Telangana High Court
Mr. Sattiraju Venkateswarlu vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 9 June, 2025
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.3698 and 16595 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
The issues involved in both these writ petitions are intrinsically
interconnected and hence, they are taken up and heard together and
are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Petition No.3698 of 2023, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following
relief:
"...to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one
in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the revised layout permit
No.2755/Layout/CDA/PLG/HMDA/2002, dated 26.04.2013 and permit
No.39591/HO/WZ/Cir.-11/2015, dated 20.01.2015 in File
No.B/429/TPS/TP-11/GHMC/2014, and Revised Permit
No.53374/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016, 03.11.2017 in File No.117404/21/02/
2017/HO/29 and Order in Lr.No.117404/21/02/2017/HO/29, dated
09.01.2023 passed by 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to
law, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the
Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same, in the interest
of justice...."
3. Writ Petition No.16595 of 2023, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following
relief:
"...to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of
Mandamus declaring the order Dt.9-01-2023 vide
Lr.No.117404/21/02/2017/HO/29 of the respondent No.1/The
Commissioner GHMC, disposing off the objection and upholding the
revised permit No.2755/Layout/CDA/PLG/HMDA/2002 Dt 26-04-2013
and permit No.39591/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2015 Dt.20-1-2015 vide file
No.B/429/TPS/TP-11/GHMC/2014 and revised permit vide file No.
53374/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016 Dt.3-11-2017 in file No.117404/21/02/
2017/HO as illegal, arbitrary without power or authority in terms of Art
14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same
and consequently declare the Relinquishment deed No.4361 of 2013
dated 18-03-2013 executed by respondent No.2/Metropolitan
Commissioner HMDA in favour of the respondent No.3/M/s.Patel Engg
Ltd and the gift deed No.4360 of 2013 dt.18-03-2013 executed by the
respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No 2, and gift deed
No.18628 of 29-10-2021 as null and void....."
4. Writ Petition No.3698 of 2023 is filed by M/s.Rolling Hills
House Owners Association (hereinafter referred as 'Association') and
W.P.No.16595 of 2023 is filed by the members of the Association.
Writ Petition No.16595 of 2023 is taken up as a leading case to
decide the lis in these two cases.
5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
6. It is stated that the members of petitioner No.1-Association
had purchased residential plots in a gated community developed over
land admeasuring Ac.18.14 guntas in Survey No.31, situated at
Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
pursuant to a final layout approved by the-then Cyberabad
Development Authority (CDA). On 26.07.2004, the CDA issued final
layout approval upon completion of the project, after accepting the
gift deed and taking over the designated open spaces. It is further
stated that on 10.08.2004, the CDA released the mortgaged area for
finalization of the layout, and subsequently, the final layout approval
was granted vide Permit No.2755/Final/Layout/CDA/2002 dated
23.08.2004. Thereafter, the land was developed into a gated
community, and construction of 101 independent residential
buildings was undertaken based on Permit No.5085/BP/CDA/2004
dated 10.11.2004. It is stated that the Respondent No.3 sold several
houses in the said layout to the petitioners under registered sale
deeds and the members of the Association have been in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of their respective houses since
25.04.2009, and they have also been maintaining the internal roads
and open spaces. Since then, the respondent No.3 ceased to have
any ownership, title, possession, or interest over the said land. It is
further stated that on 17.08.2006, respondent No.3 submitted an
application seeking revision of the approved layout. In response to
the same, the CDA, vide letter No.2755/LO/CDA/PLG/HMDA/2002
dated 10.12.2012, clarified that any revision to the layout must
retain the pattern of open spaces, plots, and road network. However,
the respondent No.3, in collusion with others, sought a revised
layout including adjacent land in Sy.No.32 admeasuring Ac.4.00
guntas and proposed alterations to the earmarked open space, park
area, and internal roads without obtaining consent from the
petitioners. It is further stated that on 18.03.2013, respondent No.2
executed a deed of relinquishment in respect of open space land
measuring 1718 square yards in Sy.No.31(P), which was already
deemed to have vested under law. On the same day, respondent No.3
executed a gift settlement deed in favour of HMDA for lands
admeasuring 718 square yards and 400 square yards, which was
already under occupation of the purchasers. Based on these
developments, the original layout was revised vide proceedings No.
