Telangana High Court

Amar Society Plot Owners Welfare ... vs The State Of Telangana on 9 June, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                 WRIT PETITION No.25899 OF 2018
ORDER:

Heard Mr. P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.

G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2

& 3 and Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.4 & 5.

2. CASE OF THE PETITIONER:

i) The petitioner is an Association registered under the provisions

of the Societies Registration Act, 2001 with registration No.651 of 2014.

It comprises of Plot Owners of Amar Society Layout situated in Survey

No.47, Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy

District, covering an area of Acs.15.23 guntas.

ii) The said land is a private patta land. Land conversion

proceedings under Section - 61 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land

Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli were also issued by the Collector, Hyderabad,

vide proceedings dated 22.03.1970 in respect of the aforesaid land.

iii) The aforesaid extent of land was the subject matter of

regularization under G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 16.08.2008 and the same

was said to be declared as surplus land under the provisions of the Urban

KL,J

Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The same was done on

collection of value of land fixed by the concerned authorities.

iv) Adjacent to the private land in Survey No.47 of Guttala

Begumpet Village, there is an old Water Body known as 'Durgam

Cheruvu'.

v) An extent of 1334 square yards of land is earmarked for

'amenities' on southern portion in the aforesaid layout. The said area

does not comprise of residential plots as the same is meant for common

communal use of residents of the Layout and cannot be owned by any

single individual.

vi) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 constructed an unauthorized

compound wall around the amenities area i.e., 1334 square yards. When

the petitioner society questioned, they represented that the said area

consists of Plot Nos.140 and 141 having purchased under a registered

sale deed dated 06.07.2007 and Gift Deed dated 28.07.2007. Thus, the

said area has been shown as plot Nos.140 and 141 illegally. Basing on

the same, respondent Nos.4 and 5 offered the said area to the GHMC for

public purpose and in lieu thereof, they are claiming Transferrable

Development Rights (TDR).

KL,J

vii) Therefore, the petitioner association made representations

dated 11.01.2018 and 14.06.2018 to the GHMC. Despite receiving and

acknowledging the same, respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not act upon the

same. Aggrieved by their inaction, the petitioner filed the present writ

petition.

3. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.2 & 3:

i) If any extent of land is earmarked for 'amenities' in the layout,

the same should be used for common purpose, like School, Hospital or

any other purpose as designated in the layout.

ii) The Layout Developer and Owner do not have right over 10%

open space.

iii) The plots of respondent Nos.4 and 5 are falling in the FTL

limits of Durgam Cheruvu as per FTL boundaries. Therefore, no

permission was accorded.

iv) On inspection, it is found that respondent Nos.4 and 5 made

unauthorized construction of compound wall without obtaining prior

building permission from the respondent Corporation.

v) The Irrigation Department along with Revenue Officials,

GHMC and HMDA Officials conducted a survey and prepared a

KL,J

map/plan indicating the area falling within the FTL boundary of Durgam

Cheruvu as per the FTL stones/points fixed by the Irrigation Department.

vi) As per G.O.Ms.No.168, MA, dated 07.04.2012, no

building/development activity shall be allowed in the bed of water

bodies, like river or nala and in the FTL of any lake, pond, cheruvu or

kuntas/shikam land.

vii) The subject land is falling within the FTL limits of the

aforesaid Durgam Cheruvu. Therefore, the respondent Corporation has

issued a show-cause notice dated 28.12.2017 under Sections - 452 (1)

and 461 (1) of the HMC Act, 1955 to respondent Nos.4 and 5. They

have not submitted any explanation. Therefore, notice dated 06.01.2018

was issued under Section - 452 (2) of the HMC Act, 1955 and also final

notice dated 17.01.2018 under Section - 636 of the HMC Act, 1955.

viii) Thereafter, respondent Nos.4 and 5 approached the Civil

Court by filing a suit vide O.S. No.19 of 2018. Upon filing counter by

the respondent Corporation, the interim injunction granted earlier stood

vacated. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation got demolished

unauthorized compound wall in the subject property. Thus, there is no

inaction on its part as alleged by the petitioner.

KL,J

4. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.4 & 5:

i) The subject plots are not an open space. Under Rule 10 (1) of

the A.P. Municipalities (Layout) Rules, 1970, open space shall be

limited to 10% of maximum gross area covered by the Layout.

ii) The Society had already set apart 11.65% of the gross area

covered by the Layout at the time of seeking permission for layout for

park area (under open space). In W.P. No.3317 of 2008, this Court also

observed that the park area at 11.65% said to have been gifted appears to

be beyond the requirements of the relevant condition or rule.

iii) The subject land has been divided into two (02) plots. The

society has transferred Plot No.140 in favour of Mr. Madanlal Agarwal

vide sale deed bearing document No.6760 of 1995. Subsequently, the

legal heirs of Mr. Madanlal Agarwal transferred the said plot in favour of

respondent No.4 vide sale deed bearing document No.9091 of 2007.

iv) Similarly, the Society transferred Plot No.141 in favour of Mr.

