The High Court · 2025

Smt. V.Sunitlra, W/o Saibaba, Occ business, R/o H.No.B-106, Flat No.402, Sri Ganesh Res,dency, ft/adhuranagar, Hyderabad - 38. AND 1 The tt4adhuranagar Welfare Association, (Reg.No.51/81), Office situated at 1 10-5 Madhuranagar, Hyderabad - 38 Represented by its General Secretary, K.Sanrbasiva Rao . PETITIO NER/RESPON DENTS

1. 'Greatt;r Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Municipal Complex, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad.

2. Town Planning Officer, Madhuranagar area, Greater Hyderabad tVlunicipal Corporation ft/unicipal Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. ...RESPON DENTS/RESPONDENTS Petitic,n under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate lnterim Order Dt. O7l1Ol2O13 in W.P. No. 2764712013 restraining the Vacate Petitioner from making any construction.s on any road or road margin. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.VASANATHA RAYUDU, rep., SRI VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for Flespondent No.l&2:SRIG.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC counser for Respondent No:3 l ' :s.,tRix.mx,tt,fBx3[' The Court made the fottowing: ORDER 1 TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WP.No.27647 of 2O13 ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed to declare the regilarization proceedings No.LRS/ 10756 / CR- 1O/Central Zone/ GHMCI 2008, dt.2L.O2.2OO9, issued by the 1st respondent-Corporation in favour of the 3.d respondent and the consequential building permission uide Permit No.17 /73 in File No.222lD/1O(D-28, 27, B and D- 27/3/81A9), dt.16.8.2009, as arbitrary, illegal, null & void and against the norms of public policy and contrary to the Municipal .Act and Rules made there under and Regulations and to set aside the same.

2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a welfare association constituted in the year L978 uide registered No.Sll9l with sole object to serve the residents of the entire Maduranagar Colony, consisting of 30 layouts and a1l the plots in the said area are sold away and the petitioner-association is administering the functions of the association to safeguard the welfare of the members and to protect the public places from encroachment.

3. It is further contended that the petitioner-association came to know that the 3'd respondent instituted a civil suit in O.S. No. 1 2 of 2013 o:n the file of the learned IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil -Cbuit,: H'yrderabad, seeking a decree of perman€nt injunction restraining the 1.t respondent-Municipal Corporation from interferinl; with the construction activity undertaken by the 3'd respondent in premises bearing Nos. 8-3-222/B/A (Plot No.D-27), 8-3-222llllAl1 (Plot No.D-27), and 8-3-222/D10 (Plot No.D-28) situated zrt Madhura Nagar, Yousufgud.a, Hyderabad. On coming to know of the said proceedings, the petitioner-association filed an implead lretition seeking to come on record in the said suit. However, the said application was dismissed by order, dt.26.08.il,OL3, aggrieved by which the petitioner-association preferred a Civil Revision Petition (CRP) before this Hon'ble Court.

4. It is' further contended that the petitioner-association has come to 1:he knowledge of the petitioner-association that the l"t responderrt-Corporation uide proceedings No.LRS/1O756/CRl lO/Central Zorte/GHMC/2008, dt.2L.O2.2OO9, had regularized an extent of 167.2O sq. meters, in favour of the 3'd respondent, which forms part of the earmarked 4O'wide road.

5. Petilioner further submits that the plot in survey No.77 in Ward No.8 Block No.3, situated at Yousufguda locality admeasuring 2O0 sq. yards (equivalent to 168 sq. mtrs.) originally 3 belongs to one M.Shankaramma, W /o Veera Reddy and she along with her children sold the said property to Smt Nazimunnisa Begum uide re$stered document No.19B/70 and subsequently, Smt Nazimunnisa Begum soid the said property to one Satish Kumar Agarwal uide registered document No.2525/L997 and the

3.d respondent herein had purchased the said property from Satish Kuamr Agarwal uide registered Document No.llo/2OO7.It is specifically contended that, even as per the approved layout plan of Madhuranagar, the said area is clearly shown as a 4O'

6. , It,is further contended by the petitioner-association that thd' ' 3'd respondent herein with an intention to occupy the road on the eastern side of the said plot, had made an application seeking regalarization of road width area. The said application was approved by the l"t respondent-Corporation uide proceedings, dt.2l.O2.2OO9. Subsequently, the 3'd respondent obtained building permission, dt.16.08.2009, wherein the eastern boundary of the plot has been shown as 35' road. While construction is in progress, in the month of January, 2013, the petitioner- association made a representation to the l"t respondent- Corporation alleging illegal encroachment, pursuant to which, the 4 lst respor:ident-Corporation demolished the construction made by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the said action of the -1"t respondent, the 3'd respondent filed OS.No.1 of 2023 and obtained status quo. As the l"t respondent failed to file counter, it r,vas set exparte.

7. [t is further submitted by the petitioner-association that on coming to know of the s€une, it had filed an implead petition uide I.A.No.2O',7 of 2OO3, which was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner- association filed the present Writ Petition challenging the regs,Larization proceedings, dt.2l.O2.2OO9, issued by the 1"t respondent in favour of the 3.d respondent

8. The respondents No.l & 2 have filed counter affidavit under the signature of the Assistant City Planner Circle X, GHMC, wherein it is stated that the 1.t respondent-Corporation has regiarized the plot of the 3.d respondent bearing premises No.8-3- 22218 (I'lot No.D-27) , 8-3-22218 / A(Plot No.D-27) and 8-3- 22218/Ar'l(Plot No.D-27) admeasuring L67.28 sq. mtrs., situated at Madhuranagar Hyderabad, under AP Regularization of Unapproved and Illegal Layouts Rules, 2007, by duly taking over the land t.o an extent of 27.87 sq. mtrs., &s road affected portion based on the physical features of the existing 22' road, by duly 5 showing 5'-OO" as affected under proposed 3O'-OO" wide road existing towards Eastern side and a 35'-OO" wide road existing towards Northern side, in accordance with G.O.Ms.113, MA, dt.31.01.2008, as the said site falls within the unapproved layout.

9. It is further submitted by respondents No.l & 2 that upon approval of the said layout, building permission was granted for construction of a residential building consisting of Stilt-cum-4 upper floors, having two roads abutting the plot i.e., 22'-OO" width on the Eastern side ( by duly showing 5'-0O" feet affected portion under proposed 30'-00") towards Eastern side and 35'-00" wide road existing towards Northern side uide permit No.17 /73, dt.16.08.2OoO9, in favour of the 3.d respondent.

10. Further, in the said counter, the respondents No.1 & 2 have categorically shown in tabular form that the North boundar5r as per documents is described as 'Road' (not mentioned the road with, while under LRS, it is 35'-0O" and as per physical position it is 35'-00". Likewise, the Eastern boundary as per documents is described as 4O'-OO", while as per LRS, it is 22'-OO" and as per physical position it is 27'-OO" (incl. 5' depth effected portion of plot) 6 1 1. It is further stated by the counter affidavit that the Master plan carr e into existence uide G.O.Ms.No.363 MA 2l .O8.2OLO, whereas the LRS proceedings and building permission in favour of the 3.,t respondent were issued in the year 2OO9, i.e., prior to the coming into force of the said Master Plan, and hence, the contentio:e of the petitioner-Association that LRS proceedings were issued without observing the 4O' road margin as per the Master Plan, is rrot untenable and incorrect, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

12. The 3.a respondent in his counter has categorically denied the allegation of encroachment of part of the road and contended that there is no illegality or irregularity in the proceedings No.LRS/ lO7 56 / CR- l0/Central Zone / GHMC / 2OOB, dt.2l.O2.2OO9 issued by the 1st respondent.

13. tt is also stated by the 3.d respondent that she had purchase,l total extent of 500 sq. yards under two registered sale deed bearing Document Nos. 2153/2006, dt.13.04 .2006 and llol2OOi', dt.O8.0l.2OO7, wherein the eastern boundary of the property is shown as 40' road. The actual land available was

483.33 sc1. yards, out of which an extent of 27.87 sq. mtrs., was surrendered for the purpose of road and the 2.d respondent herein 7 had measured and demarcated the said land even at the time of granting building permission on 10.08.2009 and therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the l"t respondent-corporation granted regttlaization of road portion without even verifying the Master Plan road alignment was specifically denied. It is thus contended that there is no encroachment as alleged, and the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

14. Heard Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel representing Sri Gudapati VenkateswaraRao, counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 & 2, and Sri R.S.Shravan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri P.Ramesh Babu, for respondent No.3.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the lst respondent without verifying the Master Plan Layout granted tegtiarization of road portion in _favour o_f th,g _3:o respondent, therefore, the said regalarization proceeding is absolutely illegal, void and is liable to be set aside. L6. It is further contended by the counsel for petitioner that while the building permission shows the road width as 22', in the 8 Master Pl,an it was shown as 4O'road and thus, the road has been shortonec to 22', which is contrary to the Master Plan released/ sanctioned by the 1"t respondent-Corporation, and thus, the regulirrization proceeding as well as the building permission granted try the authorities are illegal, arbitrary and liable to be dismissed. L7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, submitted that the regularization proceedings w,ere issued following due process of law and there has been no contravention of rules and regulation in regularizing the subject plot under LRS or in granting building permission.

18. I have taken note of the respective submissions made by the counsel on either side and perused the material on record.

19. The basic contention of the writ petitioner is that the LRS proceedings issued by the 1"t respondent in favour of the 3.d respondent uide No.LRS/ 1O7 56 / CR- lO/Central Zone / GHMC / 2008, dt.2l.O2.2OO9 is illegal and arbitrary. It is specifically averred that the 3.d respondent has encroached upon the road margin and sought for regularization of said road margin. 9

20. Contrary thereto, respondents No.l & 2 while denying the allegation of encroachment by the 3.d respondent, specifically contended that an extent of 27.87 sq. yards under road affected portion was surrendered by the 3'd respondent and as per LRS proceedings and physical possession, the road width on North side is 35'feet and on East side, as per documents it is 40'and as per LRS it is 22' and as per physical possession it is 27' (inclusive of 5' feet depth affected portion of plot).

21. Thus, the l.t respondent has categorically stated that there is no encroachment of the road area and since the plot is covered by an unapproved layout, it was regularized under LRS Scheme by duly taking over 27.87 sq. sq. mtrs., of land under road affected portion basing on the physical features of the exiting road as per GO Ms.No. 1 13 MA dt.3 1 .01 .2008.

22. It is a settled principle of law that a Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan cannot have retrospective effect so as to nullify or override rights that have already vested under an earlier approved scheme, such as a Layout Regularization Scheme (LRS). Once a layout or plot has been duly regulafized under a valid and existing scheme, it confers a vested right upon the property owner, 10 which cannot be divested by subsequent modifications or changes in planniirg instruments.

23. The Master Plan, being a statutory instrument, is presumed to operate prospectively, unless the governing statute expressly provides lbr retrospective application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has consistently held that in the absence of clear legislative intent, planning laws and subordinate legislations cannot retrospectively take arvvay accrued or vested rights.

24. In ^BL Manjusree a. State of Andhra Prqdeshr, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that rules or statutory instruments are presumed to be prospective in nature unless a contrar5r intention appears expressly or by necessary implication.

25. Further, in Howrq.h Municipal Corporation a. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd.,z the Supreme Court emphasized t}l^at zoning or developmt:nt plans operate prospectively and cannot unsettle lawful permissions or regularizations granted under earlier valid schemes

26. In the instant case, the LRS proceedings were issued way back in th e year 2OO9 and building permission was granted in the I (2008) 3 SCC s 12 2 (2OO4l I SCC 663 i i1 very sarne year of 2OO9 i.e., before the Master Plan came into existence utde G.O.Ms.No.363 MA, dt.2l.OB.2O10 and the present writ petition is filed in the year 2OI3, after the petitioner became unsuccessful before the Civil Court in getting impleaded in the suit filed by the 3.d respondent against the l"t respondent- authorities. I \

27. The petitioner if aggrieved by the non-impleadment in the suit filed by the 3.d respondent, the remedy is to challenge the dismissal order passed in the implead application, antd bypassing thc said remedy, has filed the present Writ Petition after four years ..r. of such dismiss.al of ,implgad appfigqtign as. well .-4s the LRS proceedings and building permission granted in favour of the 3'd \ i respondent.

28. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out any case to substantiate its clairn that the 3'd respondent has got the regolarization proceedings by encroaching upon the. road portion entitling it to the relief as claimed in the instant writ petition. Thus, the writ petition is ldevoid of merit and is tiable to be dismissed , ,:,i; ] ;. L2

29. In the light of the above stated findings, the Writ Petition is dismissr:d. No order as to costs. Conscqur:ntl-y, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand cl:se<i. Note : That the l.A filed seeking for correction at Para No.14 in the order, dated 31-10-2025 in W P.No.2764t of 2013. The same is sub:;tituted and amended as per the Order, dated 24-12-2025 in l.A.No .1 of 2025. This l\mended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched o r 1 3-1 1 -2025. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR I I To, //TRUE COPY/ SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI VENKATESWARA RAO GU Advocate. [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI G |\TADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC. tOpUCI 3. One CC to SRI P.RAMESH BABU, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. BSK HIGH CCIURT DATED:3i111012025 12411212025 a ( SiA 3 0g tE8 202[ * * AMENDE:D ORDER WP.No.27647 of 2013 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS