The High Court · 2025

Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent No.4 to stay of all further proceedings pursuant tq impugned proceeding Lr.No.rSD No.2/shamshabad/Maheshwaram section {0s, dt.13-2- 2024 directing the petitioner firm to clear the fencing rand in in sy.tto.'oa, extent of Ac.12-11 guntas of Sirigiripur village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District pending writ petition in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to modify the interim order granted in wp.No.4724t2o24, dt.21-02_2024 wilh a direction statua quo to be maintained as on today to the extent of a[eled Kothakunta FTL/Buffer zone rand an extent of Ac.1-00 in sy.No.6g (part) of Sirigiripur Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District out (instead) of extent of Ae.12-11 guntas in sy.No.68(part) of Sirigiripur viilage, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy t)istrict and give permission to construct and cornprete the villa project left over rand an extent of Ac.1 1-1"r guntas in Sy.No.6g(part) of Sirigiripur village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District pending writ petition in the interesl of justice. counsel for the Petitioner: SRr B.MAyuR REDDY, sr. COUNSEL, REp. FoR t SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI LAXMALLA SANDEEP, AGP FOR IRRI AND COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGp FOR REVENUE I WRIT PETITION NO: 98'17 OF 2024 Between: M/s. Vander Bilt Group, Rep. by its Proprietor B.Govardhan Goud, S/o. Balraju Goud, age 42 years, Occupation- Business, O/o. H.No.1-73, ORR Exit No 14, Srinaqar Cross Road, Tukkuguda Municipality, Maheshwaram Manflal, Rangareddy District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, lrrigation Department, T.S., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 3 The Collector, Rangareddy District At Kongarakalan. The Chairman, Lake Protection Committee, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) Office, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 4 The Thasildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District ...RESPONDEI.ITS Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of fulandamus in action of the respondent No.2 not considering the representation of the petitioner d|.191312024 for deletion of the petitioner land an extent of Ac.1?-11 guntas in survey No.68 of Sirigiripur village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District from FTL/Buffer Zone of Kothakunta Tank wttich preliminary notified and placed in HMDA website with a Lake ID-2400/E/N/01, dt.1B-7-2Q17 which is illegal and arbitrary and consequent direction direct the respondent No.2 consider the representation of the petitioner dt.191312024 for deletion of the petitioner land an extent of Ac.'12-11guntas in survey No.68 of Sirigiripur village, Ivlaheshwaram fvlandal, Rangareddy District from FTL/Buffer Zone of Kothakunta Tank which preliminary notified and placed in HYDA website with a Lake lD' 2400 tEtNt1 1, dt. 1 B-7 -2017 . lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 consider the representation of the petitioner dl 1g-3-2O24 for deletion of the petitroner land an extent of Ac 12'11 guntas in I survey No.6B of Sirigiripur village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District from FTL/Buffer Zone of Kothakunta Tank which preliminary notified and placed in HMDA website with a lake lD 2400lElNl01, dl 18.07.2017 pending writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.MAYUR REDDY, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI LAXMALLA SANDEEP, AGP FOR IRRI AND COMM AREA DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 4: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 4678 and 9817 of2024 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Writ Petition No.4678 of 2024 is taken up as a leading case to decide the /is in both the writ petitions.

3. It is stated that the petitioner is a partnership lirm, registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act,

1932. lt is further stated that the petitioner is a developer and it has acquired the land to an extent of Acs. 12.11 guntas in Survey No.68 of Sirigiripur Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District through registered Development Agreemenr Nos.56l/2023, dated 11.O1.2023 and 709 of 2023, dated 13.01.2O23. It is further stated that the owner of the subject property is also a partner in the petitioner's firm and in terms of the Development Agreement, the petitioner has obtained necessary permissions from the competent authorities for constructing the residential houses in the gated community. It is further stated that the petitioner has complied with atl the I l ') CVBR, J Wp_ 4678 and9817 _2024 requirements by remitting the requisite fee to the locai authorities and after obtaining necessary sanctions from the HMDA, the petitioner-firm has undertaken construction of the Villas/ residential houses as per draft layout permission of HMDA uicle L.P.No.OOO132/LO/PlglHMDA|2023, dated O3.O7.2O29. It is further submitted that the petitioner also obtained permission for conversion of the subject land from agriepltural use to non-agricultural purposes under the provisions of the Telangana Agricultural land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006.