Dayanand Gupta vide sale deed bearing document No.6742 of 1995 and,

thereafter, the said Dayanand Gupta transferred the said plot in favour of

respondent No.5 vide sale deed bearing document No.8810 of 2007.

KL,J

v) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 never offered the subject lands to

respondent No.2 for public purpose and never sought TDR as alleged in

the writ affidavit.

5. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, according to the

petitioner, the subject land admeasuring 1334 square yards is earmarked

for 'amenities' on southern portion of the Layout. The said area does not

contain residential plots as the same is meant for common communal use

of the residents of the layout and cannot be owned by any single

individual. Even then, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have obtained registered

documents illegally and constructed a compound wall around the said

amenities area. They have also offered to the GHMC for public purpose,

and in lieu of the same, they are claiming TDS. Therefore, the petitioner

association submitted the aforesaid two (02) representations dated

11.01.2018 and 14.06.2018 to respondent No.3 and also the Zonal

Commissioner, GHMC, with a request to take action against respondent

Nos.4 and 5. Whereas, according to respondent Nos.4 and 5, the subject

property is not earmarked for the purpose of open space/public

amenities. They are claiming right over the subject property under

registered documents.

KL,J

ii) In the light of the said submissions, it is relevant to note that

Mrs. Kanta Devi, wife of late Madanlal Agarwal & their four children

have executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.9091 of 2007,

dated 06.07.2007, in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of Open Plot

No.140 admeasuring 667 square yards in Survey No.47 of Amar Co-

operative Housing Society, Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally

Mandal and Municipality, Rangareddy District. The husband of Mrs.

Kanta Devi, late Madanlal Agarwal, purchased the said open Plot

No.140 from the aforesaid Housing Society under a registered sale deed

bearing document No.6760 of 1995, dated 30.05.1995. The said

Madanlal Agarwal died intestate on 08.08.2003 leaving the Vendors of

respondent No.4 as his legal heirs. Thus, they have sold the said open

plot No.140 to respondent No.4 under the aforesaid document. In the

document No.9091 of 2007, dated 06.07.2007, it is also specifically

mentioned that after the demise of Madanlal Agarwal, it was observed

that the said property was affected under Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) Act

and, therefore, they have obtained regularization proceedings vide

G.O.Ms.No.455 of Revenue (UL-I) Department, dated 29.07.2002 and

G.O.Ms.No.1262 of Revenue (UC-III) Department, dated 31.08.2006. It

is further mentioned that they have no funds to pay the said amount and,

KL,J

therefore, they have requested respondent No.4 to pay the said amount

and accordingly he has paid the said amount for regularization and

accordingly regularization proceedings were obtained.

iii) As far as Plot No.141 is concerned, Mr. Dayanand Gupta, son

of late Dulichand, had executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed

bearing document No.8810 of 2007, dated 28.06.2007 in favour of his

sister, Smt. Krishna Agarwal, respondent No.5 herein in respect of Open

Plot No.141, admeasuring 667 square yards. In the said document, it is

mentioned that Mr. Dayanand Gupta purchased the said Plot No.141

from the aforesaid Housing Society under a registered sale deed bearing

document No.6742 of 1995, dated 30.05.1995. This plot was also

affected under ULC Act and the same was regularized under the

aforesaid G.Os. It is relevant to note that respondent No.5 is the mother

of respondent No.4.

iv) To show that the subject property is earmarked for 'common

amenities/commercial', the petitioner association has filed Layout. The

said Layout bears the signature of Mr. Dayanand Gupta, the then

President of M/s. Amar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited. Thus,

the said Dayand Gupta is none other than the brother of respondent No.5.

Further, the said Layout was issued by the competent authority i.e.,

KL,J

Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in the year 1995.