2755/Layout/CDA/PGL/HMDA/2002 dated 26.04.2013, 39591/
HO/WZ/Cir.-11/2015 dated 20.01.2015, and 53374/HO/WZ/Cir.-
11/2016 dated 03.11.2017. Thereafter, an amended Gift Deed dated
29.10.2021 was executed, transferring 2419 square yards including
part of the land already forming part of the approved layout
No.2755/Final/Layout/CDA/2002. Aggrieved by the issuance of
revised layout and attempts by the respondents to alter the original
layout and demolish the existing compound wall in the lands
between Sy.Nos.31 and 32, the petitioners submitted a
representation dated 07.03.2022. When there was no action, the
petitioners filed O.S.No.165 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking an injunction, and also
filed W.P.No.18266 of 2022 on the file of this Court. This Court, vide
order dated 12.04.2022, disposed of the said writ petition directing
respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the petitioners'
representation dated 07.03.2022 in accordance with law. The
grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.1, without properly
considering their objections, passed the impugned order
No.117404/21/02/2017/HO/29 dated 09.01.2023, rejecting their
claim on irrelevant and extraneous grounds. Hence, the
W.P.No.16595 of 2023.
7. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter affidavit, inter alia
stating that the respondent No.3 along with six others had
purchased land admeasuring Ac.18.14 guntas in Survey No.31,
situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, under
various registered sale deeds during the years 1998 and 1999.
Additionally, they also purchased an extent of Ac.4.00 guntas in the
adjoining Survey No.32 under registered sale deeds. It is further
stated that they entered into a Development Agreement dated
10.11.2003 with M/s. GAR Developers for undertaking the project.
Pursuant to the said agreement, they obtained final layout approval
vide Permit No.2755/Final/Layout/CDA/2002 dated 23.08.2004 in
respect of 101 plots. According to respondent Nos.3 and 4, as per the
2004 approved plan for the land in Survey No.31, the total plotted
area was 50,306 sq. yds., the road area was 27,449 sq. yds., the
park area was 8,833 sq. yds., and the amenities area was 1,742 sq.
yds., making the total approved layout area as 88,300 sq. yds. They
state that several plots were sold to the petitioners/members of the
Association under registered sale deeds. However, land admeasuring
685.06 sq. yds. in Plot Nos.B10 and B11 remains vacant. It is their
case that, based on negotiations with the petitioners and other
members, a revised layout plan was submitted for approval. They
assert that the petitioners were fully aware of the submission of the
revised plan, and despite such knowledge, they permitted the
construction activities to proceed under the revised layout, which
was approved by respondent Nos.1 and 2 through Proceedings
No.2755/Layout/CDA/Plg/HMDA/2002 dated 26.04.2013. It is
contended that after allowing the construction to progress under the
revised plan, the petitioners, with malafide intent, filed O.S.No.165 of
2022 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District,
seeking to restrain the respondents from continuing with the
construction. The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 further submit that the
writ petitions are barred by delay and laches. They also contend that
the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners do not contain
any clause to the effect that the land would be developed as a gated
community. It is asserted that the layout sanctioned is not
designated as a gated community layout, and hence, the petitioners
are not entitled to encircle the property with a compound wall or
prevent respondent Nos.3 and 4 from accessing their abutting land
in Survey No.32, for which they claim to have obtained valid
construction permissions.
8. The Respondent No.2-Metropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad
Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), filed counter affidavit,
inter alia stating that respondent Nos.3 and 4 had filed an
application seeking revision of the originally sanctioned layout for the
land admeasuring Ac.18.10 guntas in Survey No.31 of Gachibowli
Village, under File No.1308/MP2/HUDA/2000. However, the said
application was not approved by the-then authority and was rejected
vide Letter No.1304/MP2/HUDA/2000 dated 02.05.2000 on the
ground that the land fell within the jurisdiction of the Cyberabad
Development Authority (CDA), and that a Special Action Plan/Master
Plan for that region was still under preparation. Subsequently, a
revised layout proposal in respect of Survey No.31 was treated as a
fresh application and was examined by the CDA in light of
G.O.Ms.No.538 MA dated 29.01.2001. It is stated that the land in
Sy.No.31 was earmarked partly for Residential Use Zone and partly
for Commercial-cum-Housing Use Zone and was also affected by
proposed 45-metre and 36-metre roads as per the notified Master
Plan of the CDA. As per CDA norms at the relevant time, the open
space requirement in such layouts was 25% of the total layout area.
Further, the Government had issued Letter No.23622/H2/2001-3
MA dated 16.05.2002 revising the External Betterment Charges
(EBC) for plotted development layouts and regulations relating to
Free Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Clarification was issued through Letter
No.3661/H2/2002-1 dated 20.05.2002 stating that building
applications filed before the issuance of CDA Master Plan, and not
rejected on technical grounds, shall be treated as old cases.