4. Considered the submissions of Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.Rajesham, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Laxmalla Sandeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No'5'

5. Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. Rajesham, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehementlv contended that the revenue authorities have granted contersion permission for converting the subject land for the purpose of other than agricultural and H.M-D.A., after -2024 verification of natuie of land and its classification, granted Wp_4678 and 9817 CVBR, J permission for construction of Villas uide L.P.No.0OO132 /LO I Plg/HMDA|2023, dated 03.O7.2023. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the petitioner is having all requisite permissions from the local authorities and strictly proceeding in accordance with the sanctioned plan in an approved layout. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the respondent .- authorities having granted all the permissions, have no power or authority to interfere with the constructions of the petitioner disputing that the part of the land is FTL/Buffer Zone of Kothakunta Tank.

6. Respondent No.3 liled a counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that having found that the lands forming part of survey Nos.67 and 68 under FTL of Kottakunta, they have addressed a letter uide Executive Engineer of the Lr.No.EE/ Irrg. Divn No.1/HYD/DB / 23.O.2O24 requesting the HMDA not to approve the layout DE;E-T/AE,F/D2l2O2g-24/3062, dated submitted by the petitioner's firm. It is further stated that questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner herein- Iiled W.P.No.2447 of 2025 before this Court and this Court, uide order, dated 3O.O1.2O25 relying upon the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer, has set aside the show cause notice and i I .1 CVBR, J Wp_4678 and98l7 2024 directed the petitioner to maintain status-quo, failing which, permitted respondent Nos.2 and 4 to take action against the petitioner including filing of the Contempt Case along with photographs. It is stated that the orders passed by this Court in the said writ petition have attained finality. The relevant portion of thr; order is as follows "6. l,earned Assistant Couernmenl Pleader for hngation and Command Ared tkuelopnent and Mrs. D. Ma<1hauL leanned Standing Cnunsel appeaing for respondenl Nos.2 aad -J, on in-struct otrs, uould sulrtnit that the petitioner is procceding utith tlle .,,rstnrctton in uiobtiotL of the aforesaid order, doted 21.02.2024 ttt W,P.No.4678 of 2024- l,eaned. Assisrant GotEntment Pleader for ltrigatioi dnd Command Area Deuelopment would. further submtt lhat fnal notifcation roas olso issued Notilging Kolhakunt@ CLLetuuu urtder F'l'L.

7. As ightly contended by lhe learnetl .SP.ntcrr Counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No.3 c.nnot issue sholu-cause notice, dated 06.01.2025 ctttling explanation lron the petitioner o,s to Luhg the draft lagout issued to the petitioner .:a?.ol be' cancelled on lhe dllegation of uiolatio\ of slatus quo order, dat?d 2l -O2.2024

8. ln the tight of the sai.J subrl6.srons, shoo couse notlcP, dated 06.01.2025 issued bg respondenl ly'o.J is 'set aside. Howeuer, petitionet sh,.ll m6iintairl sto,trtsauo in corapliance uith the order, date<l 2 1.O2.2O24 in W.P.N1.4678 of 2024, lailtlg uhiclr, hberTy is grdrlted to respondent Nos.2 arld 4 to take o;ctiott oqainst the petitioner includirlg fnnts of contetpl cdse along with the photographs."

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, without conducting any enquiry in pursuance of the order passed b)' this Court, dated 3O.O 1.2025 for fixation of boundaries for the lands in Sy.Nos.67 and 68, wherein the i l CVBR, J Wp_ 4678 and 9817 _2024 nature of lands have classified as patta lands, are frequently interfering with the possession of the petitioner and causing obstruction to the construction activity claiming that the construction being carried on by the petitioner is in Sy.Nos.67 and 68, which forms part ol the FTL/ buffer zone of Kothakunta'

8. This Court has carefully examined the impugned order in proceedings No.lSD No.2/Shamshabad/Maheshwaram Section/ O5, dated 13.O2.2024 in W.P.No.467 8 of 2024. A reading of the said order would reveal that on routine inspection, the Assistant Executive Engineer found that the fencing was erected within the FTL and buffer zorre area of Kothakunta Tank in Sy'Nos'67 and 68 of Sirigiripur Village, Maheshwaram Mandal' lt is further stated that the lrrigation Department had issued No Objection Certificate imposing certain terms and conditions stating that if the specified buffer zone is not maintained and if any encroachments are found in F.T-L., permission accorded by the Irrigation Department would be cancelled' g. lrarned Senior Counsel seriously disputed the contents of the letter that there was no survey whatsoever has been conducted in the presence of the petitioner fpr fixation of the boundaries either for the lands in Sy'No'67 or for the land in -l I I 6 CVBR, J Wp_ 4678 and9817 _7024 Sy.No.68 which are alleged to be forming part of the FTL/ buffer zor^e of Kothakunta Tank. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that cxcept making such allegations in the counter- affidavit and in the impugned order, no enquiry as such has been condu<:ted by issuing notice to the petitioner. Leamed counsel further submits that having allowed the petitioner for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose and granting permission by H.M.D.A., the respondent authorities are estopped from raising any objection stating t-hat the constructions are falling in F.T. L. / Buffer Zone of Kothakunta Tank.

