Telangana High Court
Kandikanti Sujatha vs The State Of Telangana on 19 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.31830 OF 2024
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of respondent No.10 in making illegal construction,
i.e., office in the 10% of the approved venture layout in
T.L.P.No.166/2014/HRO/H1 dt.07.11.2014 in Survey Nos.72 and 73 in
an extent of Ac.4.67 cents situated at Kadthal Gram Panchayat, Kadthal
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently
to direct the respondents to enquire into the matter and relocate the same
to the public purpose and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are
that the petitioner claims that her mother has purchased Plot No.26part
in Survey Nos.72 and 73 admeasuring 146.66 square yards situated at
Kadthal Gram Panchayat, Kadthal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from
her vendor, i.e., Mohammed Ismail through registered Document
No.4584/2022 dt.26.02.2022 on the file of the Sub-Registrar's Office,
Maheswaram, Ranga Reddy District and that they are in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the same ever since. It is submitted that in
the north side of the layout 10% of the vacant land was left over as per
the DTCP Rules and a gift deed was also executed in favour of the Gram
Panchayat for this purpose. It is submitted that without any authority to
change the nature of the land, respondent No.3 has issued proceedings in
favour of respondent No.10 for construction of office in the 10% of the
vacant land as office of Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar-cum-
Executive Magistrate, Kadthal. Challenging the said action, the present
Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the DTCP
Rules, 10% of the total extent of the layout has to be left out for open
space as well as pakt area in addition to the area which is covered by
roads and such areas have to be gifted to the concerned Gram
Panchayat. It is submitted that the vendor of the petitioner who has
converted this land into a layout and obtained the layout permission in
T.L.P.No.166/2014/HRO/H1, has executed a gift deed in favour of the
Gram Panchayat and instead of developing park in the said area of the
layout for the use of the residents of the layout and others, the
respondents have constructed a building therein for the office of the
Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Kadthal
which is illegal and arbitrary.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above
submissions and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Anjuman E. Shiatge Ali and another Vs.
Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group and others 1 in support of
his contention that the open spaces in the layout are required to be left
out for the purpose of creating lung space for owners of other plots
where constructions are permitted and that in the approved layout,
where open spaces are left, they are continued in that manner alone and
no construction can be permitted in such open spaces. He also placed
reliance upon the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of
Durgam Narsimha and others Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its
Secretary (Panchayat Raj Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad and
others2, wherein the respondents are directed not to make any
constructions in the open space area earmarked for park. He also
referred to G.O.Ms.No.67, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts-
IV) Department, dt.26.02.2002 which is a Notification for A.P. Gram
(2020) 20 SCC 698
W.P.No.20551 of 2017 dt.03.10.2024
Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 which
have subsequently been adapted by the Government of Telangana as
well. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the definition of the
term "open space" which means an area forming an integral part of the
plot, left open to sky and Rule 3 of the said Rules prescribes the
documents to be submitted along with the application for layout
permission and Sub-rule (3) and Clause (iii) thereof refers to a statement
of details and dimensions of each plot, percentage of area under open
spaces, roads, amenities and plotted area. Rule 4 of the said Rules
prescribes the minimum requirement for approval of layout and Clause
(c) thereof refers to minimum open space set apart in the proposed
layout for playground/park/educational institution or for any other
public purpose to be at the rate of 10% of the total site area. Rule 11
refers to the conditions for prior technical approval from the Director of
Town and Country Planning as necessary for certain permissions and
Sub-rule (7) thereof prescribes that all the roads and open spaces such as
parks and playgrounds earmarked in accordance with these rules in a
layout, which is approved by the Gram Panchayat, shall automatically
stand transferred free of cost, and vest with the Gram Panchayat free
from all encumbrances and after such vesting, the Gram Panchayat shall
maintain all such open spaces for the purpose for which they have been
earmarked. Clause (iv) of Sub-rule (8) of Rule 11 also provides that the
sanction of technical approval may be refused if adequate area has not
been set apart for public purposes under Rule 4 (1) (c) of the said Rules.