Thereafter, vide letter dated 29.06.2022, the representation was once
again forwarded for re-examination and for furnishing a detailed
report. In the meantime, under G.O.Ms.No.343 MA dated
09.07.2003, the Government revised the Free FAR from 0.75 to 1.00
and reduced the percentage of open space requirement from 25% to
10% of the total layout area. Based on the revised norms, the revised
layout proposal was technically approved by HMDA on 19.01.2013
and forwarded to respondent No.1 vide Letter No.2755/Layout/CDA/
Plg/HMDA/2002 dated 26.04.2013 for issuance of layout release
orders. The Respondent No.2 further stated that development control
powers were conferred on HMDA by the Government vide Letter
No.15048/HMDA/2008 dated 17.01.2009 to exercise all development
control powers under Sections 18, 19, 20, 23, and 52 of the HMDA
Act in respect of residential, commercial, and industrial
constructions, including grant of building permissions. It is the
specific stand of respondent No.2 that the procedure adopted in
approving and releasing the revised layout in favour of respondent
No.3 was strictly in accordance with law and applicable government
orders. It is contended that there is no illegality or procedural
irregularity in the approval process. Respondent No.2 also submits
that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of
inordinate delay and laches, as the challenge is raised after a long
lapse of time.
9. The Respondent No.1-Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation (GHMC), filed counter affidavit, inter alia
stating that the respondent No.2 had approved the final layout in
favour of respondent No.3 through Permit No.3/Final
Layout/CDA/2004 dated 23.08.2004, vide Letter No.2755/Final
Layout/CDA/2002. Subsequently, a revised final layout permit was
issued vide proceedings dated 26.04.2013 for individual open plots.
Based on this, the GHMC issued the revised final layout release
order vide Proceedings No.B/1109/CCP/TPS/HO/GHMC/2013
dated 27.05.2013. It is categorically submitted that both the original
and revised layout approvals were issued for individual open plots
and not for villas or a gated community, as claimed by the
petitioners. It is asserted that the layout was never sanctioned as a
gated community and hence, the petitioners cannot claim exclusive
rights or community-specific benefits based on such a presumption.
It is further submitted that in compliance with the orders of this
Court in W.P.No.18266 of 2022, the GHMC re-examined the
representations of both the petitioners and the respondents and after
providing an opportunity of hearing and considering the final layout
sanctioned under Permit No.2755/Final Layout/CDA/2002 dated
23.08.2004, as well as the revised layout sanctioned vide Permit
No.2755/Layout/CDA/Plg/HMDA/2002 dated 26.04.2013, the
Corporation confirmed the validity of the revised layout through the
impugned order bearing Letter No.117404/21/02/2017/HO/29
dated 09.01.2023.
10. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners to the counter
affidavits of the respondents, it is stated that filing of a writ petition
by the Association to ventilate the collective grievances of its
members does not bar or disentitle individual members from filing
separate writ petitions. It is stated that the reliefs sought in the
respective writ petitions are distinct and independent of each other.
It is further stated that respondent Nos.3 and 4, in collusion,
secured the release of the revised layout by unlawfully modifying the
originally sanctioned layout approved vide Permit No.2755/Final/
Layout/CDA/2002 dated 23.08.2004. It is contended that the
revised layout was manipulated by raising a ramp in the park area
situated in Sy.No.31. It is asserted that the sanctioned park space
was interfered with after the Association had already taken
possession of the fully constructed villas. It is submitted that the
reliance placed on Google Earth maps by the respondents is
misleading, as those maps depict structures like Decathlon, Smondo
Towers, and Meenakshi Trident Towers which were constructed after
the year 2005 and do not reflect the ground reality as on the date of
original layout sanction. It is reiterated that the villas were fully
constructed and handed over to the Association as early as in the
year 2009, and therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have no authority
to alter the park area or amenities through a revised layout. It is
contended that land admeasuring 1742 sq. yds. in Sy.No.31, which
was earmarked for amenities in the original layout, was unlawfully
adjusted and relocated into Sy.No.32 to benefit respondent Nos.3
and 4, which is impermissible under law. The petitioners rely on
Condition No.12 of the Permit No.2755/Final/Layout/CDA/2002
dated 23.08.2004, which, according to them, expressly prohibits any
revision or alteration of the approved layout plan without follow due
process of law. Thus the petitioners prayed this Court to allow the
writ petitions.
