Heard Mr. T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Mr.
Mrs. D. Madhavi, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA appearing on
Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and Mr. Prabhakar
Chikkudu, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the
3. CASE OF THE PETITIONER:
Plot owners of M/s. Gayathri Gardens GPR Layout situated at
ii) Mr. Nagallamurali Mohan and others alienated the land
favour of M/s. GPR Housing Private Limited (GPRHPL) represented by
its Managing Director, Mr. G. Punna Rao, under two registered
document Nos.3758 and 3759 of 2000, both 14.07.1999, respectively.
iii) M/s. GPRHPL also acquired a total extent of Acs.52.00 from
developed the said land to an extent of Acs.52.00. Thereafter, M/s.
registered sale deeds. Most of the owners constructed residential,
commercial buildings/apartments over such plots.
vehicles and has been collecting the parking fees illegally. That apart, he
enjoyment of the property by the Members of the petitioner association.
considered. Aggrieved by the said inaction of the respondents, the
4. CONTENTION OF R2 - MUNICIPALITY:
illegal parking of vehicles. Thus, the allegations made by the petitioner
petition.
5. CONTENTION OF HMDA:
6. CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT No.5:
i) He along with his wife and brother and sisters purchased the
property admeasuring Acs.19.00 in Survey Nos.242 (Part), 246 (Part),
247 (Part), 249 (Part), 250 (Part), 251 (Part), 252 (Part) and 268 (Part)
under simple sale deeds executed in the year 1982 from the protected
tenants, who acquired the land under 38-E Certificate. Their names were
also mutated in revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds
were issued in their favour in the year 1996. Since the date of purchase,
he along with his family members has been in possession and enjoyment
of the said land.
KL,J
ii) His vendors preferred an appeal against them under Section -
5-B of the ROR Act, 1971, for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title
deeds in their favour. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) set aside
the pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in their favour.
iii) Challenging the same, he filed revision petition and the same
was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he along with his family
members filed writ petitions vide W.P. Nos.16554, 16563 and 16559 of
2005 wherein this Court granted interim orders. However, the said writ
petitions are pending before this Court.
iv) While so, when the protected tenants tried to enter into the
subject property, respondent No.5 and his family members filed a suit
vide O.S. No.418 of 1996 for perpetual injunction and the same was
decreed vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.2007. Aggrieved by the
same, the protected tenants preferred an appeal vide A.S. No.17 of 2008,
and learned I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District allowed the
said vide judgment dated 14.06.2011. Against the said judgment, the
petitioner and his family members preferred second appeal vide S.A.
No.1168 of 2011 before this Court wherein this Court granted interim
order on 28.09.2011 restraining the defendants in the suit from entering
the suit schedule property and the same was made absolute vide order
KL,J
dated 04.03.2013. Police protection was also granted. The said Second
appeal was dismissed for default and on the application filed by
respondent No.5 and other appellants, it was restored.
v) The petitioner association does not have any right to put the
common space in the land belonging to respondent No.5 and his family
members. The President of the petitioner association and its members
are land grabbers. In the said context, a case in Crime No.17 of 2024
dated 04.01.2024 was registered against them. However, the same was
closed by filing a final report. Another Crime was also registered against
them vide FIR No.599 of 2024, dated 22.07.2024 and the same is
pending. There are civil cases pending before the Civil Court.
7. ANLYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) The aforesaid rival contentions would reveal that according to
the petitioner, the vendor of the Members of the petitioner association
purchased the land admeasuring Acs.17.27 guntas in Survey Nos.246/A,
246/AA, 247/A, 248/U/A and 249/A; Acs.3.04 guntas in Survey
No.268/A, making a total extent of Acs.38.28 guntas, situated at
Bowrampet Village, Dundigal Municipality, Gandimaisamma - Dundigal
Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District under two registered AGPAs
bearing document Nos.3758 and 3759 of 2000. It is also the specific
KL,J
contention of the petitioners that M/s. GPRHPL acquired the total extent
of Acs.52.00 from original owners apart from the aforesaid extents under
various registered sale deeds. The said M/s. GPRHPL obtained layout
dated 08.06.1986 from the then Gram Panchayat, Bowrampet, developed
the said land, converted into the plots and sold it to various persons
under registered sale deeds including the Members of the petitioner
association. They are in possession of their respective plots.
