Telangana High Court

Sri K.Panduranga Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana, on 28 March, 2022

Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

   WRIT PETITION Nos.6520 of 2018 and 11925 of 2019

COMMON ORDER:

      Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is

interrelated with each other, they are taken up together and

disposed of by this common order.

      W.P. No.6520 of 2018 is filed by K. Panduranga Reddy

represented by his GPA M/s.Empire Meadows (Pvt.) Ltd., seeking

to declare the high handed action of respondents in encroaching

the property of the petitioner situated in survey No.166

admeasuring Acs.7-20 guntas situated at Ameenpur Village and

Gram Panchayat, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, as illegal

and arbitrary.

W.P. No.11925 of 2019 is filed by M/s.Empire Meadows

Pvt. Limited and Sri K. Panduranga Reddy, seeking to declare

the action of respondent No.2 in passing resolution dated

05.07.2017 allotting land admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards in survey

No.166 situated at Ameenpur Village and Gram Panchayat,

Sangareddy District, for construction of overhead water tank and

consequent allotment letters dated 05.07.2017, 10.11.2017

issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3, as illegal and arbitrary.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

they are arrayed in W.P. No.11925 of 2019.

2 AAR, J WP Nos.6520_2018&11925_2019

It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.2 Sri

K. Panduranga Reddy was the pattadar and enjoyer of survey

No.166 totally admeasuring Acs.7-20 guntas having purchased

the same through registered sale deed No.390/1963. Thereafter,

a rectification deed was executed by the parties and the extent of

land was reduced from Acs.7-20 gunts to Acs.7-14 guntas.

Subsequently, petitioner No.2 entered into a Development

Agreement with the petitioner No.1-M/s. Empire Meadows Pvt.

Limited, for developing the property. When the authorities of

respondent No.3-Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and

Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) tried to demolish the compound

wall, which was constructed by the petitioners, and tried to

encroach an area of 200 Sq. Yards, W.P. No.6520 of 2018 was

filed seeking to restrain the respondent No.3 from interfering

with the possession of the petitioners.

This Court on 06.03.2018 while admitting the Writ Petition

No.6520 of 2018 has directed the parties to maintain status quo,

obtaining as on that date. However, liberty was granted to the

respondent authorities to issue notice to the petitioner and take

appropriate action in accordance with law.

Along with vacate stay petition, a counter has been filed by

respondent-HMWSSB denying the title of the petitioners and

stating that the Gram Panchayat vide Resolution dated 3 AAR, J WP Nos.6520_2018&11925_2019

05.07.2017 has allotted an area of 200 Sq. Yards for the purpose

of construction of a overhead tank.

Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the petitioners

are not the owners and possessors of the said land and that it is

a temple land, which has been earmarked for the purpose of

constructing Lord Shiva Temple. Learned Standing Counsel has

also stated that by virtue of the approval of the layout granted by

the Gram Panchayat in respect of survey Nos.165 and 166, the

subject land is left open for Lord Shiva Temple, and the same is

vested with the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners have

absolutely no right, title, interest or possession over the same.

Learned Standing Counsel has also stated that on the earlier

occasion, petitioner No.1 has approached the Civil Court for

Injunction against some third parties vide O.S. No.62 of 2011 on

the file of Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The lower

Court after due trial has dismissed the suit vide judgment and

decree dated 03.01.2018 holding that the petitioner No.1 is not

the owner and possessor of the land. Learned Standing Counsel

has also stated that as long as the Resolution of the Gram

Panchayat dated 05.07.2017 and also the consequential letter of

allotment are not cancelled, W.P. No.6520 of 2018 filed by the

petitioner No.2 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

4 AAR, J WP Nos.6520_2018&11925_2019

After filing of the counter in W.P. No.6520 of 2018, the writ

petitioners have filed W.P. No.11925 of 2019 questioning the

Resolution of the Gram Panchayat as well as the consequential

allotment letters issued in favour of respondent No.3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that

when the entire land in survey No.166 is admittedly a private

patta land belonging to the petitioners, the action of the Gram

Panchayat allotting the land to respondent No.3 under the guise

of passing a Resolution is contrary to the well established

principles of law. Learned counsel has stated that as long as the

title is with the petitioners, the Gram Panchayat has no business

to allot any portion of the said land to respondent No.3 and has

therefore prayed this Court to set aside the Resolution of the

Gram Panchayat as well as the consequential allotment.

