Sanskruthi Township vs The State Of Telangana And 10 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 325 Tel

  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                       AND
      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                            W.A.No.28 of 2022

JUDGMENT:    (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


      This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed

in W.P.No.8767 of 2021 dt.17-01-2022 wherein the learned

Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the said Writ

Petition.


       2.   Heard Dr. Venkat Reddy Dontireddy, Counsel

for the appellant, Government Pleader for Municipal

Administration & Urban Development, appearing for the

1st respondent, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, Standing Counsel

for the 2nd respondent, Sri V.Narsimha Goud, Standing

Counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri Srinivasa Rao

Velivella, Counsel for 6th respondent.

3. It has been contended by the appellant that

the appellant is a Sanskruthi Township represented by

its Secretary and the grievance of the appellant is that

the 2nd respondent had issued notice on 01-04-2021

directing the appellants to remove the walls and gates of

the appellant township within three days by giving access

to internal roads of the closed township. Learned

counsel for the appellant had contended that the 2nd

respondent has issued impugned notice under Section 2 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.28 of 2022

185 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 treating

the compound wall and gates erected around the

township of the appellant as encroachments.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant had further

contended that the appellant township was developed by

the 4th respondent and at the time of allotment of the

dwelling units as developed by the 4th respondent, it was

clearly demarcated as a gated community and the 4th

respondent had constructed a compound wall all around

the appellant township and installed gates in order to

regulate the ingress and outgress of the appellant

township.

5. Challenging the impugned notice, the appellant

had filed the Writ Petition before this Court and the

learned Single Judge had dismissed the said Writ Petition

vide orders dt.17-01-2022. Challenging the same, the

present Writ Appeal is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant had

contended that all through the appellant township was

treated as a gated community and the 2nd respondent in

order to favour the unofficial respondents had issued the

impugned notice and directing the appellant township to

provide ingress and outgress to the neighbouring layouts.

                                  3                       HCJ & AKS,J
                                                     W.A.No.28 of 2022




Therefore,     learned     counsel     had    contended       that

appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal declaring

the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent on

01-04-2021 as bad in law and accordingly set aside the

same restraining the unofficial respondents from

demolishing the compound wall and removing the gates

of the appellant township.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal

Administration & Urban Development, appearing for the

1st respondent, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, learned Standing

Counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri V.Narsimha Goud,

learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, had

contended that the 4th respondent has requested the 3rd

respondent to permit the 4th respondent to make the

appellant township as a gated community but the

request of the 4th respondent was rejected by the 3rd

respondent by proceedings dt.25-04-2011 and the said

rejection orders have become final and the 4th respondent

nor the appellant has not challenged the said

proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent and in the

absence of any proceedings by the official respondents

declaring the appellant township be treated as a gated

community, the appellant cannot treat the appellant

township as a gated community and the learned Single 4 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.28 of 2022

Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by

the appellant. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ

Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3

had further contended that as per Rule 23-D of the

Telangana Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout

and Building) Rules, 2002, which deals with Gated

Community Development, and sub clause (t) of the said

Rules makes it very clear that the local body retains the

right to declare any road as public road in the interest of

overall connectivity and network in future. In exercise of

its power, the respondents are taking steps to provide

ingress and outgress to the neighbouring layouts

approved by the 3rd respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the official respondents

had further contended that after developing the appellant

township by the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent had

handed over all the roads and public utility places

including sub roads to the then Gram Panchayat on

08-12-2010 and all the roads in the appellant township

and public utility places are under the control of Gram

Panchayat and appellant township was never treated as a

gated community and in the absence of any proceedings 5 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.28 of 2022

declaring the appellant township as a gated community,

the appellant cannot prevent ingress and outgress to the

layouts which are abutting to the appellant township.

Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the

same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent had

further contended that the issue raised in the present

Writ Appeal is squarely covered by the judgment

rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case

related to Koganti Venkata Suryanarayana v.State of

Andhra Pradesh and others1, wherein a Division Bench

of this Court has finally held as under:

"20. As public roads and open spaces, in sanctioned lay outs belong to the Gram Panchayat under Section 53(1) of the 1994 Act, and as the 7th respondent, in compliance with the law, has gifted the public roads and open spaces to the 5th respondent-Gram Panchayat, their action, in constructing compound walls and erecting gates, over these roads in the sanctioned lay out is evidently illegal. The justification put forth by Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, is that the 7th respondent has been paying huge amounts as house-tax and profession tax; and the only gate on the southern side, and one of the two gates on the northern side, were erected, as per the advice of the Police, as a measure of security.

28. The 7th respondent shall, within four weeks from today, remove the encroachments on the public roads and the open spaces in the sanctioned lay out, which they had earlier gifted in favour of the 5th respondent gram

2018 (3) ALD 72 (DB) 6 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.28 of 2022

panchayat. In case the 7th respondent fails to do so, both the 5th respondent Gram Panchayat and the 4th respondent shall have the compound walls raised and the gates erected, over these public roads in the sanctioned layout removed, and the construction raised in open spaces demolished, within four weeks thereafter."

11. This Court having considered the rival

submissions made by the parties is of the considered

view that the official respondents have not issued any

proceedings or order in favour of the appellant declaring

the appellant township as a gated community and in the

absence of any proceedings or orders declaring the

appellant township as a gated community, the appellant

cannot contend that the appellant township will be

treated as gated community and the appellant should be

permitted to retain the compound wall along with gates.

On the other hand, the request made by the 4th

respondent to treat the appellant township as a gated

community was rejected by the 3rd respondent vide

proceedings dt.25-04-2011 and the said proceedings had

attained finality. The appellant nor the 4th respondent

had never questioned the rejection orders dt.25-04-2011

and more over all the roads and public utility places were

handed to the Gram Panchayat and the said Gram

Panchayat was upgraded to that of 2nd respondent

Municipality. So all the roads and public utility places of 7 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.28 of 2022

the appellant township are under the control of 2nd

respondent and the 2nd respondent has rightly issued

impugned notice directing the respondents to remove the

compound wall and the gates and the learned Single

Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by

the appellant township with a specific finding that there

is no proceedings or orders in favour of the appellant

whereby the appellant township was treated as a gated

community. In the absence of any proceedings in favour

of the appellant treating it as a gated community, no

direction can be issued to the respondents to permit the

appellant to retain the compound wall and the gates.

12. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ

Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 31.01.2022 Kvr