ii) It is also relevant to note that the members of the petitioner
association, owners of the plots, after obtaining permission from the then
Gram Panchayat, respondent No.2, constructed residential, commercial
houses, apartments in their respective plots.
iii) Respondent No.5 claims to be the owner of the land
admeasuring Acs.19.00 in Survey Nos.242 (Part), 246 (Part), 247 (Part),
249 (Part), 250 (Part), 251 (Part), 252 (Part) and 268 (Part), exploiting
the open spaces/lay out, converted them into illegal parking of lorries
and other vehicles and has been collecting parking fee from the owners
of the vehicles. Thus, he is doing 'trading' without following due
procedure laid down under law. He has also allowed the illegal activities
in open spaces and thereby causing nuisance in enjoyment of the subject
land by the members of the petitioner association. Therefore, they have
KL,J
submitted representations dated 21.11.2022, 28.11.2022, 13.12.2022 and
27.12.2022 to respondent Nos.1 to 4 with a request to look into the
matter and take action against respondent No.5. Despite receiving and
acknowledging the same, respondent Nos.1 to 4 did not act upon the
same. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
iv) Respondent No.3 filed counter contending that the layout
issued by the then Gram Panchayat, Bowrampet dated 08.06.1986 is not
valid in law as the layout is supposed to be granted by the then HUDA or
now the HMDA. With regard to the open spaces, whether it is
authorized or unauthorized, the same should be safeguard by the local
authority i.e., respondent No.2 Municipality herein. However, the
petitioner did not submit any representation to respondent No.3.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any relief against respondent No.3.
v) According to respondent No.2, on receipt of the said
representations, its staff inspected the site and noticed that there are no
construction activities under progress. However, lorries and heavy
vehicles are parked in the private lands, but not in the open spaces as
alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No.2 requested the
Police to look into the said illegal parking of vehicles.
KL,J
vi) It is apt to note that on 12.04.2023, this Court passed the
following interim order:
"In view of the submission of learned Standing
Counsel, respondent No.4 is directed to take
appropriate action on the letters addressed by
respondent No.2 - Municipality and place a report
before this Court by the next date of hearing."
vii) Respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 10.02.2023 to the
Station House Officer, Dundigal Police Station, stating that the
Municipal Authorities have inspected the subject property and observed
that some lorries and other vehicles are being parked in Survey
Nos.246/AAA (P), 247/A, 248/U/A, 249/A, 269/A of Bowrampet
Village, as such the matter pertains to Traffic Police Department and no
construction activities have been noticed.
viii) Pursuant to the said letter, the Station House Officer,
Dundigal Police Station, submitted its reply dated 20.11.2023 stating that
he has visited the subject property on 16.11.2023, made a G.D. entry, got
enquired and found that there are so many vehicles i.e., lorries were
parked in the subject land. On enquiry with both the parties, it came to
know that a civil dispute is pending between Smt. Puchakayala Swathi
Reddy & others and respondent No.5 vide O.S. No.203 of 2022. There
KL,J
is an interim injunction. The said suit is pending. Respondent No.4
issued a memo to DCP, Medchal Zone, Cyberabad, requesting him to
send a detailed enquiry report on the letters addressed by respondent
No.2 Municipality. The DCP Medchal Zone, Hyderabad, in turn
requested the Station House Officer, Dundigal Police Station, to enquire
and submit a detailed enquiry report. Accordingly, the Station House
Officer, Dundigal Police Station has visited the subject property, caused
enquiry. He has requested the Tahsildar, Gandimaisamma - Dundigal
Tahsil, to furnish the report as to whether the land in Survey
Nos.246/AAA, 247/A, 248/U/A, 249/A, 269/A of Bowrampet is a
private or government land. The Tahsildar furnished the report stating
that the subject land is a patta land belongs to private parties.
ix) Except the writ petitioner, no other owner of the land/property
gave any complaint either to respondent No.4 or to the concerned Police
Station. With regard to the collection of parking fee by respondent No.5,
it is within the domain of respondent No.2. Therefore, vide letter dated
25.10.2024, the Station House Officer, Dundigal Police Station has
addressed a letter to respondent No.2 with a request to furnish the details
as to whether any permission was granted to respondent No.4 for parking
of vehicles/lorries in the subject property.
KL,J
x) The police can interfere with the illegal parking in the
following instances:
i. No parking zones: Parking is strictly prohibited in designated
no parking zones and any area where parking is explicitly
disallowed.
ii. Side walks and private property: vehicles should not be
parked on side walks or too far away from them, and parking
on the private property without the owners permission is not
allowed.
iii. Heavy traffic areas: parking is prohibited on main roads or
any road with heavy traffic to avoid obstructions.
iv. Traffic flow: vehicles should be parked on the opposite side of
the road from other parked vehicles or a long side them
ensuring that traffic flow is not impeded.
v. Road markings: parking is not allowed on roads with a
continuous white line in the center, in front of gates or
obstructing building entrances.
vi. Proximity to facilities: Parking is restricted near bus stops,
schools, hospitals and locations where it may obstruct views of
road signs.
vii. Traffic signals and crossings: vehicles should not be parked
near traffic signals, pedestrian crossing or on bridges as towing
may be enforced.
On consideration of the aforesaid facts, according to respondent No.4,
the police can interfere only when there is specific complaint with regard
to illegal parking if the parking is done on the highways or within the
Government lands. The subject property is private property and civil
disputes are pending. Respondent No.4 has submitted his report dated
28.10.2024 to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
KL,J
xi) Respondent No.5 and his family members are claiming that
they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring
Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.242, Acs.4.20 guntas in Survey No.247,
Acs.2.38 guntas in Survey No.249, Acs.3.01 guntas in Survey No.250,
Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.251, Acs.5.20 guntas in Survey No.252 and
Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.268, making a total extent of Acs.19.00
guntas with the following boundaries:
North : Land belongs to Matrusree Educational Society
South : Land belongs to Dr. Srinivas Rao
East : Main Tar Road
West : Land belongs to Venkatram Chandrareddy.
xii) It is also apt to note that respondent No.5 and his family
members are claiming the aforesaid property contending that they have
purchased the same under simple sale deeds from the protected tenants -
38-E Certificate Holders. Their names were also mutated in revenue
records. Old Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued by the
Revenue Authorities. The land owners filed an appeal under Section 5-B
of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for
short 'ROR Act, 1971') before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO),
who in turn allowed the said appeal setting aside the mutation
proceedings issued in favour of respondent No.5 and his family
members. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 and his
KL,J
family members filed a revision under Section - 9 of the ROR Act, 1971
and the same was dismissed. Challenging the said orders, respondent
No.5 and his family members filed writ petitions vide W.P. Nos.16554,
16563 and 16559 of 2005, and this Court granted interim orders. The
said writ petitions are pending and the interim orders are subsisting.
xiii) When the landlords of the property claimed by respondent
No.5 and his family members interfered with the possession of
respondent No.5 and his family members, they have filed a suit vide O.S.
No.418 of 1996 against the landlords and others seeking perpetual
injunction. The said suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree in O.S. No.418 of 1996,
the landlords preferred an appeal vide A.S. No.17 of 2008 and the same
was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No.418 of
1996. Challenging the said judgment, respondent No.5 and his family
members preferred a second appeal vide S.A. No.1168 of 2011 before
this Court, wherein this Court granted interim injunction restraining the
respondents therein from interfering with the possession of respondent
No.5 herein and his family members over the suit schedule property.
