The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: K RAVI MAHENDER (SC FOR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue Counsel for the Respondents:GP for lrrigation & Commandant The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE ST{TE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO CO E L F DATE: 12-12-2025 Between: S.V.R. AYYangar s/o' S'S'AYY?:g:r' ,l Nu[ut, Nacharam' Flyderabad' ".Uvri Smt. V.Prashanthi, Deputy Commissioner Of Greuter Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' f"[utp"ffy Circle, Hyclerabad and six others' ... Petitioner/ Petitioner Respondents/ resPondents ORDER: ThepresentContemptCaseisfiledunderSectionsl0to12of ContemptofCourtsAct,lgTTforwillfuldisobedienceoftheorders passedbythisCourtinW.P'No.9629of'2013dated03.03.2021.

2..t'hebrieffactsoftheCaSearethatthewritpetitionerhasfiled w.p.No.9629 of 2ol3 challenging the impugned order dated o2.o2.2oT3issuedbytherespontlentsrefusingtosanctionbuilding permissiontothepetitionerinrespectofplotNo.2ginSy.No.l40, situated at Mahdavi Nagar, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga t! i3 n. -l 2 FGs Reddy District, as the said plot of the petitioner was falling under buffer zone of Yellamma Cheruvu, Kukatpally, Balan agar Mandal, Hyderabad.

3. Initially, this Court after hearing both sides has allowed the said V/rit Petition by setting aside the impugned order dated

02.02.2t)73 by remanding to the competent authority to consider the same ilfter duly taking into consideration of the letter dated

14.05.2009 addressed by the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and also taking into consideration of the petitioner's case with similarly situated plot owners who have been granted building permission. The order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9629 of 2013 is extracted as under: "Flaving regard to thc, facts a.d circumstarrce,s of thc case, thr: writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugrred letter dated 02.02.201,3, and the matter.is remande.I to the cornpetent authority to re-consider the same afresh duly tal.:ing into consideration the letter dated 74.05.2009, ad,lressed by the Tahsildar, Balangar Mandal, to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and also taking into coruideration the fact that similarlv situate.rl plot owners harrg 6s.. granted building permission, and 1-rass n(,cessary orc ers. In case, the competent authority neecls any clarification, he can seek the same from the Tahsildar concerned. This entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that before passing any ordcrs, the pehtioner shall be afforded an opportunity of l-rearirrg. A "l 3 coPv of the order that mav be passed by the competent authority shall be communicated to the petitioner"'

4.LearnedSeniorCounselappearingforthewritpetitioner submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court' the writ petitioner made a rePresentation to the respondents on 28'04'2027 and the respondent authorities issued order in Lr'No'449/TPS1'/ ACP / C24 / GH\4C / 2027 dated 07 .05.2021 rejecting to grant building permission over the respective plot hearing No.29 of the petitioner once again reiterating that the said plot was coming under buffer zone of Yellamma Cheruvu, Balanagar, Hyderabad' It is contended by the learned senior Counsel that the writ petitioner once again made representation on 17.05.2027, to which the authorities replied ttide letter No.449 /Tt51,/ ACP/C24l GHMC /2O21r dated 22'05'2021" Further, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that though this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider grant of building permission to the writ petitioner duly taking into consicleration of the letter of 'l'ahsilclar, Balanagar Mandal, dated 14.05.2009, the respondent authorities so as to deprive the legitimate rightofthewritpetitionerhavebeenadoptingseveralvindictive I ,a':.s**!!'. __i*,.:nff:'-'-1-:^-*_ - ;.,. .'i*:*...'.- . ^ ., *' 1 4 .G methods and have intentionally rejected his claim on false and untenable grounds.

5. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that irr other writ petii:ions filed by the similarly situated persons, the respondent authoritir:s have filed a rough sketch map showing the survey number rryhere the plot of the writ petitioner was situated being out of buffer zone and that the said rough sketch of Yellamma Cheruvu has been filed before this Court and in such rough sketch, the plot of the writ 1>etitioner was falling outside the purview of buffer zone. [t is further contended that on previous occasion, when the writ petitione:' has filed an application for sanction of building permission, the writ petitioner was granted Lruilding permission in the year 2OO9 uide proceedings No.G1l96/BA/336/09-010 dated

06.07.200,) and on previous occasion, the authorities sanctioned the building permission in pursuance of the layout which was firrally released by the Director of Town and Country Planning aide Lr.No.U3/80, dated 74.07.1980 and as the building was not construct,:d within the stipulated time as per the plan sanctioned by the authorities dated 06.07.2009 as the same lapsed, subsequently he 5 madeanappticationanditisbeingrejectedwithoutproper justifiable reasons intentionally with untenable grounds'