Permit number and date are also specifically mentioned therein. The

Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality has also endorsed that it is

final layout. Thus, according to the petitioner association, the subject

property is earmarked for common amenities/commercial and respondent

Nos.4 and 5 cannot claim that it is open plots consists of Plot Nos.140

and 141 purchased from the aforesaid Housing Society.

v) Section - 2 (a) of the Telangana Urban Area (Development)

Act, 1975 (for short 'Act, 1975') deals with 'amenity', and it includes

road, water supply, street, lighting, drainage, sewerage, public works,

tourists spots, open spaces, parks and play fields, and such other

convenience as the Government may, by notification, specify to be an

amenity for the purpose of the said Act, 1975.

vi) Section - 2 (e) of the Act, 1975 deals with 'development', and

it says that with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of all

or any of the works contemplated in a master plan or zonal development

plan referred to in this Act, and the carrying out of building, engineering,

mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of

any material change in any building or land and includes re-

development. Chapter - IV deals with 'development of lands'.

KL,J

vii) In R.G.S.G. Karyalaya, rep. by its proprietor T. Srinu v.

The APIICL1, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad had an

occasion to deal with the aforesaid Act, Rules, scope and ambit of

definition of 'development' and held that any activity of causing material

change in any building or land including re-development would come

within the definition of 'development'.

viii) In Koganti Venkata Suryanarayana v. The State of A.P. 2,

a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the

States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held that unauthorized

encroachments on public amenities and open spaces in approved layouts

are illegal and must be removed to protect the rights of the community.

ix) In Mayuri Nagar Welfare Association v. State of

Telangana3, a Division Bench of this Court held that open spaces and

amenities designated in layouts must be maintained for their intended

purpose, and their conversion for private use is impermissible.

x) In Sri K.Ramadas Shenoy v. The Chief Officers, Town

Municipal Council, Udipi4, where the property earmarked for the

purpose of amenities in a residential area, there was proposal to construct

. (2014) 1 ALD 730

. (2018) 3 ALD 72 (DB)

. W.P. No.11734 of 2018, decided on 23.06.2022

. (1974) 2 SCC 506

KL,J

cinema building. A representation was submitted to the Municipal

Authorities to take action, the same was not considered. On examination

of the said facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a scheme in a

residential area means planned orderliness in accordance with the

requirements of the residents. If the scheme is nullified by arbitrary acts

in excess and derogation of the powers of the Municipality, the Courts

will quash orders passed by Municipalities in such cases. The

Municipality cannot act in disregard of the scheme. The Municipality is

not the authority to vary or modify the Scheme. The Municipality acts

for the public benefit in enforcing the Scheme. Where the Municipality

acts in excess of the powers conferred by the Act or abuses those

powers, then in those cases it is not exercising its jurisdiction irregularly

or wrongly but it is usurping powers which it does not possess. The right

to build on his own land is a right incidental to the ownership of that

land. Within the Municipality the exercise of that right has been

regulated in the interests of the community residing within the limits of

the Municipal Committee. If under pretence of any authority which the

law does give to the Municipality, it goes beyond the line of its authority,

and infringes or violates the rights of others, it becomes like all other

individuals amenable to the jurisdiction of the Courts. If sanction is

KL,J

given to build by contravening a bye-law, the jurisdiction of the Courts

will be invoked on the ground that the approval by an authority of

building plans which contravene the bye-laws made by that authority is

illegal and inoperative. The Apex Court further held that the Court

enforces the performance of statutory duty by public bodies as obligation

to rate payers who have a legal right to demand compliance by a local

authority with its duty to observe statutory rights alone. The Apex Court

also held that the breach of a statutory duty created for the benefit of an

individual or a class is a tortuous act.

xi) In Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India 5, the Apex Court

held that though, the competent legislatures have, from time to time,

enacted laws for ensuring planned development of the cities and urban

areas, enforcement thereof has been extremely poor and the people have

violated the master plans, zoning plans and building regulations and bye-

laws with impunity. Despite repeated judgments by the Apex Court and

High Courts, the builders and other affluent people engaged in the

construction activities, who have, over the years shown scant respect for

regulatory mechanism envisaged in the municipal and other similar laws,

as also the master plans, zonal development plans, sanctioned plans etc.,

have received encouragement and support from the State apparatus.

. (2009) 15 SCC 705

KL,J

Therefore, the State has to take serious action to stop constructions and

see that there would not be any violation of master plans, zonal plans,

building regulations and bye-laws etc.

xii) The Apex Court in Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao v.

Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development

Authority 6, and this Court in R.G.S.G. Karyalaya1, considered the

word 'development'. In Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao6, permission was

granted for construction of temple in the land earmarked for park in the

development land. On examination of the said facts, the Apex Court

quashed the permission to construct temple.

xiii) In the light of the above principle, coming to the case on

hand, even according to the GHMC, the plots claimed by respondent

Nos.4 and 5 are falling in FTL boundary of Durgam Cheruvu and,

therefore, no permissions were accorded. The subject property is

earmarked for the purpose of 'amenities' in the layout. Therefore, the

same should be used for common purpose, like School, Hospital or any

other purpose as designated in the layout. On inspection, it is found that

respondent Nos.4 and 5 made unauthorized construction of compound

wall without obtaining prior building permission from the respondent

. (2011) 12 SCC 154

KL,J

Corporation. The Irrigation Department along with Revenue Officials,

GHMC and HMDA Officials conducted a survey and prepared a

Map/Plan indicating the area falling within the FTL boundary of

Durgam Cheruvu as per the FTL stones/points fixed by the Irrigation

Department. As per G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2012, no

building/development activity shall be allowed in the bed of water

bodies, like river or nala and in the FTL of any lake, pond, cheruvu or

kuntas/shikam land. Therefore, they have already issued a show-cause

notice dated 28.12.2017 to respondent Nos.4 and 5. They have not

submitted any explanation. Therefore, they have issued final notice dated

17.01.2018 under Section - 636 of the HMC Act, 1955.

xiv) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed a suit vide O.S. No.19 of 2018

against the respondent Corporation. Initially status quo order was

granted by the trial Court and, thereafter on filing counter by the

respondent Corporation, the said status quo order was vacated.

Thereafter, the respondent Corporation demolished unauthorized

compound wall. Thus, according to respondent Nos.2 and 3, they have

considered the aforesaid representations submitted by the petitioner.

xv) It is apt to note that along with counter, respondent Nos.4 and

5 have filed a copy of registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document

KL,J

No.3493 of 1994 executed by M/s. Amar Co-Op. Housing Society

Limited, represented by its President, Mr. Dayanand Gupta S/o late

Doolichand in favour of the Municipal Council of Serilingampally

Municipality. In the said registered gift settlement deed, it is mentioned

that the said society has purchased an extent of Acs.15.23 guntas of land

in Survey No.47 from 1) Mr. A.N. Singh S/o late Subedar Singh, 2) Mr.

Anand Raj Singh S/o A.N. Singh, 3) Mr. Prafulla Raj Singh S/o A.N.

Singh, represented by his GPA, Mr. Anand Raj Singh. There is also

mention about obtaining exemption from ULC. It is further mentioned

that the aforesaid Housing Society applied to HUDA for development of

land into plots and HUDA has approved the layout. As per the said

layout, an extent of 8784 square yards of piece of land was left for the

purpose of laying roads and open areas etc. Therefore, the said society

has agreed to transfer the said piece of land left for the purpose of

development through a gift deed for public purpose. Thus, it has

executed the said gift settlement deed for public purpose in favour of

Serilingampally Municipality.

xvi) It is also relevant to note that one Mr. T.V.R. Satya Prasad

filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.3317 of 2008 against the GHMC,

HUDA and the aforesaid Housing Society represented by Mr. Dayanand

KL,J

Gupta, to declare the action of respondents in trying to interfere with the

possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land admeasuring 300

square yards in Plot No.8 in Survey No.47 of Guttala Begumpet Village.

Vide order dated 03.04.2013, this Court allowed the said writ petition. In

the said order, there is reference to two layouts and also the 11.65% area

towards parks. There is a finding that the park area said to have been

gifted at 11.65% clearly appears to be beyond the requirements of the

relevant condition or rule. Referring to the same, respondent Nos.4 and

5 contended that the subject property is not earmarked for

amenities/parks. They have also filed copy of the layout. Perusal of

copy of layout filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 would reveal that there is

no stamp or proceedings number, whereas the layout filed by the

petitioner, there are proceedings numbers, file number and date etc.

However, it is for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the same.

xvii) As discussed above, according to respondent Nos.2 and 3,

they have already demolished the compound wall by following the

procedure laid down under law. In proof of the same, they have filed

photographs.

xviii) It is relevant to note that the Government has issued G.O.

Rt. No.851, MA & UD, dated 16.10.2018, constituting a Five-Member

KL,J

Committee for fixing FTL of Durgam Cheruvu. The said Committee

consists of Chief City Planner, GHMC, Joint Collector, Rangareddy

District, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, GHMC, Director Planning,

HMDA, Superintending Engineer, Lakes, HMDA. The said Committee

after detailed discussions and deliberations and observations found the

following conclusions and recommendations:

"1) Durgam Cheruvu was once an Irrigation Tank with catchment area upstream and Ayacut area in the downstream side of the tank. With complete construction in catchment and Ayacut areas, the Durgam cheruvu became almost a recreational pond with lot of IT industries and residential colonies, newly constructed Cable Bridge around. This ornamental pond will have tourist value and attracts tourists if it is further beautified ad constructions are legalized in the private lands in the vicinity.