The said S.A. is pending and the said interim injunction is also
subsisting. This Court also granted police protection to them. It is also
KL,J
apt to note that once the said SA was dismissed for default, on the
application filed by respondent No.5 and his family members, the same
was restored to its original position. The same is pending now.
xiv) It is also apt to note that one Mrs. Puchakayala Swathi
Reddy, owner of plots, filed a suit vide O.S. No.203 of 2022 against
respondent No.5 herein seeking perpetual injunction. In the said suit,
she has also filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.198 of 2022
seeking temporary injunction, and the trial Court vide order 14.03.2023
granted the temporary injunction restraining respondent No.5 herein
from interfering into the possession and enjoyment of petitioner therein
over the suit schedule property. The said suit is pending and the said
temporary injunction is subsisting. Aggrieved by the said order of
injunction, respondent No.5 preferred an appeal vide CMA No.1376 of
2023 and the same is pending. However, there is no interim order.
xv) It is also apt to note that several other plot owners have also
filed similar suits against respondent No.5 and his family members vide
O.S. Nos.1652, 1376, 2997 and 278 of 2022 and the same are pending.
xvi) Respondent No.5 and his family members filed a writ
petition vide W.P. No.18769 of 2023 against the respondents therein to
declare the action of Municipality in granting permission to the plot
KL,J
owners for construction of building as illegal, and the same was
dismissed as withdrawn on 08.09.2023.
xvii) It is the specific case of the petitioner that many of the plot
owners obtained permission from the then Gram Panchayat and also
respondent No.2 Municipality, constructed residential houses,
commercial buildings and apartments etc., and they are living in the
same. Even then, respondent No.5 is permitting heavy vehicles parked
in the open spaces of the subject land and collecting fee illegally. He is
also running a Petrol Bunk in the subject land. Even in the report of
respondent No.4, dated 28.10.2024 and counter filed by respondent
No.2, it is specifically stated that there are structures and sheds etc., on
the subject land. On inspection of subject land, the Police of Dundigal
and respondent No.2 also found parking of heavy vehicles, sheds,
commercial activities in the subject property.
xviii) In paragraph No.17 of the counter filed by respondent No.5,
he has specifically contended that he and his relatives are absolute
owners and possessors of the land situated in Survey Nos.249/Part,
250/Part and 251/Part of Bowrampet Village and he has given parking
20 years ago to one Mr. Sudhakar Reddy, who is his site Manager since
then, till date he is maintaining parking as well as maintaining total site.
KL,J
The petitioner association is making representations to the official
respondents to vacate the subject land. Thus, even according to
respondent No.5, he is collecting parking fee through Mr. Sudhakar
Reddy.
xix) The aforesaid facts would reveal that there are serious title
disputes with regard to the subject property. The aforesaid suits, writ
petitions, CMA and Second Appeal etc., are pending. Injunctions are
also subsisting. Two Crimes were also pending in respect of the subject
land. The said title disputes appear to be serious in nature. Therefore,
this Court cannot consider the said aspects in a writ petition filed under
Article - 226 of the Constitution of India.
xx) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is
that it had submitted representations to respondent Nos.2 to 4 informing
them the illegal activities of respondent No.5 and requested them to take
action against respondent No.5.
xxi) In is the specific contention of the petitioner that they have
purchased the plots under different registered sale deeds and respondent
No.5 is parking vehicles in the open space of the layout obtained by their
Vendor from the then Gram Panchayat, Bowrampet, dated 08.06.1986.
It is also the specific case of the petitioner that its Vendor - M/s.
KL,J
GPRHPL purchased the land admeasuring Acs.5.05 guntas and Ac.0.29
guntas from the wife of respondent No.5 under two registered sale deeds
bearing document Nos.6426 of 1996 and 4167 of 1998, respectively.
Respondent Nos.3 and 5 in S.A. No.1168 of 2011 died. Even then,
respondent No.5 herein and his family members, the appellants therein,
did not take any step to bring legal representatives of the said deceased
respondents on record. Respondent No.5 has also filed a writ petition
vide W.P. No.27366 of 2022 challenging the permission granted to Mrs.
Puchakayala Swathi Reddy and the same was dismissed on the ground of
suppression of the suit vide O.S. No.203 of 2022 by the said Mrs.
Puchakayala Swathi Reddy.
xxii) It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that vendor
of the Members of the petitioner association i.e., M/s. GPRHPL is not a
party to the said suit and also the second appeal. The said injunction
order is not binding on them.
xxiii) It is also the specific contention of the petitioner that
respondent No.5 cannot do illegal activities including trading,
commercial activities by permitting heavy vehicles in the open space of
the said layout and collect parking fee without obtaining permission
from respondent No.2 Municipality. The petitioner has also filed
KL,J
receipts in proof of collection of parking fee from the vehicle owners and
also photographs.
xxiv) In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is apt to refer to
Sections - 2 (21), 2 (22), 2 (39), 2 (40), 2 (46), 2 (55), 2 (58), 2 (69), 2
(103) and 2 (108), 161, 162, 158, 137, 139, 142, 171 of the Telangana
Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short 'Act, 2019').
"2(3) 'building' includes a house, out-house, stable,
latrine, godown, shed, hut, wall, fencing, platform
and any other structure whether of masonry, bricks,
wood, mud, metal or of any other material
whatsoever."
"2(21) "development" means the carrying out of any
activity of construction or building, or other
operations in, or over, or under land or water, or
the making of any material changes or otherwise, in
any building or land or any part thereof, or in the use
of any building or land, and includes any repairs or
redevelopment and layout and sub-division of any
land; and "to develop" shall be construed
accordingly."
"2(22) "development charge" means a charge levied
for the purpose of any development activity."
"2(39) "house" means a building or hut fit for human
occupation, whether as a residence or otherwise,
having a separate principal entrance from the
KL,J
common way, and includes any shop, workshop or
warehouse or any building used for garaging or
parking buses or as a bus-stand."
"2(40) "hut" means any building which is
constructed principally of wood, mud, leaves, grass
or thatch and includes any temporary structure of
whatever size or any small building of whatever
material made, which the council may declare to be a
hut for the purposes of this Act."
"2(46) "license" means a license issued under this
Act."
"2(55) "municipal property" means and includes
municipal open spaces, auditoriums, parks,
playgrounds, community halls, municipal roads,
pavements, street lights, garbage, nalas, municipal
drain, municipal market, municipal slaughter-house
or water works and all such other structures,
buildings, etc. belonging to and managed by the
Municipality under this Act."
"2(58) "nuisance" includes any act, omission, place
or thing which causes or is likely to cause injury,
danger, annoyance or offence to the sense of sight,
smell or hearing or disturbance to rest or sleep or
which is or may be dangerous to life or injurious to
health or property of the public or the people in
general who dwell or occupy in the vicinity or
persons who may have occasion to use any public
right."
KL,J
"2(69) "public place" includes any path, garden or
ground or any other place to which public have or are
permitted to have access."
"2(103) "waste" means solid waste or semi-solid
domestic waste, sanitary waste, commercial waste,
institutional waste, catering and market waste and
other non-residential waste, street sweeping, silt
removed or collected from the surface drains,
horticulture waste, agriculture and dairy waste,
industrial waste, bio-medical waste and e-waste,
battery waste, radioactive waste generated in the area
under the Municipality."
"2(108) The words and expressions used in this Act,
but not defined shall have the meanings assigned to
them in the relevant Acts."
"137. No person shall build any wall or erect any
fence or cause any other obstruction or projection or
make any encroachment in or over any public road,
except as hereinafter provided,-
(a) no door, gate, extension of any structure
whatsoever, or ground floor window, shall, be hung
or be placed so as to open upon any public road,
without a license from the authority;
(b) the Municipal Commissioner may require the
owner or occupier of any building to remove or alter
any projection, encroachment, or obstruction, situated
against or in front of such building, and in or over
any public road vested in the Municipality."
KL,J
"139. (1) No person shall cause any damage to the
roads, footpaths, road margins in any manner
whatsoever. Any violation thereof shall attract
appropriate action, including penal action. The
amount as required to repair the said damage shall be
recovered from the said person in the manner
prescribed.
(2) No person shall plant any tree on any public
road, or other property vesting in or belonging to the
Municipality, except with the previous permission of
the Municipal Commissioner, and on such conditions
as may be imposed.
