M/s. Shailendra Developers and lnvestments LLd' Reoistered under companies Act v. The State of lelangana Represented by its Principal Secretary lVlunicipal

Petition Under Artiile 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of WritofMANDAMUSdeclaringtheinactionofRespondentsinnotdrsposingof Petitioner application daled 1BtO2l2O17 with regard to occupatron of Plot Nos 454 to 464 approximately 5000 square yards belongs to petitioner Company and other individuals, in Prabhu pada Township layout situated in Sy Nos 177 to 179 of Kondapur village, Serlingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dir;trict, for the purpose of [Vlodification, improvement of lVlaslid Banda Grave yard, without initiating land acquisition proceerdings and without fo owing due proces; of law is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Article 300- A of the constiturion of lndia, and in Violation of principals of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent to dispose petitioner applicatron with in time bound period. |.A.NO:1 OF 2022 Petition Under section i 51 cpc praying that in the cir;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High courl may be pleased to direct the Respondents to dispose the petitroner application/ representation dated 1\l02l 2017 with regard to occupation of plot Nos. 454 to 46t approximately 5000 square yards belongs to petitioner company and other in Jividuals, in prabhu pada Township layout situated in Sy.Nos.177 to .l 79 o., Kondapur Vitlage, serlingampalli Marrdal Ranga Reddy District, for the purpose of Modificatron, improvement of Masjid Banda Grave yard at the earliest. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI p.RAGHAVENDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR MCPL ADMN AllD URBAN DEVELOPMENT counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to s : SRI sAMPATH PRA.BHAKAR REDDY I Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : G.p FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER 7 HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY VWUT PETITION No.15439 OF 2022 ORDER: (oRAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: "...to issue a direction, order or orders more particularly onc in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of Respondents in not disposing of Petitioner application dated 18-02-2017 with regard to occupation of Plot Nos.454 to 464 approximately 5000 squarc yards belongs to petitioner Company and other individuals, in Prabhu pada Tou,nship layout situated in Sy Nos 177 to 179 of Kondapur Village, Serlingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for the purpose of Modification, improvement of Masjid Banda Grave yard, without initiating land acquisition proceedings and without following duc process of law is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Articlc 100-4 ol the constitution of India, and in Violation of principals of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent to dispose petitioner application with in time bound period and pass..."

2. The case of the petitioner is that they have purchased the land admeasuring Acs.44-00 guntas in Survey Nos.177 to 179, situated at Kondapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from different individuals. The petitioner Company developed the said land into house plots under a layout by name 'Sri Prabhupada Township'. The HTIDA approved the Draft Layout vide f:I,e No.9l58/MP21IIIJDN97 dated 26.08.1998. It is submifted that the father of the Managing Director of the petitioner Company by name Mr. B.Damodar, at the first 2 instance, submitted representation before the then Minster of Municipal Administration in the month of November 201 1, stating that the respondenrGHMC occupied the land admeasuring Acs.2-00 guntas of the petitioner company and constructed a compound well, and requested to provide altemative land. Then, a report was callec for by the then Hon'ble Minister and in tum, the Commissioner, GHMC submitted report on 26.07 .2012 to the Principal Secretary, Govemment s.ating that, in the draft layout, at the extreme northern-side, the site in que stion was shown as 'earmarked lor septic tank and open space'; on verifi,:ation of the site, old graves wer:e found to be in existence. The Draft Layout has been adopted by the GHMC while regularizing the plots uncer LRS Scheme, and hence the layout pattem is frozen as per draf. ,[ayout, as per G.O.Ms. No.902, MA dated 31.12.2007. It is further submitted that Mr. B.Damodar filed objections stating that as per draft tentative layout, the existing graves were shown as Ac.0-24 guntas; septir tank was shown on north-west side of the venture. The total layout are r is admeasuring Acs.44-00 guntas; net lay out area is admeasuring 2,07,''74 square yards; the road area is 63,495 square yards; and 5,586 square.rards was shown as water body as per tentative layout and the developlr left 35% open area and claim:; fbr allotment of alternative land J l. It is submitted that the then principal Secretary, Govemment vrde Memo L{o.28630lFzl20lr-20r2 dated 05.10.2012 passed orders under the presumption that the layout was approved, and rejected the claim holding trat once the owner declares the land as open space, he ceases to be owner. The Principal Secretary ignored the fact that construction of graveyard's compound wall was in the alleged open space and the adjacent about ten (10) house plots of individuals have been illega[y occupied by GHMC authorities. That due to ill health, Mr. B.Damodar did not pursue the mafter. Subsequently, in 2015 and 2016, one of the plot owners intended to construct house in his plot; he came to know that graveyard compound wall covered his plot and .his adjacent plots. Then all the other plot owners came to the petitioner in the month of November, 2016 and requested to conduct survey and iaenli6, their plots, as per layout. The petitioner engaged one private surveyor and after survey and verification, the petitioner found that the graveyard platforms were constructed in open space but newly constructed washrooms and compound wall of graveyard occupied plot Nos. 454 to 464, totalling l0 Plots i.e. approximately 5000 square yards. The petitioner submitted representation to respondent No. 1 dated 18.02.2017 with a request to 4 review the order dated 05.10.2012 in Memo No.28(r30,tr2l}0ll-2012 passed by the Lhcn Principal Secretary