11. Mr. E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of Mr. T. Sharath, learned counsel and Mr. M. Srinivas,
learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions,
strenuously contended that the petitioners purchased the villas with
the legitimate expectation of leading a peaceful life in properties
forming part of approved residential layouts. He submitted that such
layouts are expected to provide essential open spaces for various
public purposes such as roads, gardens, schools, hospitals, and
community centres. It is contended that several purchasers,
including the petitioners, opted for preferential plots abutting or
facing public amenities like parks, roads, or water bodies, and
accordingly paid additional or higher charges at the time of
purchase, with a clear expectation of availing and enjoying the
benefits of such amenities. It is further contended that the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 as developers cannot be permitted to change
the status of lands to deceive the allottees and more particularly, in
the instant cases by altering the Survey Numbers and adjusting the
park/amenities area in another Survey Number, which was not part
of the original layout approved in the year 2004. It is also contended
that as per the final layout sanctioned vide Proceedings dated
23.08.2004, the Sy.No.32 was not included and in the revised layout
the Sy.No.32 was included. It is further submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel that there is no power conferred by the legislature on
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to revise the final layout by changing the
amenities that were earmarked for community purpose and revising
the layout after a period of 10 years that too after large number of
Villas being sold in favour of the petitioners/members of the
Association and altering the final layout and adding the new survey
number for the open spaces amounts to taking away the vested
rights of the petitioners for which the respondents have no authority
in law. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the
action of the respondents in revising final layout vide Permit
No.2755/Final Layout/CDA/2002 dated 23.08.2004, in the year
2013 vide Permit No.2755/Layout/CDA/PLG/HMDA/2002, dated
26.04.2013 and permit No.39591/HO/WZ/ Cir.-11/2015, dated
20.01.2015 in File No.B/429/TPS/TP-11/GHMC/2014, and Revised
Permit No.53374/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016 dated 03.11.2017 in File
No.117404/21/02/ 2017/HO/29 is without jurisdiction, arbitrary,
malafide, based on extraneous reasons, colorable exercise of power
and violative of Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. In
support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel placed much
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Supertech
Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association1
and finally, prayed to allow the writ petitions.
12. In oppugnation, Mr. L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr.Duvva Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.3 and 4, would submit that the CDA granted layout permission
vide Permit No.2755/Final/Layout/CDA/2002 dated 23.08.2004 for
a total area of 88,300 sq. yds., and respondent No.3 applied for
revision of the layout in the year 2006. Acting on the said
application, respondent No.2, vide Letter No.2755/LO/CDA/Plg/
HMDA/2002 dated 10.12.2012, called upon respondent No.3 to
(2021) 10 SCC 1
submit a revised layout while maintaining the same open space area
as a condition for approving the revised layout. It is further
submitted that in terms of the same, respondent Nos.3 and 4
executed registered gift deeds vide Document No.4360/2013 dated
18.03.2013, replacing the earlier gifted total area of 1718 sq. yds.
with 1000 sq. yds. from the land in Sy.No.31 and 718 sq. yds as
lands in Sy.No.31 towards open space. It is further submitted that as
per the revised layout, an extent of 87,299 sq. yds of land is available
and there is no change so far as the amenities area and park area,
except the plotted area. It is also submitted that the petitioners,
having been aware of the application submitted by respondent Nos.3
and 4 and the consequential execution of the revised gift deeds, filed
the present writ petitions with an oblique motive and malafide
intention and therefore, the present writ petitions are barred by delay
and laches. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior
Counsel relied upon the following decisions and prayed that this
Court dismiss the writ petitions:
i) C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology & Mining and another 2
ii) Nimmala Samanaita vs. State of Telangana and others 3
iii) Karnataka Power Corporation Limited and another vs.
K.Thangappan and another 4
(2008) 10 SCC 115
2022 (4) ALT 548
(2006) 4 SCC 322
iv) Baskaran vs. The Commissioner of College Education and
others 5
v) Mayuri Nagar Welfare Association and others vs. State of
Telangana and others 6
vi) M.P.Housing and Infrastructure Development Board and
another vs. Vijay Bodana and others 7
vii) Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and others 8
viii) Sanskruthi Township vs. The State of Telangana 9
ix) Prabodh Verma and others vs. State of U.P and others 10
13. Mr.M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC
(respondent No.1), and Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing
Counsel for HMDA (respondent No.2), adopted the same stand as
stated in the respective counter affidavits and prayed for dismissal of
the writ petitions.
14. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the record.
15. The petitioners in W.P.No.16595 of 2023 are members of the
1st petitioner-Association in W.P.No.3698 of 2023. The Association is
registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act vide
Regd. No.2028/2007. The members of the Association purchased
Villas under registered sale deeds from respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is
1955 SCC Online Mad 381
Order dated 23.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.11734 of 2018 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
(2020) 4 SCC 521
2021 SCC Online SC 562
Order dt.17.01.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.8767 & 3501 of 2021 by learned Single Judge of this Court
(1984) 4 SCC 251
their case that respondent Nos.3 and 4 had purchased the land
admeasuring Ac.18.14 gts in Sy.No.31, situated at Gachibowli
Village, Serilingampally Mandal, under various registered sale deeds
and entered into a Development Agreement dated 10.11.2003 with
M/s.GAR Developers for development of the said land. They
subsequently obtained layout approval vide Permit No.2755/Final/
Layout/CDA/2002 dated 23.08.2004 in respect of 101 plots. As per
the approved plan for the land in Survey No.31, the total plotted area
is 50,306 sq. yds., the road area is 27,449 sq. yds., the park area is
8,833 sq. yds., and the amenities area is 1,742 sq. yds., making the
total approved layout area as 88,300 sq. yds. It is the case of the
petitioners that the villas purchased by them are encircled by a
compound wall, clearly delineating the property as a gated
community. It is their further case that respondent Nos.3 and 4, in
active connivance with the officials of respondent Nos.1 and 2, made
an application seeking revision of the final layout approved vide
No.2755/Final Layout/CDA/2002 dated 23.08.2004, for the purpose
of converting the open space admeasuring 1,718 sq. yds in Sy.No.31
and adjusting it with the land in Sy.No.32. It is also their case that
as per Condition No.12 of the final layout dated 23.08.2004, the final
layout once released shall not be revised for any purpose.