Respondent No.3 has filed a counter in W.P. No.11925 of

2019 wherein they have categorically stated that the Gram

Panchayat was well within its power to allot the land as the

same was vested with the Gram Panchayat. Learned Standing

Counsel has stated that once the Gram Panchayat has approved

the layout, the open places, parks, roads, etc. earmarked in the

said layout will vest with the Gram Panchayat. Learned

Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the

layout of the Gram Panchayat in respect of survey Nos.165 and 5 AAR, J WP Nos.6520_2018&11925_2019

166/P showing that in the layout a portion of the said land is

earmarked for Lord Shiva Temple. Learned Standing Counsel

has stated that once the Gram Panchayat has approved the

layout and as per the layout, the subject land falls within the

area of the land earmarked for Lord Shiva Temple, the

petitioners have no locus to challenge the said Resolution.

Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the petitioner No.1

having failed to obtain any orders in O.S. No.62 of 2011 on the

file of Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, had filed the

present Writ Petition. It is further stated that in the suit filed by

petitioner No.1 a categorical finding has been given by the trial

Court that petitioner No.1 is not the owner of the land which is

shown as belonging to Lord Shiva Temple. It is further stated

that subsequently, the Gram Panchayat was merged with the

Municipality. This Court vide order dated 08.02.2022 in I.A.2 of

2019 in W.P. No.11925 of 2019 has impleaded the Municipality

as respondent No.4.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.4-Municipality while reiterating the averments

made in the counter affidavit has stated that as per the Gram

Panchayat records, the subject land falls within the area

earmarked for Lord Shiva Temple. Therefore, the Gram 6 AAR, J WP Nos.6520_2018&11925_2019

Panchayat had every right to allot an area of 200 Sq. yards to

the HMWSSB.

Heard and perused the record.

A perusal of the material on record shows that admittedly,

the subject land is falling in survey No.166 and is part and

parcel of Acs.7-14 guntas purchased by the original pattadar

K. Panduranga Reddy i.e. petitioner No.2, who entered into a

Development Agreement with petitioner No.1. The petitioners

after obtaining necessary permission from the competent

authority have constructed the compound wall as well as multi

storied buildings in the area of Acs.7-14 guntas. As seen from

the record, initially the Gram Panchayat and thereafter the

HMDA have granted necessary permissions and the subject land

falls well within the area of survey No.166 of which there is no

dispute. The Gram Panchayat is laying claim over the subject

land on the basis of an approved layout granted by the Gram

Panchayat for survey Nos.165 and 166/P. A perusal of the

layout shows that there is absolutely no mention in the said

layout as to who has applied for the said layout and no record is

placed to show as to whether the said person who applied the

layout had any title to the property in survey No166. Except the

layout, no other proceedings are placed on record before this

Court to show as to whether the subject layout has been 7 AAR, J WP Nos.6520_2018&11925_2019

obtained by petitioner No.2 i.e. Sri K. Pandu Ranga Reddy or

someone else on his behalf. In the absence of the same, it

cannot be construed that the open spaces, parks or the land

earmarked for Lord Shiva Temple in the said layout vest with the

Municipality. The right, title and interest of the original owner of

survey No.166 i.e. petitioner No.2 cannot be divested on the

mere approval of a layout, more so, when the same is not

obtained by him. The Gram Panchayat cannot lay a claim on

the basis of the layout applied by any third party for the land

belonging to the petitioner No.2 i.e. Sri K. Pandu Ranga Reddy.