He therefore prayed that the illegal construction made by respondent
No.10 may be directed to be removed and the open area which has been
left in the layout be maintained as a park for which it was earmarked.
5. Respondents 10 and 9 have filed their respective counter
affidavits. According to respondent No.10, who is the custodian of the
10% of the approved venture layout, the petitioner has no locus standi to
file the present Writ Petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is not the
owner and possessor of any plot in the layout where the public
functioning office in the name of Mini Skill Development Centre has
been constructed. It is further submitted that the Mini Skill Development
Centre was not constructed by respondent No.10, but the same was
constructed by the State Government, Revenue Department and that the
office of the Tahsildar is functioning in the said Mini Skill Development
Centre. He also enclosed a copy of the gift settlement deed
dt.15.09.2018 under which the owner of the open area, i.e., 800 square
yards in Survey No.72 and park area admeasuring 652 square yards total
admeasuring 1,452 square yards situated at Kadthal Revenue Village
and Gram Panchayat was gifted to the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted
that it is in the open area of 800 square yards that the building has been
constructed and the park area has remained intact and is being
maintained as park only.
6. Respondent No.9 in his counter affidavit has reiterated the above
contentions raised by respondent No.10 in his counter affidavit and
submitted that Kadthal Village was newly formed in the year 2016 and
there was requirement of construction of Government office building
and there was no Government land available and on verification, it was
found that the Mandal Praja Parishad and Gram Panchayat possessed
certain land and therefore, resolutions were passed on 03.06.2021 for
allotting 2,000 square yards, i.e., 10% vacant land for construction of
new building for Tahsildar Office, Kadthal Mandal in Survey Nos.72
and 73 of Kadthal Village and the said proposal has been forwarded by
the MPDO, Kadthal Village to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy
District vide letter No.PtsWING/23/2021 dt.03.06.2021 and thereafter,
the District Collector and Member Secretary, District Mineral
Foundation, Ranga Reddy District has accorded administrative sanction
for execution of the work, i.e., construction of Mini Skill Development
Centre at Tahsildar Office, Kadthal to the District Panchayat Raj
Engineer, PIU, Ranga Reddy District with an estimated cost of Rs.68.00
lakhs in Kalwakurthy assembly constituency from the available funds
from the District Mineral Foundation Trust in Ranga Reddy District and
accordingly, the construction was done in the year 2021 and the same
has been completed and it is now being used as Tahsildar office building
for utilisation for public purposes. He has also referred to the resolution
dt.03.06.2021 for such usage. Therefore, according to respondent No.9,
there is no illegal construction and the building has been constructed
strictly in accordance with the rules, for public purposes, as is permitted
under the DTCP Rules and the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. It
is further submitted that the petitioner has no locus to file this Writ
Petition as her plot is not in the layout in which the Tahsildar office has
been constructed.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has referred to the
proceedings of the DTPC authorities, dt.07.11.2014 under which the
layout approval was registered and there is reference to 10% of the open
space area, i.e., Ac.0.47 cents of the total area of Ac.4.67 cents. It is
submitted that the petitioner is referring to T.L.P.No.166/2014/HRO/H1,
wherein the total extent of land in the layout was Ac.5.00 in Survey
Nos.72 and 73 of Kadthal Village. Therefore, according to him, the
petitioner has no locus to challenge as her plot is not in the subject
layout. Further, he has relied upon the decision of the Madurai Bench of
Madras High Court in the case of M. Saleem Vs. The Director of
Town and Country Planning, Chennai and others 3, wherein it was
observed that when the subject land is reserved for public purposes and
it is not an open space or park or playground, it can be used for public
purposes provided construction permission has to be obtained from the
municipal authorities/municipal body. He placed reliance upon the
decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of
K.Rajamani and others Vs. Alamunagar Residents' Welfare
Association and others4 in support of the proposition that once
permission is accorded by the Government for a layout plan and in that
permission if a specified area is earmarked for public purpose, even the
Planning Authority shall not have power to exempt the said land from
W.P.(MD)No.10139 of 2020 in W.M.P.(MD)No.4637 of 2021 dt.29.02.2024
2011 (1) CTC 257
being put to use for any other purpose. He referred to the decision of a
Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Sri Devi Nagar