16. Whereas the case of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is that they are
the owners of the land in Sy.No.31 to an extent of Ac.18.14 gts,
having purchased the same under registered sale deeds executed in
the years 1998 and 1999 and they also claim to have purchased land
in Sy.No.32 and to make use of that land, submitted an application
seeking revision of the layout approved under Proceedings
No.2755/Final Layout/CDA/2002 dated 23.08.2004. It is further
case of respondent Nos.3 and 4 that there is no clause in the sale
deeds stating that the villas were sold as part of a gated community
nor was the layout sanctioned as a gated community layout. Hence,
the petitioners are not entitled to object to any layout changes, so
long as the area reserved for public purposes in the original layout
remains intact and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
17. The stand of respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the competent
authorities for releasing layouts under the provisions of the GHMC
Act, 1955 and HMDA Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder, is
that the rights of the petitioners have not been affected in any
manner. It is contended that the villas are not situated within a
notified gated community, and mere adjustment of land with
adjoining areas does not interfere with access to park/common
amenities. It is further submitted that, after following the statutory
procedure and being satisfied with development norms, the
application for revised layout was rightly considered. Therefore, the
action taken by the authorities, does not suffer from any legal
infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ
petitions.
18. Before examining the issues raised, it is necessary to consider
the object of the HMDA Act, 2008 and the provisions thereunder. The
Act was enacted to establish the Metropolitan Development Authority
for the purposes of planning, coordination, supervising promoting
and securing the planned development of the Hyderabad
Metropolitan Region and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. As per Section 18 of the Act, all development
powers of land vest with the Metropolitan Development Authority.
Section 19 mandates obtaining prior permission for undertaking
development. Incase developers fail to implement the layout
conditions, under Section 22, HMDA is empowered to revoke such
permission if it is found that the same was obtained by false
statement or misrepresentation or suppression of any material facts
or rule. Section 23 states that if during the execution of any
development works/layout works/and civil works any deviation/
departure is made from the Development Permission granted, the
owner shall obtain revised sanction as per the procedure laid down
in Section 19.
19. In the instant cases, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 alleged to
have made an application as per the provisions of the HMDA Act
seeking approval of the layout. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 have
executed gift deeds in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on
26.07.2004 in respect of land to an extent of 36,282 sq.yards
absolutely transferring the open areas and the space reserved for
amenities in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the said land
vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The layout was
approved and released by respondent No.2 vide Permit
No.2755/Final Layout/CDA/2002 dated 23.08.2004, indicating
50,306 sq. yds for plots, 8,833 sq. yds for park area, 27,449 sq. yds
for roads, and 1,742 sq. yds for amenities in Sy.No.31, admeasuring
Ac.18.10 gts, for a total of 101 plots. A perusal of the proceedings
dated 23.08.2004, annexed to W.P.No.3698 of 2023 (Page No.45),
shows that under Condition No.12, the final layout once approved
shall not be revised. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 constructed villas and
sold them to the petitioners/members of the Association, leaving only
a small portion as undeveloped plots. They later submitted
applications in 2006 seeking revision of the layout, which was
approved vide Permit No.2755/Layout/CDA/PLG/HMDA/2002 dated
26.04.2013. Further revised permits were issued vide Permit
No.39591/HO/WZ/Cir.-11/2015 dated 20.01.2015 in File
No.B/429/TPS/TP-11/GHMC/2014, and Revised Permit
No.53374/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016 dated 03.11.2017 in File
No.117404/21/02/2017/HO/29. Consequently revised gift deeds
were executed in the year 2021. According to the petitioners, based
on these revised permits, when respondent Nos.3 and 4 attempted to
alter the nature of the plotted area and the amenities area, they
instituted O.S.No.165 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking an injunction, and also filed
W.P.No.18266 of 2022 before this Court. The facts make it clear that
there has been no inordinate or unreasonable delay in questioning
the impugned revised layout or the consequential permits granted by
the respondents.
20. In Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident
Welfare Association 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that breach
by the planning authority of its obligation to ensure compliance with
building regulation is actionable at the instance of residents whose
rights are infringed by violation of law. In Paras 159, 161 to 169, it
was observed as under:
"159. The rampant increase in unauthorised constructions across urban
areas, particularly in metropolitan cities where soaring values of land
(2021) 10 SCC 1
place a premium on dubious dealings has been noticed in several
decisions of this Court. This state of affairs has often come to pass in no
small a measure because of the collusion between developers and
planning authorities.