Even though respondent No.3 has vehemently tried to argue that

the subject land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and tried to

support the Gram Panchayat Resolution and the consequential

allotment letters, a perusal of the record shows that the Gram

Panchayat does not have any other document except the layout

copy and no other documents are filed to show that the subject

land vests with the Gram Panchayat. Moreover, in the counter

filed by respondent No.4, it is stated as under:

"6. It is submitted that in reply to para No.4, the content of this para, it is submitted that the petitioner stated that for the purpose of development of project, they have obtained various permissions from the authorities on different dates mentioned therein for construction of residential apartment in Sy.No.166 of Ameenpur (V) and Grampanchayat and raised compound wall and 8 AAR, J WP Nos.6520_2018&11925_2019

completed construction. It this regard, it is to submit that, the petitioner themselves have encroached land reserved for Lord Shivas Temple in approved Layout by the then Grampanchayat and obtained Building Permission by misrepresentation facts and also constructed the compound wall.

That apart, as seen from the record, the petitioners have

executed a gift deed dated 25.02.2017 in favour of the Gram

Panchayat in respect of the splay land of 1009.60 Sq. yards in

survey No.166 for the purpose of laying a road, which

undoubtedly proves that the petitioner No.2 is the owner of

survey No.166. Admittedly, the petitioners got a revised layout

from the HMDA and the said applications were processed

through Gram Panchayat concerned and necessary fee has also

been paid. As seen from the revised plans approved by the

HMDA, the subject land is also shown to be belonging to

petitioner No.2 and the Gram Panchayat did not object for

including the subject land in the Revised Plans even though they

were aware of the same. The revised plans hold good even till

date as no one has challenged the same. When such is the case,

it cannot be said that the petitioners do not have any title to the

subject land, which is admittedly falling in survey No.166. In

the absence of any record or document to show as to how the

Gram Panchayat has acquired the land in survey No.166, the 9 AAR, J WP Nos.6520_2018&11925_2019

question of they allotting the same to respondent No.3 for the

purpose of construction of overhead tank does not arise. Even

in the counter filed by respondent No.4-Municipality, they have

admitted that the petitioner is the owner of the land and that the

land is encompassed with a compound wall.

In Pt. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi1,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to consider whether the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in the absence of any provision

in the Delhi Corporation Act, 1957, was entitled to sanction a

plan for building activities by imposing a condition that the open

space for parks and schools be transferred to it free of cost.

Section 313 of the said Act entitled the Standing Committee of

the said Corporation to accord sanction to a layout plan on such

conditions as it may think fit. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held as under:

"Reserving any site for any street, open space, park, school etc. in a layout plan is normally a public purpose as it is inherent in such reservation that it shall be used by the public in general. The effect of such reservation is that the owner ceases to be a legal owner of the land in dispute and he holds the land for the benefit of the society or the public in general. It may result in creating an obligation in nature of trust and may preclude the owner from transferring or selling his interest in it. It may be true as held by the High Court that the interest which is left in the owner is a residuary interest which may be

1 (1995) 1 SCC 47 10 AAR, J WP Nos.6520_2018&11925_2019

nothing more than a right to hold this land in trust for the specific purpose specified by the coloniser in the sanctioned layout plan. But the question is, does it entitle the Corporation to claim that the land so specified should be transferred to the authority free of cost. That is not made out from any provision in the Act or on any principle of law. The Corporation by virtue of the land specified as open space may get a right as a custodian of public interest to manage it in the interest of the society in general. But the right to manage as a local body is not the same thing as to claim transfer of the property to itself. The effect of transfer of the property is that the transferor ceases to be owner of it and the ownership stands transferred to the person in whose favour it is transferred. The resolution of the Committee to transfer land in the colony for park and school was an order for transfer without there being any sanction for the same in law.

In the case on hand, the only claim to the property by

respondent Nos.3 and 4 is the layout for survey Nos.165 and

166/P where the subject property along with adjacent area is

shown to be earmarked as 'Lord Shiva Temple', but there is no

proof or document filed by the contesting respondents to show

that the petitioner No.2 had applied for the said layout and

therefore the said layout is binding on him.

For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the above of

proposition of law laid down in Ram Vashist (referred supra),

this Court is of the opinion that either the Gram Panchayat or

through them HMWSSB cannot not have any claim, right, title 11 AAR, J WP Nos.6520_2018&11925_2019

over the subject property in survey No.166 merely on the basis of