The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned Notrfica on vide Notification No. Stray Pieces / Auction / EE (WD) IKKP 12025 dt 10101rt2025, 16. & 19t01t2025 dt. 101O112025 (published in Eenadu), 161O1t2025 (published in Times of tndia) and 1910112025 (Published in Andhra Jyothi) issued by the Respondent No.4, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. counser for the Petition"|. ' ?5Js#fiHoEtfib:'i"o'*rr' Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WIUT PETITION No.1858 of 2025 OR-DER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: " -... Declaring the uction oJ respondents in issuing the Notification No.Stral' Pieces/Auctutn/llE(WD)/KKP/2025 daled 09-01-2025, published in llenadu on l0-01-2025 and on 16-01-2025 in Tinrcs of Indiu linglish News Paper and on l9'01-2025 puhlishcd in Andhra Jyothi News Paper Auctioning 21 Nos. of Stray Pieccs d KPHB Coktny, MM Dislricl, as is where tondition ot Hou.sing lJoard ()ontntuni\, Hall ot Phase-l and Phuse-ll, KP IIB ('olon.y, Ne ur Templc Bus Stop, Medhcal llulkajgiri Dtstrict ot't )1-01-2U25 ./iont ll..00 AM onwards as illcgul antl urltilrur) on(l in riolation of Arlicles l1 ond 2l of Conslilutiott d lndia und c'ontrary to GO Ms.No.6 Housing (I I l)-Il) Depurr ntctt dr. )9-03-20 I I uttd consequentIy set-aside the )iotiJication vide \btrJication \to. Stray l'ieces /Auction / 1,,1':(ll/D)iKKPi202 5 dated 09-01-2025 (puhlished in Eenadu) on 10-01-2025, l6-01-2025 (published in Times oJ lndia) and 19-01-2025 (l'ublished in Arulhru .lyorhi) is.sued by Respondent No.1, and pass such other order or orders as this llon'ble Court dee ms f t antl propcr in the inte re.\t of justice. ".

2. Heard Sri G.Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Sri M.Roopender, Iearned counsel fbr the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing on behall of respondents, and perused the record. 2 3 . Petitioner contends that it is a Welfare Association formed by the House and Plot owners of phase-XV of Kukatpally Housing Board (KPHB) Colony, Hyderabad; that the 4'h respondent had issued notification dated l0-01-2025 proposing to conduct public auction for. disposal of 24 Nos. of house sites terming them as ,stra,v- pieces, in KpllB Colonv on 'as is where is condition'; that thc aforesaid norification was published in the news papers calling upon the interesting bidders to take parl in the public auction schedulcd on24-01_2025.

4. Petitioncr lufther contends that as per G.O.Ms.No.6 Housing (llB-lt) Deparrmenr dr.29-03-201 l, rhe lands admeasuring less than 100 sq. yarcls are perrnittecl to be sold to the ad.jacent house owners on current market valuc without public auction sLrbjecr to condition that No Objection Certificatc is obtained fiom the concerned Municipal CorporatiorV Municipality /Local Body in case of residential areas: that the petitioner, on issuance of the aforesaid notil-rcation, had approached respondent No.4 and requested them to allot stray pieces of land to them by expressing its readiness to purchase the aforesaid stray pieces of land as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.6. 3

5. It is the further case of petitioner that as no response is received from the 4'l' respondent, it once again gave a written representation on 20-01-2025; and that in spite of petitioner's sincere eflorts to convince the 4'r'respondent to sell the aforesaid stray pieces of land to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is not considering the request and bent upon to proceed with the public auction contrary to the guidelines stipulated in G.O'Ms.No.6 dated29-03-2011.

6. It is the furlher casc ol'pctitiorrer that as per the approved fir.ral layout dated 28-05-2015, thc 4'r'respondent is required to maintain 100 and 200 l'eet road in the layout as per Master Plan; that the proposed stray pieces ol land/plot being brought to sale, are adjacent to existing 80 f'cet nrain road, which is required to be widened to 100 feet road as per the condition of layout sanctioned; and that respondent No.4 without considering the aforesaid condition imposed rvhilc sanctioning the final layout, is seeking to setl the stlay pieces ot'Iand adjoining 1o 80 leet road without making a provision for widening of the road to 100 feet as per Master Plan, which action it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the sanctioned layout. 1 4 .I l. It is also the further case ol petitioner thar respondents u,hile obtaining sanction lor the layout, had left thr. srr-ay pieccs of land to sel've as lung space, ventilation and recreation purposes, and thc said open spaces vests with the local bodies i.e. Municipality/Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corpor.atior:r, and as such, the same cannot be permitted to be sold in violation of the conditions stipulated in the final layout.