(3) No person shall fell, remove, destroy, lop or strip
bark, leaves or fruits, from, or otherwise damage any
tree vesting in or belonging to Municipality or
Government, except with the previous permission
from the Municipal Commissioner or competent
authority, and on such conditions as the Municipality
may impose."
"142. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the
Municipality may, either on its own or through any
other agency authorized by it in this behalf, as and
when necessary, having regard to the abutting land
uses and traffic flow patterns, implement traffic
engineering schemes to ensure public safety,
convenience and expeditious movement of traffic,
including pedestrian traffic."
KL,J
"158. The Municipality may publish a notification
specifying conditions and required certificates
including no objection certificates from the required
agencies such as pollution control board, and in the
prescribed manner for the purposes for conducting
any trade in the Municipality. The request for the
license along with required documents as prescribed
shall be made online and issued accordingly. A fine
of 25 times shall be levied in case it is found that self
certification was done wrongly with malafide
intention."
"161. (1) The Municipality shall take steps to
remove, put down and abate all nuisances affecting
public peace, tranquility, public safety, public health,
morals and decency within its jurisdiction on public
or private premises, and may proceed at law against
any person committing any such nuisances for the
abatement thereof and for damages.
(2) No person shall,-
(a) unauthorizedly affix upon any building,
monument, post, wall, fence, tree or other public
place, any bill, notice or other document, or
(b) deface, or write upon, or otherwise mark on any
building, monument, post, wall, fence, tree or other
public place, or
(c) litter the public places, streets, roads, parks,
playgrounds and other such places, or
KL,J
(d) carry rubbish, filth or other polluted and
obnoxious matter along any route in contravention of
any prohibition made in this behalf by the authority,
or
(e) bury or cremate or otherwise dispose of any
corpse at a place not licensed for the purpose, or
(f) disturb public peace or order in violation of
sound pollution control, or
(g) cause pollution of air in violation of air pollution
control order, if any, or
(h) cause obstruction to the movement of vehicular
or pedestrian traffic without permission from the
competent authority, or
(i) affix indecent or obscene pictures or printed or
written matter or any poster, bill, notice or other
paper or means of advertisement against or upon any
street, building, wall, tree, board, fence or pole or
writes upon, spoils, defaces or marks any such
building, wall, tree, board, fence or place with chalk
or paint or any other way whatsoever, or
(j) quarry, blast, cut timber or carry on building
operations in such manner as to cause, or likely to
cause danger to persons passing by, or dwelling or
working in the neighborhood.
(3) Any person who fails to comply with any order
under this sub-section shall be liable for fine in
addition to penal action, as prescribed."
"162. Subject to the provisions of any law relating to
air, water or noise pollution, for the time being in
KL,J
force, and in accordance with any notification by the
State Government in that behalf, the Municipality
may function as a competent authority for the
enforcement of such law:
Provided that recovery of charges and imposition of
penalty, is levied on those persons who are directly
responsible for causing pollution of any kind referred
above as prescribed by the Government."
"171. (1) There shall be, in every Municipality, and
in a defined time frame, a Master Plan comprising of
a detailed planning scheme, land pooling scheme,
local area plan having components of Water Supply
Network Plan, Drainage and Sewerage Plan,
Sanitation Plan, Urban green spaces Plan, and Traffic
& Transport Plan as prescribed in the Telangana
Town Planning Act, 1920 and the Telangana Urban
Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and such a plan shall
be the guiding principle for overall development of
the town.
(2) For securing planned development of areas in
Municipalities, a Detailed Planning Scheme or Local
Area Plan shall be prepared for specific areas as
identified and notified, and as prescribed in the
Telangana Town Planning Act, 1920. Detailed
Planning scheme shall be prepared in conformity with
Master Plan or Indicative Land Use Plan, if any, and
shall have ecologically sensitive areas earmarked, and
shall have detailed Road Network Plan, Urban Green
Spaces Plan, Drainage Plan, Water Trunk Lines, Rain
KL,J
Water Harvesting Structures and Solid Waste
Management among the other as prescribed."