2) Legally speaking, most of the constructions in Amar society are in once approved layout and as per the building permissions given by the Serilinagmapally Grampanchayat/Municipality about 20 years ago. New constructions have not been permitted since 2020.i.e since FTL was refixed by Irrigation Department and litigation is continuing in Hon'ble High Court for long.

3) The HMDA/GHMC having taken up several beautifications like walking tracks, Gym, Contour bund, land scaping, fencing etc around Durgam Cheruvu on Amar society side and Hitech city side the boundaries of recreation areas and residential/commercial areas have been clearly established.

There is no scope for future encroachments by the nearby

KL,J

habitats or water spreading into the residential areas as observed during unprecedented floods in 2020 which exceeds far more than the floods observed in 2000 based on which revised FTL was fixed.

4) As such it is desirable to put an end to this long pending litigation by taking practical stand based on the developments that have taken place during last two decades. This helps in regularizing town planning norms and demolishing those which do not comply the norms. This way Government will receive periodic revenue in the form of property tax, permission fee etc. Hence, residents will be free from litigation and mental agony.

5) With the above said beautification works all-round Durgam Cheruvu on Amar Society side and Hitech City side, with the laying of walking track around the lake which is above the FTL, the boundaries of recreation areas and residential/commercial areas have been clearly established and theoretically the FTL contour confined to periphery of the walking track. There is no scope for further encroachments by nearby habitants or water spreading beyond walking track into residential areas as observed during unprecedented floods in 2020.

6) Most of the constructions in Amar Society are falling in layout approved by the then HUDA and as per the building permissions given by Serilinagmapally Municipality about 20 years ago. No new constructions have been not permitted since 2020 i.e., since FTL was refixed by Irrigation Department and litigation is continuing in Hon'ble Court for long.

KL,J

7) Any decision to be taken by the government on the request of Amar Society Plot Owners Welfare Association shall be based on the developments that have taken place during last two decades and also based on the changed landscape which do not allow the water of the lake at FTL to spread beyond the walking tack and cycling track around the lake."

xix) It is also relevant to note that the Tahsildar, Serilingampally

Mandal has issued notices under Section - 23 of the A.P. Water, Land

and Trees Act, 2002 to several people alleging that they have made

constructions within FTL area of Durgam Cheruvu. Challenging the

same, they have filed writ petitions vide W.P. No.23838 of 2024 and

batch. Vide common order dated 02.09.2024, a Division Bench of this

court disposed of the said writ petitions directing that the said notices

shall be treated as show-cause notices and they shall submit explanation

to the Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal and also directed the Tahsildar

to consider the same, afford an opportunity of hearing to them and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law.

xx) As discussed above, the petitioner herein is a registered

association. Plot owners of Amar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited

in Survey No.47 of Guttala Begumpet are its Members. It is the specific

contention of the petitioner association that respondent Nos.4 and 5

KL,J

created the aforesaid documents in collusion with the President of the

aforesaid Housing Society, the brother of respondent No.5 and maternal

uncle of respondent No.4, are trying to grab the property earmarked for

the purpose of amenities/commercial. They have constructed compound

wall. Therefore, the petitioner association has submitted two

representations, dated 11.01.2018 and 14.06.2018 to respondent Nos.2

and 3 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5.

Despite receiving and acknowledging the same, respondent Nos.2 and 3

did not take any action. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent

Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

xxi) Perusal of representation dated 11.01.2018 would reveal that

the petitioner has submitted the said representation to the Zonal

Commissioner of GHMC and he is not a party to the present writ

petition. The representation dated 14.06.2018 has submitted to

respondent No.3.

6. CONCLUSION:

i) The aforesaid rival contentions would reveal that according to

the petitioner, the subject property is earmarked for 'amenities/

commercial', whereas according to respondentNos.4 and 5, it is not

earmarked for 'amenities' and it is not in FTL and they are the owners of

KL,J

the subject property. They are claiming right over the subject property

under the aforesaid registered documents. As discussed above, there is

specific contention by the petitioner herein that respondent Nos.4 and 5

created layout. This Court cannot consider the said factual aspects in a

writ petition filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India and it

is for respondent No.2 to examine the said aspects and take action

against respondent Nos.4 and 5. Having received the representations

dated 11.01.2018 and 14.06.2018, respondent No.3 and the Zonal

Commissioner did not inform the said fact to the petitioner herein.