10. It is settled law that if there is a dispute with regard to the identihcation, fixation of boundaries and more particularly the nature of lands and its classification and if the contention of the respondents that the lands in possession or construction activity being undertaken by the petitioner lorms part of FTL or buffer zone is to be accepted, it is necessary to resolve the said dispute by conducting a joint survey by thc Revenue and Irrigation authorities and after identification and hxation of the boundaries and if it is found that the constructions carried on by the petitioner comes under Irrigation Work as defined undqr the. ,provisions of the Telangana Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli the 7 CVBR, J Wp 4678 and 9817 2024 respondent authorities are conferred with the power to remove the same by foilowing due procedure under law.

11. ln Maria Margarida Sequeria Fentandes and others os. Erasmo Jack de Sequerta (dead)l , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of its earlier judgment in Ramrameshwari Deoi u. Nirtnala Devi2, held as follows: "False claims and defences are reallg serious problems utith real estate litigation, predominantly because of euer- escalating pices of the real estctte. Litigation pertaining to ualuable real estote properties is dragged on bg unscrupulous lttigants in the hope that the other partA uill tire out and ultimatelA would settle Luith them bg paging a huge amount. This happens because of the enortnous delag in adjudication of cases in our courts. If pragmatic approach b adopted, then this problem can be minimised to a lorge extent."The Court further obserued that Lurongdoers must be denied profit from their fiuolous litigation, and that theA should be preuented from introducing and retging upon, false pleadings and forged or fabicated documents in the records furnished bg them to the Court."

12. In V.Chandrasekaro,n and anothens. The Administratite O;fficer and OthersJ, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follovt s: / 'lzorz; s (tclo '(2or l) 8 scc 249 t i2otz; tz scc r3l I I IJ CVBR, J Wp 4678 and98l7 2024 "42. xxi) The State/ Board. authorities never made an attempt to stop the anstructiott- Nor the Board. approached. the court to restrain tlrc appellants from encroaching upon its l(Lnd. (rnd constnlction of the Jlats. Conniuanrce of the oJjicers of the Board in the scandal is writ large and does not require ang proof. l.acts of the case reueal a uery sorry state of alfairs as hout the public propeftV can be tooted uith the conniuance and collusion of the so called tn1stees of the public properties. It reJlects on tlrc uery bad gouernence of the State autlnities."

13. Considering the above facts and in view of the serious dispute with regard to identilication and localization of the subject lands, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to conduct joint inspection /joint survey for hxation of boundaries and localization of the lalds in survey Nos.67 and 6g of Kottachemvu, after issuing notice to the petitioner and alt the effected and interested parties. In the said survey, if it is found that the petitioner is in occupation of FTL/ Bufler Zone of Kothakunta Tank, the respondent 'authorities can initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. Till completion of the joint inspection and fixation of the boundaries as referred to I above, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner and the petitioner shall alJ maintain status-quo. The entire exercise shall be ) 9 CVBR, J Wp_4678 and9817 2024 completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

74. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHY S ANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// CTION bFFICER The Secretary, lrrigation Department, T.S., Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Chief Engineer, lrrigation Department, Erramanzll. Hyderabad. The Superintendent Engineer, land CADD, lrrigation Circle, Hyderabad, Lakidikapool, Redhills, Hyderabad. The Assistant Executive Engineer, lrrigation and CAD Department, lB Section, Maheswharam Section, Rangareddy District. The Collector, Rangareddy District At Kongarakalan. The Chairman, Lake Protection Committee, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) Office, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District One CC to SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI V,NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA [OPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies Yt- I \ To, '1.

2. J, 4

6. 7

9. 10 11 12 BSR Bs I I HIGH COURT CVBR, J DATED: 12102,12025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.4678 and 9817 of 2024 rrE STAfe. ,t L) i ,' 9 2 t 2 4 r{Ah 2025 i a I.'jl,,il(:rr! DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, VI/ITHOUT COSTS @#w