4. It is submitted that respondent No. I vide Mt:no No.2299821 2017-7 dated 0l .04.2017 directed respondent No.2 to :xamine and take necessary action in the matter as per rules. [n tum respondent No.2 directed respondents No.3 and 4 to submit report; respo ldent No.3 called for documentary evidence from the l0 plot owners throtrgh the petitioner. The petitioner submitted all relevant sale deeds on 14.O\t.2020 along with the details of the owners and their respective extents. ILespondent No.4, in tum, directed respondent No.5 to conduct field inspe ction and submit report. But so far, respondent No.5 has not submitted an), report, as such, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court

5. Counter aflidavit has been filed by respond,:nts No.2 to 5 contending that this writ petition is devoid of merits. 'Ihe petitioner submitted representation dated I 8.02.20 l7 even a lte r his earlier representation was rejected by the then Principal Secretrry, Government videMemo No.28630/F2l2011-2012 dated 05.10.20 12. I'he respondent - GHMC has submitted the factual report to respon Ccnt No. I vde Lr. No. 1397/-fl)S-ll/Cir-XI/2}t112591 dated 30.07.2012 sraring rhat the 5 owner/developer has submitted proposals in Survey No. 177 to 179 of Kondapur Village in HUDA and the VC, HUDA has principally agreed and approved the draft layout dated 26.08.1998. In the draft layout, at extreme northem side, the site in question is shown and earmarked as septic tank and open space. on verification of the site, it is found that old graves were in existence and the same has been adopted by the GHMC by regularization plots under LRS scheme. Hence, layout patten is frozen as per the draft layout as per G.O.Ms. No.902 MA dated

31.12.2007. The allegation that graves are existing only in an extent of Ac.0-24 guntas in incorrect as the graves are existing in the land other than Ac.0-24 guntas. During the inspection, it was found that some sign boards are erected in the graveyard showing that the dead bodies have been buried in 1992, 1993 and 1997, which also indicatets,that the said burial ground is in existence since long back. As the subject property is earmarked as open space in the approved layout of HUDA dated

26.08.1998, the owner ceases to be rhe owner ofthe subject property and hence, the question of payment of compensation by allotting alternative land does not arise. --r 6

6. Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for GHMC; and perused the material on record. 7 - It is the contention of the leamed counsel for the retitioner that ten (10) plots in the layout i.e. the plots bearing Nos...5.4 to 464 each admeasuring 500 square yards totalling to 5000 square yards, have been occupied by the respondent-GHMC and the same is covered by graveyard. The details of the total layout area, the net lay out area and the area covered by the road, have been clearly nrentioned in the representation ol-the petitioner dated 18.02.2017. Thrrs, the petitioner requested respondent No. I to review the order datel 05.10.2012 in Memo No.28630/F212011-2012 for grant of compensiLtion of allotting altemative land

8. In the light ofthe above stand taken by the petitioner that the Plot Nos.454 to 464 have been acquired by the GHMC; rhat the earlier rejection stating that the land occupied by the graveyarc was covered by open space is not correct, and that the order dated 05.11.2012 in Memo No.28630/F2l2011-2012 has to be reviewed, without t.nrering into the merits of the case, this writ petitiorr 1s disposed of dire:ting respondent No. I to consider the representation olthe petitioner date,l I g.O2.2O17,by 7 giving opportunity of hearing ro rhe peritioner and to all other concemed,/interested persons, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S /-P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Urban Development, To

1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Telangana Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyd e bad

2. The Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal C_orporation, (GHMC), Tankbund, Hyderabad.

3. The Deputy Commissioner GHMC, Serilingampalli Circle, SerilingamPalli, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

4. The Chief City Planner, GHIMC, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 5. The Assistant Chief Planner, GHMC, SerilingamPalli Circb, SerilingamPalli, Hyderabad [OUT]

6. The Tahsildar, Serilingampalh Mandal, Serrlingampalli, Hyderabad. 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Coud for the State of Telangana at S Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 9 One CC to SRI P RAGHAVENDRA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 10. One CC to SRI SAIVPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 11.Two CD Copies SA BS M ltla , ir;:).s ( .) irP 2025 .' ,./ -.'l/ . * ?!5 o4 -:" HIGH COURT BVR,J DATED:1 2t0Bt2O2S ORDER WP.No.15439 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @^1 q \1