High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 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 writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents 2 to 6 in not initiating action on the illegal constructions being made in Survey No.36 of Upperpally village and also in the adjacent land in Survey Nos. 310 to 319, 321 to 324,327 to 336 of Attapur Viltage, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the 7 respondents 2 to 6 to initiate necessary action and remove illegar constructions made in Survey No. 36 of Upperpally Village and also in the adjacent land in Survey Nos. 310 to 319, 321 to 324,327 to 336 of Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 respondents 2 to 6 to consider the representations of petitioner dated 03-01-2023,03-02-2023 and 06-06-2023 and initiate necessary action and remove illegal constructions in Survey No.36 of Upperpally Village and also in the adjacent land in survey Nos. 31 0 to 31 9, 321 to 324, 327 to 336 of Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 6: SRI RAPARTHI VENKATESH, SC FOR GHMC Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI R.R.KALYAN Counsel for the Respondent No.B: SRI T.SURyA SATISH The Court made the following: ORDER o o HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.16O97 of 2o23 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6, Sri R. R. Kalyan, learned couirsel for respondent No.7 and Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for respondent No.B. Perused the record.

2. The land admeasuring Acs.3.OO guntas in Sy.No.36 of Upperpally Vllage, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Rgddy District was alienated in favour of Dr.P.Ranga Reddy Lions Eye Hospital, represented by the father of the petitioner, Dr.P.Ranga Reddy as per G.O.Ms.No.1262 Revenue (Assn' V) Depart, dated 25.06.2OO5. A registered Deed of Conveyance bearing document No.4OlB of 2007, dated

28.03.2OO7 was also executed in favour of the said hospital on payment of market value of Rs'65,34,000/- for construction of a World Class Eye Hospital. In the said KL,J W P.No.16097 of 202' 2 G.O. and deed it is mentioned that the conditions stipulated in B.S.O.24 shall be applicable to this alienation, District Collector directed the Mandal Re,renue (lfficer to hand over the possession of the said Government land to the said hospital. Thereafter, the sad land was delivered in favour of the said hospital, under cover of panchanama.

3. In the said deed of conveyance, it is sgiecifically mentioned l.hat the alienee, his successors in interest, executors and administrators, shall enjoy the land absolutely without hindrance from any Oflicer as per the alienation orders issued vide G. O.Ms.l\to.1262, dated 25.06.2OO5 and subject to the conditions mentioned therein and in AP (TA) Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules, 1975. It is specifically mentioned that the land shall be used for the purpose of establishment of Eye Hospital and its ancillaries. The Govemment may resume the land who1ly or in part with any buiidings thereon in the event of infringement of any of the conditions of the alienation etc. Y ,a q KL,J W.P.No.l6097 of 2023 I 3

4. According to the petitioner, his father died and said Dr. P. Ranga Reddy Trust has constructed the said hospital. There is dispute with regard to the land in Sy.No.36 of Upperpally Village and land in Sy'No'316 of Attapur. Petitioner representing the hospital hled a suit vide O.S.No.365 of 2O2l against respondent Nos'7 and 8 seeking declaration and recovery of possession of part of the said property. The said suit is pending' In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.7 and 8 are proceeding with the construction in the said land without obtaining prior permission from respondent Nos'2 to 6' Therefore' petitioner has submitted representations, dated 03.O1.2023, 02'O2.2O23 and O6'06'2023 to respondent Nos.3 to 6 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.7 and 8. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representations, respondent Nos'3 to 6 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent Nos'3 to 6, petitioner filed the present writ petition'

5. Respondent No.8 has filed counter contending that he has sought for conducting of sur-vey claiming right over the i KL,J \V.P.No.16097 of20?. 4 land in Sy.No.316 of Attapur Village. He has sought for survey of the said land and the same was not considered. Therefore. he has filed a writ petition vide W.p.Nc .423g0 of 20 18 beforr: this Court. Vide order, dated 03.12.11O1g, this Court disposed of the said writ petition direr:ting the Tahsildar to conduct survey and, uide Lr.lrlo.D/1 lZ/2llg, dated 26.O4.2O1g, the Tahsildar, requested the ,A,ssistant Director Surve-y and Land Records, Ranga Fleddy District to conduct survey. He has conducted the sur\.ey and demarcatecl the said property. As per the saicl sulvey report, Ac. 1.30 gts was covered by the compound wall falling in Sy.No.316 of Attapur Village ar:td also clearly shows the illegal encroachment made by the hospital which the writ petitioner is representing.

6. He has further contended that he has alienated varibus parceis of land to third parties under ::egistered sale deeds and the purchasers seem to be making const.rctions in the said land. Neither h nor respond,ent Nc.7 are making construction in the said land as alleged by the petitioner herein. On the complaint lodged by Sri Sved e Y .l KL,J W.P.No.l6097 of 2023 5 Ameer Basha Paspala, police have registered a case in Crime No.132 of 2023 against respondent No.g and others and on completion of the investigation, Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against them. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.l76 of 2024. He has also filed a petition seeking quashment of the said proceedings.

7. Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.6 has issued notice to 5 people, who are making construction unauthorizedly. He will inspect the site and take action against the persons, who are making unauthorized construction strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short .the Act, 1955).

8. As discussed supra, the aforesaid land admeasuring Ac.3.O guntas in Sy.No.36 of Upperpally was alienated in favour of Dr. Ranga Reddy Lions Eye Hospital, as per G.O.Ms.No.1262 Revenue (Assn V) Department, dated l I KL,J \\'.P.No.16097 of 20]r 6

25.06.2005 under registered deed of corrveyance bearing document No.4O18 of 2OO7, dated 2B.O3.taOO7, on specific condition that the land shall be used for. the purpose of establishme,nt of Eye Hospital and its ancillaries and other conditions. Thus, the said land was alienated to the said hospital, a trust, on payment of market va_lue for the purpose of constructing a World Class Eye Hospital. Therefore, the said trust has to construct World Olass Eye Hospital in terms of Deed of Conveyance. The lrust has continuous body and a legal entity. petitioner is son of Dr.P.Ranga Reddy, who represented the saict hospital in the deed of con\/eyance. Dr.p.Ranga Redd1, is no more. Therefore, the said trust which is running Dr.Ranga Reddy Lions Eye Hospital has to protect the said land anci submit representations to the respondent corporation alleging that respondent Nos.7 and g are proceeding construction in the said land without obtaining permission. petitioner, being businessman cannot submit a representation to respondent Nos.2 to 6 and espouse in the cause ol- Trust. The petitioner had fiied the present writ pe:tition in his / o o KL,J W.P.No.l6097 of 2023 7 individual capacity alleging non-consideration of the said representation. The said Trust/hospital has to protect the said property. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. g. Sri R.R.Kalyan and Sri T.Surya Satish, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8, on instructions, would submit that respondent Nos.7 and 8 are not proceeding with the construction as alleged by the petitioner in the writ affidavit.

10. As discussed supra, though Acs.3'00 guntas of prime land in Sy.No.36 of Upparpally was alienated in i favour of Dr.P.Ranga Reddy Eye Hospital, a Trust, on market value for construction of World Class Eye Hospital, it appears, the said Trust has not constructed eye hospital in terms of the said G.O. and deed of conveyance. There is violation of the said terms. Petitioner cannot file the present writ petition and the said suit in his individual capacity. KL,J \\'.P.No.16097 of 20J: 8 (

11. Therefore, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, shall look into the matter personally, conduct a detail enquiry and take action in accordance with law. Fte shall complete the said exercise within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit crtmpliance report to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

12. As discussed supra, respondent No.6 ha"s already issued notice to five persons, who are making unautLrorized constructions. This writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.6 to visit the subject property. If there is any unauth orized construction in the said rand without obtaining prior permission from the G.H.M.C., he shall take action strictly in accordance with the proce,dure laid down under,the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporal.ion Act, 1955: He shall not consider/adjudicat,: the disputes between the eye hospital and respondent Nos.7 an,l g with regard to the subject property including boundary disputes in between land in Sy.No.36 of Upperpally Village and Sy.No.316 of Attapur Village. No costs. KL,J W.P.No.l6097 of 2023 I As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in the Writ Petition shal1 stand closed' / SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY R ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER To Hvderabad Tank Bund, Hyderabad Corporation, HYderabad

1. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District' i piil s"li"ii rv, secreiariii,"Hvo-eiatiao, S-tate of rela ngana' Mu n ici pa l - nimin,siritio'ri ind Urban Development Department' 3. T#'b;;ilii.i*"r, -et"ri"r. nvli*oia MLinicipal Corporation' Tank bund' 4. Uili";'Citv Planner, Head Office, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' s. z6iiirt"oini"idsonei, cr,arminar Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal 6. The Deoutv Commissloner, Rajendranagar Circle' Greater Hyderabad 7. Assistant Citv Planner, ii,i#iiJ*g"t Circle' Greater Hyderabad Municipal 8 il;cc'6 sni5nea.rivnsA RAo vELlvELA, Advocate [oPUC] ^ e. i;; dd.io-oFFon MCPiIADMN a uCeAN DEV, Hish court for the State -' 1 o. 6";"iii;' SRi iin'pnnt-H ivd r'rxnr es H. 9c FoR G H Mc [oP u c] ii.o;; cc 6 SRi R.R.xRlvnu, Advocate [oPU-c^]-. ii.#; dd i; SFii r.sunvn sArlsH, Advocate [oPUc] 13.Two CD CoPies of Tetanqana, at Hyderabad. IOUTI Municipal Corporation, HYderabad Corporation, HYderabad. SK. P B a- HIGH COURT DATED:1 110212025 ORDER WP.No.16097 ot 2023 CC TODAY ,/a-.-,-,5tt\t E Y 2. i:/ ,/, ,',: 2 B tEB 2[25 //, 'i.- -" ., \-- .... - ' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS