refers to G.O.Ms.No. 67, dated 26.02.2002 as amended by
1 (2015) 3 ALD 533 6
G.O.Ms.No. 274, dated 12.06.2007 and asserts that even the Rules
do not provide for automatic vesting of the area earmarked for
amenities with the local bodies and thus, the claim of the
respondents is untenable.
Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent gram panchayat would contend that the property left
for the school in the lay out would be the property of the local body
and at any rate, there being no record with the gram panchayat,
the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. He further contends
that construction of school building is the issue required to be
dealt with by the HMDA and in the absence of it being a party
respondent, this Writ Petition is not maintainable.
Perused the record and considered the submissions of the
learned counsel on both sides.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner acquired the subject
property through the registered sale deed executed for and on
behalf of the rightful owners of the property. While the
respondents, on the one hand, denied the very existence of the lay
out, contradicting the same, in the counter-affidavit, it was stated
that a copy of the lay out is available with the gram panchayat
records as per which, the subject area was shown as 'park area'.
However, the respondents had failed to place the same on record.
In the light of the authenticated copy produced by the petitioner,
this Court does not see any reason to disbelieve the same. There is
yet another reason for accepting the copy of the lay out produced
by the petitioners; in the additional documents filed by way of
I.A.No. 3 of 2020, the sale deed (document No. 12880 of 2003)
executed by the owners of the property on 18.10.2003 in favour of 7
one Sri Vallakati Yadagiri, S/o Sri Babayya in relation to plot No.
104 of Sector-B over 300 square yards is placed. In the said sale
deed, towards West it was shown as school and its play ground.
Likewise, in the sale deed executed on 18.10.2003 under
document No. 12881 of 2003, the western boundary was shown as
school and play ground. It may be noted that the boundaries
mentioned in the petitioner's documents, towards Eastern side, it
was shown as plot Nos. 104 and 105. While the eastern boundary
of the petitioner's plot being Plot Nos. 104 and 105, Western
boundary of the plot Owners of 104 and 105 is the school. These
two documents are of the year 2003 and there is no dispute with
respect to them. Further, in exercise of the power conferred in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.151, MA & UD (M1) Department, dated
02.11.2015, the HMDA authorities had regularized Plot Nos. 105
and 104 vide proceedings dated 23.01.2018 and 29.01.2018. In
the face of this material placed before this Court, and there being
no challenge to its authenticity, the contention of the learned
Sanding Counsel for the 3rd respondent that there exists no lay out
and the land claimed by the petitioner is earmarked as 'park area'
is false and contrary to the record. It may also be noted that the
3rd respondent, in one paragraph of the counter-affidavit, totally
denied the existence of lay out and in another paragraph, had
taken a contra stand that copy of the lay out is available with the
gram panchayat records which prima facie go to show that the
sworn affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent is not truthful
and that he is liable to be prosecuted for perjury.
The judgment of this Court cited by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is squarely on this point and the learned Single 8
Judge, while rejecting various contentions, held that 1) the
authorities has power to modify a lay out even after the same is
released, however, subject to the condition of giving notice to the
residents of the colony and the gram panchayat (in the said case,
the challenge was to the lay out modification granted by the
HMDA); 2) the amenities areas in the approved lay out plan
continue to belong to the owner / profounder of the lay out , in the
absence of any transfer of their right in favour of the residents
society / local authority ; 3) there is no statutory provision
transferring the rights of the area earmarked for amenities other
than the areas transferred in favour of the local bodies for public
purpose and there is no automatic vesting of rights in local bodies
with respect to such lands; 4) there are no rules existing to execute
any gift deed in favour of the local authorities in respect of
'amenities area', unlike in respect of open areas and road areas.
This Court is in respectful agreement with the analysis, reasoning
and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge.
In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed holding
that the claim of the gram panchayat that the land vests with the
gram panchayat and as such they had right to interfere with the
possession and enjoyment of the petitioner as untenable. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any stand closed.
-----------------------------------
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
04th January 2021
LR copy be marked ksld 9 10