8. Pctitioner further contended that the stray pieccs of land rvhich are now sought to be put. to public auction b-r, rcspondent authorities have not been assigned with any nurnbcr.in the layolrt and as such, are required to be kept open by the respondent authorities at all times.

9. Per contra, learned Advocate Gcncral appearing on bchalf of rcspondents rvould submit that though the aurhor.ities had proposed to sell through public auction in all 22 stray pieces ol' I plots in Phases-V, VII, IX and XV; rhat the aurhorities have received bids in respect of5 plots against l7 stray pieces of plots in Phase-XV that were put up for public auction.

10. Leamed Advocate General would subnrit that the respondents have received bids from the intending purchaser.s 5 only in respect of plot Nos.6, 9, I 8, 19 and 20 and insofar as other plots of Phase-XV is concemed, no bids are received, and thus, no action is taken in respect ofsaid plots.

11. Learned Advocate General would lurther subrnit that the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner claiming itself to be a Welfare Association of House and Plot owners of Phase-XV, cannot seek for sale of the stray parcel of land in its favour by submitting representatlon

12. Learned Advocate General would also contend that none of the adjacent house owners have approached the respondent authorities expressing their intention to purchase the adjacent stray bits in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6 fbr the respondent authorities to consider the request, much less have atrthorizcd the petitioner to agitate their case.

13. Learned Advocate General lurlher submits that even as per G.O.Ms.No.6, request of adjacent house owner for sale of stray pieces of land can be considered onty if the respondent authorities are of the view that the said stray piece of land less than 100 sq. yards carurot be used by it for other purpose or 6 where there is no access other than the allottee,s land i.e. adjacent house owner's land I :l

14. It is further contended by the learned Advocate Gcr.reral that insofar as stray pieces ol land u,hich are brought lo pLrblic auction, are all having independent access. 'bnd thus, the 4tr' respondent had lound that the same can be used ibr otl-rer purposes and thus, the decision of the 4th respondent in seeking to bring the aforcsaid stray pieces of land to auction cannot be said as contrary to the aforesaid G.O I5. Learned Advocate General rvould lurther contencl that thc respondents whilc obtaining final layout had earnrarked an al.ea of Ac.5.65 cents equivalent to 10.01% as open space lbr public purposc and amenities which arc clearly idcntilied in thc lal,oLrt and thc stray pieces of land which are sought to bc auctioned do not form part of the said extent of Ac.5.65 cents for thc petitioncr to clairn that the said stray pieces of land havine vestecl vr,ith the local authorities and the respondents being denuded of their authority to deai with the same.

16. Learned Advocate General would subrnit that as per the sanctioned layout, the authorities are required to rnaintain 100 1 feet and 200 feet road as per Master Plan, while the plots which are now proposed to be auctioned are all abutting to 100 feet road; that though the width of the road is shown as 80 feet in the layout, the authorities have already provided for l0 leet Right of Way (ROW) on either side of the road and taking the aforesaid ROW, there exists 100 leet road already; and tl.rat the said fact would be evident from a closer look of the layout, which shows that 100 feet road is as per Master Plan including ROW while motorable road is 80 feet

17. l-earned Advocate General would lurther colltend that the present Writ Petition as filed by tlie petitioner on 22-0 I -2025 is only intended to stall the auction of the stray pieccs of land, so that the petitioner claiming itself to be an Association can make use of the plots for their benefit without having any right or interest therein.

18. Learned Advocate General thus submits that the present Writ Petition as filed is misconceived and seeks for its dismissal

19. I have taken note olrespective contentions urged

20. Firstty, the claim ol the petitioner is self-contradictory. The petitioner on one hand claims itself to be a Welfare Association 8 and that the strav pieces of tand put to pubtic auctjon are meant for ventilation and recreation purpose, and on the other hand is 1 claiming the said plots to be sold to adjacent owners in terrns ol G.O.Ms.No.6. Il only the adjacent plots are earmarkecl as open spaces to serve as lung space, the same cannot be sold even to adjacent owner as Iaid dor.vn by the Hon'ble Suprcmc Court in Anjuman E Shiute Ali and others Vs. Gulmohsr Area Societies lltelfarc Group and otherst in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6 by considering the same as str.ay bit.

