Telangana High Court
K. Parimala Reddy, vs Hyderabad Urban Development ... on 24 March, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.2510, 2511 and 2512 of 2005
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy
involved in the present cases, the writ appeals were
analogously heard and by a common judgment, they are
being disposed of by this Court.
The facts of the W.A.No.2510 of 2005 are as follows:-
The present writ appeal is arising out of an order
dated 09.12.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.21278 of 2004.
The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was
preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the
legality and validity of the revised/modified sanctioned
layout under EWS Scheme of the year 1999 issued by the
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The
appellant's/writ petitioner's grievance was that in the
modified layout the roads shown in the original layout plan
2
have been converted into house plots and the revised
layout is illegal and arbitrary.
The present case is certainly not an isolated case
challenging the revised layout which is subject matter of
the present writ appeal. Large number of writ petitions
were preferred by other plot owners and some of the writ
petitions registered as W.P.Nos.29937 of 1998 and 688 of
2000 were dismissed by this Court on 12.04.2000.
Thereafter, the persons aggrieved in the matter of revised
layout raised disputes before the Cooperative Sub-
Registrar/Arbitrator under Section 62(4) of the Andhra
Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. An award was
passed in the matter and while delivering the award, it was
held that the revised layout does not warrant any
interference. Meaning thereby, it is an admitted fact that
identically placed persons have earlier questioned the
revised layout before this Court and after being
unsuccessful before this Court, they took shelter of the
mechanism provided under the Andhra Pradesh
Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and again suffered an
award.
3
In spite of the aforesaid action, the writ petition has
been preferred and the learned Single Judge has dismissed
the writ petition.
The record of the case reveals that the appellant/writ
petitioner is the owner of plot in M/s. Mutyal Rao
Cooperative Housing Society Limited and in respect of the
said Society, the Gram Panchayat has sanctioned a layout
plan on 24.06.1968. The same was forwarded to the
Commissioner, Malkajgiri Municipality, and the
Commissioner has also approved the layout. The
appellant/writ petitioner is not the original allottee. She
has purchased the plot from the members of M/s. Mutyal
Rao Cooperative Housing Society Limited and the
members, when the plots were allotted to them, did not
challenge the layout at any point of time. The facts further
reveal that though the layout was modified to
accommodate more people under the EWS Housing
Scheme, the area intended for proposed school, community
hall, temple, septic tank and other open areas was left
untouched in the revised layout.
4
In considered opinion of this Court, the learned
Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.
It is not a case where the park or playground or a plot
meant for school has been converted into residential
locality. The appellant/writ petitioner is already having
access to her house, there is a road for her house and
therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere
with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
W.A.No.2510 of 2005 is accordingly dismissed.
The other two writ appeals i.e., W.A.Nos.2511 and
2512 of 2005 are also dismissed.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
24.03.2022
vs