161. The judgments of this Court spanning the last four decades
emphasise the duty of planning bodies, while sanctioning building plans
and enforcing building regulations and bye-laws to conform to the norms
by which they are governed. A breach by the planning authority of its
obligation to ensure compliance with building regulations is actionable at
the instance of residents whose rights are infringed by the violation of
law. Their quality of life is directly affected by the failure of the planning
authority to enforce compliance. Unfortunately, the diverse and unseen
group of flat buyers suffers the impact of the unholy nexus between
builders and planners. Their quality of life is affected the most. Yet,
confronted with the economic might of developers and the might of legal
authority wielded by planning bodies, the few who raise their voices
have to pursue a long and expensive battle for rights with little certainty
of outcomes. As this case demonstrates, they are denied access to
information and are victims of misinformation. Hence, the law must step
in to protect their legitimate concerns.
162. In K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi [K.
Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi, (1974) 2 SCC 506],
A.N. Ray, C.J. speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court observed
that the municipality functions for public benefit and when it "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". This Court also
held : (SCC p. 513, para 27)
"27.... 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 interest 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 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. (See [Yabbicom v. R., (1899) 1 QB 444] )."
This Court held that an unregulated construction materially affects the
right of enjoyment of property by persons residing in a residential area,
and hence, it is the duty of the municipal authority to ensure that the
area is not adversely affected by unauthorised construction.
163. These principles were re-affirmed by a two-Judge Bench in [G.N.
Khajuria v. DDA, (1995) 5 SCC 762] where this Court held that it was not
open to the Delhi Development Authority to carve out a space, which was
meant for a park for a nursery school. B.L. Hansaria, J. speaking for the
Court, observed : (SCC p. 766, para 10)
"10. Before parting, we have an observation to make. The same is
that a feeling is gathering ground that where unauthorised
constructions are demolished on the force of the order of courts, the
illegality is not taken care of fully inasmuch as the officers of the
statutory body who had allowed the unauthorised construction to
be made or make illegal allotments go scot free. This should not,
however, have happened for two reasons. First, it is the illegal
action/order of the officer which lies at the root of the unlawful act
of the citizen concerned, because of which the officer is more to be
blamed than the recipient of the illegal benefit. It is thus
imperative, according to us, that while undoing the mischief which
would require the demolition of the unauthorised construction, the
delinquent officer has also to be punished in accordance with law.
This, however, seldom happens. Secondly, to take care of the
injustice completely, the officer who had misused his power has
also to be properly punished. Otherwise, what happens is that the
officer, who made the hay when the sun shined (sic), retains the
hay, which tempts others to do the same. This really gives fillip to
the commission of tainted acts, whereas the aim should be
opposite."
164. In [Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa,
(2004) 8 SCC 733], this Court dealt with a case where the builder had
exceeded the permissible construction under the sanctioned plan and
had constructed an additional floor on the building, which was
unauthorised. R.C. Lahoti, C.J., speaking for a two-Judge Bench,
observed : (SCC p. 744, para 24)
"24. Structural and lot area regulations authorise the municipal
authorities to regulate and restrict the height, number of storeys
and other structures; the percentage of a plot that may be
occupied; the size of yards, courts and open spaces; the density of
population; and the location and use of buildings and structures.
All these have in our view and do achieve the larger purpose of the
public health, safety or general welfare. So are front setback
provisions, average alignments and structural alterations. Any
violation of zoning and regulation laws takes the toll in terms of
public welfare and convenience being sacrificed apart from the
risk, inconvenience and hardship which is posed to the occupants
of the building."
Noting that the private interest of landowners stands subordinate to the
public good while enforcing building and municipal regulations, the Court
issued a caution against the tendency to compound violations of building
regulations : (Friends Colony Development Committee case [Friends
Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, (2004) 8 SCC 733] ,
SCC p. 744, para 25)
"25. ... The cases of professional builders stand on a different
footing from an individual constructing his own building. A
professional builder is supposed to understand the laws better and
deviations by such builders can safely be assumed to be deliberate
and done with the intention of earning profits and hence deserve to
be dealt with sternly so as to act as a deterrent for future. It is
common knowledge that the builders enter into underhand
dealings. Be that as it may, the State Governments should think of
levying heavy penalties on such builders and therefrom develop a
welfare fund which can be utilised for compensating and
rehabilitating such innocent or unwary buyers who are displaced
on account of demolition of illegal constructions."
165. In Priyanka Estates International (P) Ltd. v. State of Assam, (2010)
2 SCC 27 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 283], Deepak Verma, J. speaking for a
two-Judge Bench, observed : (SCC p. 42, para 55)
"55. It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and
unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on
rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are
required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/
colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the
sanctioned and approved plans and would still go scot-free.
Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as
the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his
own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public
interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of
multi-storeyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said
to be equally responsible for this. Still the greater loss would be of
those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to
the builder."
The Court lamented that the earlier decisions on the subject had not
resulted in enhancing compliance by developers with building
regulations. Further, the Court noted that if unauthorised constructions
were allowed to stand or are "given a seal of approval by Court", it was
bound to affect the public at large. It also noted that the jurisdiction and
power of courts to indemnify citizens who are affected by an
unauthorised construction erected by a developer could be utilised to
compensate ordinary citizens.
166. In [Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal
Corpn. of Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 89], G.S.
Singhvi, J., writing for a two-Judge Bench, reiterated the earlier
decisions on this subject and observed : (SCC p. 369, para 8)
"8. At the outset, we would like to observe that by rejecting the
prayer for regularisation of the floors constructed in wanton
violation of the sanctioned plan, the Deputy Chief Engineer and the
appellate authority have demonstrated their determination to
ensure planned development of the commercial capital of the
country and the orders passed by them have given a hope to the
lawabiding citizens that someone in the hierarchy of
administration will not allow unscrupulous developers/builders to
take law into their hands and get away with it."
167. The Court further observed that an unauthorised construction
destroys the concept of planned development, and places an unbearable
burden on basic amenities provided by public authorities. The Court held
that it was imperative for the public authority to not only demolish such
constructions but also to impose a penalty on the wrongdoers involved.
This lament of this Court, over the brazen violation of building
regulations by developers acting in collusion with planning bodies, was
brought to the forefront when the Court prefaced its judgment with the
following observations : (Esha Ekta Apartments case [Esha Ekta
Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai,
(2013) 5 SCC 357 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 89], SCC p. 363, para 1)
"1. In the last five decades, the provisions contained in various
municipal laws for planned development of the areas to which
such laws are applicable have been violated with impunity in all
the cities, big or small, and those entrusted with the task of
ensuring implementation of the master plan, etc. have miserably
failed to perform their duties. It is highly regrettable that this is so
despite the fact that this Court has, keeping in view the
imperatives of preserving the ecology and environment of the area
and protecting the rights of the citizens, repeatedly cautioned the
authorities concerned against arbitrary regularisation of illegal
constructions by way of compounding and otherwise."
168. Finally, the Court also observed that no case has been made out
for directing the municipal corporation to regularise a construction which
has been made in violation of the sanctioned plan and cautioned against
doing so. In that context, it held : (Esha Ekta Apartments case [Esha
Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of
Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 89], SCC pp. 394-95,
para 56)
"56. ... We would like to reiterate that no authority administering
municipal laws and other similar laws can encourage violation of
the sanctioned plan. The courts are also expected to refrain from
exercising equitable jurisdiction for regularisation of illegal and
unauthorised constructions else it would encourage violators of the
planning laws and destroy the very idea and concept of planned
development of urban as well as rural areas."
169. These concerns have been reiterated in the more recent decisions of
this Court in Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. State of
Kerala, (2019) 7 SCC 248], [Kerala State Coastal Zone Management
Authority v. Maradu Municipality, (2021) 16 SCC 822 : 2018 SCC OnLine
SC 3352] and [Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India, (2019) 19 SCC 161]."
21. In P.Venkateshwarlu and another vs. Government of
Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary, Municipal Administration
and others 12 when similar issues came up for consideration, the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while following the various
2023 (6) ALT 217
judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, directed the authorities
concerned to bring down the constructions inconformity with the
sanctioned plan.
22. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the
respondents had no authority to revise the layout sanctioned vide
Permit No.2755/Final/Layout/CDA/2002, dated 23.08.2004, after a
lapse of ten years, by adjusting the open areas in Sy.No.31 of
Gachibowli Village with the lands situated in Sy.No.32, which did not
form part of the original final layout. A perusal of the material on
record reveals that the respondents, under the guise of such
adjustments, revised the final layout and altered the existing survey
numbers, which amounts to exceeding their statutory powers and
constitutes sheer abuse of provisions of the HMDA Act and condition
No.12 of the final layout approval dated 23.08.2004. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2, while revising the layout, failed to consider that,
through the execution of registered sale deeds in favour of the
petitioners, certain rights were conferred on the members of the
Association in respect of lands in Sy.No.31. Any attempt to
relinquish such rights by adjusting lands with Sy.No.32, clearly
amounts to depriving the members of the Association of their
accrued rights. Moreover, the respondents, while contending that the
villas purchased by the petitioners do not form part of the gated
community, ought not have curtailed the rights of those entitled to
access and use the parks and amenity areas as per the sanctioned
layout dated 23.08.2004. A careful comparison of the final layout
(Permit No.2755/Final/Layout/CDA/2002 dated 23.08.2004) and
the revised layout (Permit No.2755/Layout/CDA/Plg/HMDA/2002
dated 26.04.2013), placed before this Court, would show that there
is change in the amenities area with the adjacent lands in Sy.No.32
and it is clear from the said layout plan that only to facilitate the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 the revised layout was sanctioned modifying
the extent of the park area/amenities area in Sy.No.31.