21. Further', though the petitioner, which is a Welfarc Association, claims to have approached thc respondent authorities tbr purchase of the stray pieces ol land in tet.urs o1' G.O.Ms.No.(r bv subtnitting rcpresentation and the sarre not being consiclcrctl by respondent No.4, it is to be noted that it is only an adjacent orvner of stray piece of land can scek lbr sale of the adjacent stlay piece of land in his favour. antl not an Association as all the said stray pieces of land cannot be treated as being adjacent to the office of the Association. '1zozo1 zo scc oss 9

22. F urther, it is also to be noted that none of the adjacent ownels have joined the present Writ Petition as petitioner in respect of any specific stray pieces of land for the petitioner to claim as if the Writ Petition is filed in representativc capacity

23. Though, on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the stray pieces of lands are to serve as ventilation and recreation and having vested with the local authorities, a perusal of the sanctioned layout clearly demarcates the open areas intended to serve as lung space and recreation space, and the same having vcsted \rith the local Municipal authority under giti scttlenrent dced dated 19-03-2015, do not include the stray pieces of'land wl.rich are now sought to be sold by way of publication.

24. Further, it is to be noted that the petitioner, which claims itsclf to be a Welfare Association, cannot maintain the present Writ Petition on its own, as it has no fundaurental right under' Article 226 of the Constitution ol it cannot be said that its fundamental rights have been violated I 10

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahinder Kumar Gupta ,::., Vs, Unior of India, Ministry of petroleum and Naturol Gas2 had observed that an Association cannot file a Writ petition as it has no fundarneltal right under Article 32 of the Constitution ol' India. The law as enunciated by the Hon,ble Supren.re Court equally applies when it comes to a Writ petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India.

26. Further. it is also be notcd that in order to maintain a Writ Petition, loc.trs stttndi of thc person approaching the Court is also required to be looked into by considering as to rvhethcr hc is personal ly al'fected or its fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded for it to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of thc Constitutior.r of India (Sce : Vino.y Kuntor Vs. State o/ LI.p.3 .

27. It is also equally settled position of law that a person n,ho suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission, and that a person having a rernote interest cannot be permitted to '1rsss1 r scc as '1zoot1 a scc z:a 11 become a party in the /ls unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. (See : Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs, Colleclora).

28. Who can be considered s an'aggrieved parly' in order file a Writ Petition has been explained by the l{on'ble Supretne Couft S.P.Guptn & Others Vs. Presitlenl of Intliu ancl otherss, n'herein it was held as under: '' 14. ...... o person aggrieved must be a man who has sul/bred a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision hos been pronounced which has wrongilully deprived him of something or u,rongfully refused hint something or v'rondully alJected his title lo somalhing.

29. In view of the settled position of law as set out above, the petitioner which is a Welt-are Association cannot be considered as an aggrieved party muchless having any right to maintain the present Writ Petition on account of the action of the respondents

30. Thus, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and it is accordingly, disrnissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 'lhousand only) payable to the High Court Legal Services o 12otz1a scc aoz ' ntR tg8z sc tag r*ft L2 Committee, Hyderabad within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 3l As a sequel, miscel laneous petitions pending i i any shall stand closed MEMORAN DUM OF COSTS W. P.No.1858 oF 2025 Rs. Ps. Cost Quantified by Hon'ble Court (That the Petitioner rn costs, of il/ril i;iii;;-is'directed with exemplary . n..io.oool- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be pard Io 'Hii,ii cSrrt Legat Services Committee within 4 in"" ;;6i;", th; date"of receipt of a copy of this order' TOTAL 10,000 - 00 to,ooo - oo SD/.N. SRIHARI AqSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /t \ \ \i '-:: "taigana, Secretariat' Hvderaoad sEcrloN oFFlcER The Principal Secretary Telangana Housing B-oard Secretariat' State of Telanoana. Hvderabad il5'iy;;;;;]'S;JlL.v o"purt.ent or Municipal. Administration and Urban o'"i"rdJili5,ii Siai" oi f ix."viJ"'_"ci r"il.i,Jn, ,"0 Httiilb-c-o-mmissioner, Teransana Housing Board Nampally, HYderabad The Executive Engtneer, (Housing) Western Division Telangana Housing Board, Medchal ( l'/a lkajgiri) District fi ;' e;;;;;.rier cnMc, G;;Gt Hvderabad N'4unicipal Corporation' Lower Tank Bund, HYderabad o"'. cCio's{t v noopElorR, Advocate- to?9ql - -nbv-oblli 'cirlenAi, Hisii court ror the State or i;; tt; io'ftre Telanoana at Hvderabad. [OUT] al Services Committee' High Court for the one 6C to Th6 High Court Leg loPUCl State of Telangana at HYderabad. Two CD CoPies. BSK GJP To,

4. 5 6 7 8 o \q- 1- ':... -r1 r t t t .. ;., ) - -.'., '' c.>\ ;t ?aE rji ,;l HIGH COURT DATED:1910212025 ( I I l i I I I I t I I t I i i I ORDER WP.No.1858 of 2025 0 5 /ttA)' \. . \^- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS \r- *{"4 fr*