Residences Welfare Association Vs. Subbathal and others5, wherein
the expression "public purpose" has been held to be not capable of
precise definition and has no rigid meaning and it can be defined by a
process of judicial inclusion and exclusion and that it has to keep pace
with the realities of the social and political evolution of the country as
reflected in the Constitution. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
Writ Petition.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the first and foremost question to be decided is
whether the petitioner has locus standi to file this Writ Petition. The
petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of a plot in the layout in
which respondent No.10 has permitted construction of a building which
is now being used as office of the Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar-
cum-Executive Magistrate, Kadthal. Therefore, it is to be seen as to
whether the petitioner's plot is in the very same layout to decide the
maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by her. In the sale deed in the
2007-3-L.W. 259
name of the petitioner, there is reference to the approved layout in
L.P.No.166/2014/HRO/H1, C.No.1082/2014/HRO & Ref.Lr.No.107/
2014 in Survey Nos.72 and 73 of Kadthal Village and Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District and in L.P.No.166/2014, it is noticed that the total layout
area is Ac.4.64 cents and that the open space 10% is Ac.0.47 guntas in
Survey Nos.72 and 73. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent
No.10, it is stated that in respect of the above layout, a gift settlement
deed Document No.17305 of 2018 dt.15.09.2018 has been executed in
favour of respondent No.10 gifting 10% of open space for public
purposes, and keeping in view the lack of space for public purposes, the
land has been allotted for public purposes and the building has been
constructed. On perusal of the gift settlement deed Document
No.17305/2018, it is noticed that it refers to L.P.No.1082/2014/HRO/H1
and the total area of the layout was Ac.5.21 guntas and the open area of
800 square yards and park area of 652 square yards, total admeasuring
1452 square yards (Ac.0.12 guntas) was gifted in favour of respondent
No.10. The open area in respect of the layout in which the petitioner's
property is located is Document No.7550/2016. In both the documents,
the subject land is Survey Nos.72 and 73 of Kadthal Village, Kadthal
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is
not one of the plot owners in L.P.No.1082/2014/HRO/H1 and she has
no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition. The first objection of the
respondents is therefore upheld.
9. Without prejudice to the above, on merits, the question to be
decided is whether the 10% of the open space which is earmarked for
purpose of open space and park can be used for construction of a
building thereon for Government office. As per the DTCP Rules, there
is a minimum requirement of 10% to be left out for open spaces and
parks which are to be used for public purpose and there are decisions
relied upon by both the learned counsel that once the area is earmarked
for specific purpose, the same cannot be converted to any other purpose
and cannot be utilised for any other purpose. As seen from the gift deed
executed in favour of the Gram Pnchayat, vide Document No.17305 of
2018, there was open space of 800 square yards and also park area
admeasuring 652 square yards total admeasuring 1452 square yards
which have been gifted to the Gram Panchayat and the contention of the
respondents has been that the construction has been done in the open
space which is meant for public purpose and not in the park area.
However, this Court has gone through the resolutions passed for
allotment of land by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer for
construction of Government buildings and it is noticed that the total area
earmarked for construction of Tahsildar office in Survey Nos.72 and 73
is 2,000 square yards. Therefore, it is clear that it is not only the open
area but even the park area has been allotted for construction of
Tahsildar's office building which is not permissible under the DTCP
Rules and also as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the Coordinate Benches of various High Courts. It is pertinent to
observe that both the layouts have been formed by brothers and it is not
known whether the open areas in both the layouts are adjacent to each
other. If that is the case, the respondents would have constructed the
building in the open area of the other layout too and the petitioner would
have locus standi to file this case.
10. In view thereof, this Court is inclined to allow this Writ Petition
with a direction to the respondents to either demolish the building which
has been constructed in the area which is meant for open space in the
layout or to allot any equivalent/alternative site nearby to the petitioner's
colony.
11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order
as to costs.
12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 19.03.2025
Svv