23. In the case of M.P.Housing and Infrastructure Development
Board and another vs. Vijay Bodana and others (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"12. During the course of hearing before us, the appellant-board had
produced the original layout plan of Indira Nagar in which the land in
question was shown as reserved for a major shopping complex. Adjacent
to this land is the land earmarked for a primary school. There are areas
earmarked for a park/garden. Therefore, while we allow the present
appeal and uphold the modification of the layout plan, we deem it proper
to direct the appellant-board and the authorities to ensure that the
areas/land earmarked for the primary school and park/garden are not
converted into residential plots. We also direct the appellant-board and
respondent authorities not to allot and sell any unsold residential plots.
These plots which are yet to be sold would be utilised for general public
amenities like park, garden, playground etc. The appellant-board and the
authorities would act accordingly."
24. A careful examination of the various judgments referred supra
reiterate the principle that once a layout has been approved, any
subsequent revision, even if permissible under the statute is strictly
limited to those portions of land that are not earmarked for schools,
parks, gardens, amenities, open spaces, or lung spaces. Any revision
contrary to this would not only amount to destroying the ecological
and environmental balance of the area but also infringes the rights of
bona fide purchasers who acquired their properties based on the
original approved layout. In the present case, the respondent Nos.1
and 2 instead of making use of the land for which it was reserved,
have modified the earlier approved plan. On equitable principle, the
petitioners are entitled to reliefs even if there is delay in filing the
Writ Petitions. As a matter of fact, the petitioners have explained the
circumstances under which they have invoked the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Since the petitioners have been successful in establishing the
legal malice against the respondents in revising the layout
sanctioned vide Proceedings dated 23.08.2004 after the large extent
of plots in the layout were sold in favour of members of the
Association, this Court is of the opinion that the perpetual illegal
action causing substantial injustice to the petitioners is required to
be remedied by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. If the action of the respondents in
revising the final layout is approved, it will open pandora's box for
multiple litigations and cause hardship to the innocent citizens. The
said acts must not be encouraged and should be nipped in the bud.
Therefore, the respondents cannot contend that the present writ
petitioners have approached this Court with inordinate delay and the
writ petitions have to be dismissed on the ground of delay of laches,
when the final layout sanctioned in the year 2004 was revised in the
year 2013 and consequential permits were granted vide Permit
No.2755/Layout/CDA/PLG/HMDA/2002, dated 26.04.2013 and
permit No.39591/HO/WZ/Cir.-11/2015, dated 20.01.2015 in File
No.B/429/TPS/TP-11/GHMC/2014 and Revised Permit No.53374/
HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016 dated 03.11.2017 in File No.117404/21/02/
2017/HO/29 and admittedly, the alterations took place in the year
2020 and impugned order rejecting the petitioners claim was passed
on 09.01.2023. Further, the respondents failed to consider the
impact of the revised layout on the rights of the petitioners/Members
of the Association, as well as the consequential repercussions on the
validity of their property rights. Such action amounts to violation of
systematic and planned building regulations. Hence, the writ
petitions deserve to be allowed. In view of the misdeeds committed by
respondent Nos.1 and 2, in collusion with respondent Nos.3 and 4,
in revising the final layout and compelling the bona fide purchasers
to run from pillar to post, imposition of appropriate costs on the
respondents would serve the ends of justice.
25. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Writ Petitions are allowed.
The revised layout Permit No.2755/Layout/CDA/PLG/HMDA/2002,
dated 26.04.2013; Permit No.39591/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2015, dated
20.01.2015, in File No.B/429/TPS/TP-11/GHMC/2014; Revised
Permit No.53374/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016, dated 03.11.2017, in File
No.117404/21/02/2017/HO/29; and the impugned order in
Lr.No.117404/21/02/2017/HO/29, dated 09.01.2023, passed by
respondent No.1, are set aside. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed
to bring the constructions inconformity with the original layout
sanctioned under Permit No.2755/Final/Layout/CDA/2002, dated
23.08.2004, by following due process of law, within a period of
three(03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Further, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay costs of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each, and respondent Nos.3
and 4 are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)
each to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund (Account
No.90552010165915, Canara Bank Ltd., South Block Defence
Headquarters, New Delhi-110011, IFSC Code: CNRB0019055, within
a period of four (04) weeks from today and copy of the Receipts shall
be filed in the Registry.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ petitions
shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________________
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J
Date: 09.06.2025
scs