xxv) It is also relevant to note that Sections - 280 and 281 of the
Act, 2019 deals with 'duties of Police Officers' and 'Power of Police
Officers to arrest persons' respectively. Section - 282 deals with
'exercise of powers of Police Officer by Municipal Officers or
Employees'.
xxvi) Rule - 3 (a) of the Telangana Regularization of Unapproved
and Illegal Layout Rules, 2019 for newly constituted Municipalities
issued by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.251, MA & UD (Plg.III)
Department, dated 14.10.2019 deals with 'unapproved/illegal layout',
and it says that sub-division of land into plots with or without developed
roads, open spaces and amenities and without the approval of the
competent authority.
xxvii) In the light of the aforesaid provisions and the Rules, the
petitioner has specifically alleged that respondent No.5 is collecting
parking fee by permitting heavy vehicles for parking in open spaces of
the layout dated 08.06.1986 and also doing illegal activities by erecting
sheds and fencing etc. Therefore, the same is in violation of the
procedure laid down under the Act, 2019. Even in the counter filed by
KL,J
respondent No.5, he has categorically admitted about maintenance of the
said site, collection of parking fee by engaging one Mr. Sudhakar Reddy,
Site Manager.
xxviii) It is also relevant to note that the Station House Officer,
Dundigal Police Station requested respondent No.2 to furnish the details
as to whether any permission was granted to respondent No.5 for parking
of heavy vehicles and collection of fee etc. In the counter filed by
respondent No.2, there is no mention about the same. Even he has not
furnished the said details to the Station House Officer, Dundigpal Police
Station. The report of respondent No.4 dated 28.10.2024 is also silent
about the same.
8. CONCLUSION:
i) In the light of the aforesaid discussion and also considering the
pendency of the aforesaid Suits, Writ Petitions, CMA and Second
Appeal etc., this writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
(a) Respondent No.2 shall consider the representations dated
21.11.2022, 28.11.2022, 13.12.2022 and 27.12.2022 submitted by
the petitioner association, inspect the subject property and take
action against respondent No.5 strictly in accordance with the
KL,J
procedure laid down under the Act, 2019 by putting the Petitioner
Association and respondent No.5 on notice and affording them an
opportunity of hearing;
(b) Respondent No.2 shall consider the allegation made by the
petitioner that respondent No.5 permitting heavy vehicles to park
in the subject property and collect parking fee without obtaining
permission/license from it;
(c) Respondent No.2 shall also consider the aspect that respondent
No.5 and his family members claiming to be the owners of the
land admeasuring Acs.19.00 in Survey Nos.242 (Part), 246 (Part),
247 (Part), 249 (Part), 250 (Part), 251 (Part), 252 (Part) and 268
(Part) of Bowrampet Village, can permit heavy vehicles to park in
the said land and collect parking fee without obtaining permission
from respondent No.2 Municipality;
(d) Respondent No.2 shall also consider as to whether permissions
were obtained by respondent No.5 and others for construction of
sheds, structures and fencing etc. over the subject property since
the same would come under the definition of 'building' as
enshrined in Section - 2 (d) of the Act, 2019;
KL,J
(e) Respondent No.2 shall also consider the contention of the
Members of the petitioner association that they have purchased
open plots under various registered sale deeds from its Vendor i.e.,
M/s. GPRHPL basing on the Layout dated 08.06.1986 issued by
the then Gram Panchayat, Bowrampet;
(f) Respondent No.2 shall also consider pendency of the aforesaid
Suits, Writ Petitions, CMA and Second Appeal etc. and the
interim injunctions/orders passed therein etc. and shall not get into
the title disputes between respondent No.5 and his family
members and the defendants in the aforesaid suits;
(g) Respondent No.2 shall complete the entire exercise within a
period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order; and
(h) The District Collector, Medchal - Malkajgiri District shall take all
necessary steps for disposal of the aforesaid writ petitions and
second appeal i.e., W.P. Nos.16554, 16563 and 16559 of 2005 and
S.A. No.1168 of 2011 in respect of the subject property to avoid
multiplicity of litigation;
ii) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
KL,J
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
31st January, 2025
Mgr
