Jeedimetla Industrial Housing Society v. Chairman, Secunderabad

Challenging the action of the respondents 2 & 3 in converting the open area into plots bearing Nos.10 and 11 in pursuance of the permit issued by the 1st respondent vide permit No.6750 LC No.6750/MPZ/HUDA/94, dated 27.06.1995, the present writ petition is filed. The respondents 2 & 3 issued a paper publication, dated 31.12.2004, proposing to sell the plot Nos.10 and 11 in an open auction. The grievance of the petitioner is that originally the land in question is the open area left for common amenities by the 1st respondent in the approved plan. Therefore, the right of the petitioner is effected. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent- Corporation contended that in the approved plan the open space left was not earmarked for any common amenities and there is no violation as has been alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. As seen from the approved plan, it is not a case of converting public park or site earmarked for any public purpose. The property proposed to be put to public auction is earmarked for open space. It is always open for the respondents to take appropriate decision to sell the plots. It would be different matter if the property proposed to be put to auction is left for common amenities, but that is not the case. The petitioner has not made out any case that the respondents have violated the approved plan and thereby the rights of the petitioner are infringed. In the absence of all these things, the writ petition is devoid of merit. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. _________________________ K.C. Bhanu, J Date:19.01.2005 MRKR To 1 The Vice Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authrority, Secunderabad. 2 The Vice-Chairman/Managing Director A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3 The Senior Manager, A.P. Industrial Infastructure Corporation, Sananthnagar, Hyd.