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has ptaced reliance on the orders passed by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of E.T.sunup v. c.A.N.S.S.Employees Association and anotherl,whereintheHon'bleApexCourthasheldthat"ithas become a tendency with the Government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of Court and try to take recourse to one justification or other. 'fhis shows complete lack of grace in accepting theordersoftheCourtandthistendencyofunderminingthe Court's order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasized that in a democracy the role of the Court cannot be subservient to adminisffative fiat. The executive and legislature have to work within the constitutional framework and the judiciary hasbeengiventheroleofwatchdogtokeepthetegislatureand executive within check". In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that as there was a deriberate attempt on tt're part of the bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court stick to their stand ' (zooq) 8 scc 683 I 6 held that there was crear violation of the Court,s order and the Hon'ble Apex Court herd the appe[ant as guirty of frouting the orders

7. l.earned senior Counser also pracecr reriance in the case of Manin,cerjit singh Bitta v. union of India and others2, wherein the Hon'bk: Apex court herd that in the facts of the said case, it is undisp,ted that for years together the state of Haryana has failed to comply with the directions of this Court and implement the scheme which has not onry caused prejudice to the pubric at large but has even undermined the dignity of this Court and in such crrcumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the authorities are guilty a.d sentenced them to undergo simpre imprisonment. 8' Learned Senior Counser arso praced reriance on the judgment of this l-lon'ble Court in the case of R.K.EncIave prot owners Associatirln v. state of Telangana3, wherein this Hon,ble Court held that in ther fac.ts of the case therein, the respondents suppressed the material and deliberately increased the FTL spread exorbitantly to 465 acres without any basis, with the result that area which was ' 2ot2AtR scw 734 ' 2o2o (1) ALD 449 (Ts) 7 earlier not part of the water sPread area of the tank' Iike the properties of the petitioners, came within the FTL to the serious disadvantage of the petitioners and other land owners in the said survey numbers and in the opinion of this Court, the FTL of a tank cannot be changed arbitrarily from time to time dependirrg upon the whims and fancies of the responclents. As such, this Hon',ble Court in the said case hetd that the acts of the respondents therein are contemptuous in nature and the writ petition was allowed by imposing costs of Rs.25,0Oo/-. However, this Court did not punish the respondents for contempt of Court as vacate stay petitions were pending adjudication for long time and closed the contempt case' g. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the present case also falts within the ambit of directions of the Hon',ble supreme Court and that the authorities in the instant cases have been changing the measurement's of the FTL and buffer zones of Yellamma Cheruvu' Balanagar,. Hyderabad and thereby increasing the buffer zone area without any justifiable grounds and contended that the action of the authorities are nothing but contemptuous in nature and as such' the respondents are punishable for contempt of Court for deliberately .-.-..f1+f;' :-i:ry ' -T 8 disobeying the orders passecl by this Court in the instant writ petition.

10. Per contrc, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Revernue as well as Irrigation and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GHMC would submit that in fact, the respondents have not violated the orders passed by this Court and that earlier occasiorL this Court directed the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of building permission afresh with rererence to the letter of the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, dated 14,.05.2001, in lieu of the same, the respondent authorities have consider.ed the case of the petitioner and reiected as the plot of the petitionr:r lvas falling in the buffer zone of Yellamma Cheruvu' Balanagar, Hvderabad. As such, the respondent authorities issued l-r.No.449 /"fPSl/ ACP /C24/ G:Hl/tC/2027, dated 07 '05'2027 informing that the building permission to the writ petitioner cannot be considered and though the writ petitioner submitted reply to the said letter, the same could not be re-considered as the plot of the petitionr:r was falling in the buffer zone' t ." - 'i i I It is further submitted that in fact incomp liance of the orders

11. passedbythisCourtdated03.03.2021intheW.P.No.9629of.2013, theCorporationfixedthedateofhearingono4.os.zozl'and intimation was given on 30.04.2021 to the petitioner', however requestwasmadeforhearingbythewritpetitioneron03.05.202l andthatthewritpetitionerhasstatedthatpreviouslyhehasgot building permission of the same plot and also surrounding plot owners of the same layout have got the permission and sought the buitclingpermissionandtherespondent-Corporationinspectedthe subiectsiteandsubmittedreportstatingthattheplotSl.Nos.].to53, l2Ttol3ToflayoutswhichareontheNorthsideofHTlineroad andareearmarkedaswaterbodyinthemasterplanandthus,the saiclplotNo.2gisfallinginthewaterbodyofYellammaCheruvuaS the Government t'ide per the master plan aPProved bY G.O.Ms.No.288, MuniciPal Administration & Urban Development Department,dated03.04.2003andafterconsideringalltheaspects, theCorporationissuedrejectionletterdatedoT.o5.202land contendecl that there is no willfut disobeclience of the orders passed by this Court. \l 10 72- The writ petitioner has fired instant contempt case afleging that there is a clear violation of the orders passed by this Court dated 03.03.2021 in w.p.No.9629 of 2073 and contended that the respondents are interrtionaily changing the measurements of the buffer zone and F'r-[,, so as to deprive the writ petitioner of his legitim,ate right for sanction of buirding pran and after firing of the counter, this Court in the underlying contempt case, in fact, by orders dated 20.07.2022 by recording submissions of the writ petition,:r along w,ith the submissions of learned standing Counsel, opined that since there is no dispute with regard to the propositions laid dovrn by this Court in E.T.sunup's case (supra) and vajja Raiababu v. G.Kista Gound and othersa, as the scope of enquiry under th: C.ntempt of Court Act is very limited, this Court under the Act can only punish the respondents/authorities if there is any deliberate'or wilrfur crisobedience of the orders and havi.g regard to the fact that as there is serious dispute with regard to the identity and locati'rn ,f the prot No.29 claimed by the petitione r, primLa facie, this Courr felt that encrs of justice would be met if a survey is conducted by the Assistant Director, survey and Land Records, o 2o7g(4)ALDs54 11 Medak District for demarcating the plot No.29 on ground and to submit a report as to whether the same is falting within the buffer zone of the Yellamma Cheruvu, in the presence of the writ petitioner, along with the officials of the GHMC, the Revenue Department and the Irrigation Department duly by putting all the parties on notice directed to conduct survey and demarcate the said plot taking into consideration of the earlier report of the Tahsildar' dated 74.05.2009 along with the report dated 03.03'2014 of the Executive Engineer, North Tanks Division, Buddha Bhavan, Secunclerabad and also the proceedings dated 17 '05'2010 of the Deputy Collector & Tahsitdar, Balanagar Mandal and further to receive any work memos that may file by the parties, to be considere.t b.y the Assistant Director, Survey and [-and Records, Medak District and to conduct the survey within four weeks from the date of said order.

13. It is contenc{ed by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that in Pursuance of this Hon ble Court direction dated

20.07.2022, in the contempt case, the survey was conducted by the Inspector of Survey, Survey and Lancl Records, Medak District, and t2 all th': parties who were affected alorrg witl-r the petitioner have been duly intimated and the authorities demarcated boundaries of sy.Nc,.140 of Yellamma Cheruvu at Kukatpally and identified the locati<>n of the plot No.29. Further, it is statecl that in the said surve,y, it was found that part of the prot No.29 of the petitioner fafls under FTL a^d part falls under buffer zone and rocation sketch is prepared showi.g the boundaries of plot No.29 in sy.No.140 by superirnposing in FTL map of Yellamma Cheruvu and the particulars of the said survey arong with the demarcation of land of Yellamma Cheruvu and the location sketch of Sy.No.140 is filed before this Court by due intimation to all parties by the Inspector of survey aide Rc. N o. Ar / 1068 / 2022, dated,09.01 .2023. 1,4. It is contended by the rearned Assistant Government preader for Revernue that in pursuance of the interim direction in the instant contemprt case, the survey was conducted and it has been observed that the land irr respect of plot No.29, part of land of 164 square yards is falling under FTL and an exten t of 102.67 square yards is falling trnder the buffer zone, as such, there is no willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. t I 1_3

15.IhaveheardlearnedSeniorCounselsriRaviKondaveeti, representing Ms. Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, counsel appearing for the petitioner;SriK.RaviMahendar,learnedStandingCounselfor CHMC appearing for Respondent Nos'1' 2 &' 7; Ms' T'swetcha' learnedAssistantGovernmentPleaderforRespondentNo.3,andSri LaxmallaSandeep,learnedAssistantGovernmentPleaderfor lrrigation and CAD appearing for Respondent No'4 and having given earnest consideration to their submissions' Perused the record'

16.Asseenfromtherecord,thisCourtintheinstantcontempt CaSesoastoCometoajustconclusionandalsointheinterestof justice has directed the respondent authorities to conduct a detailed enquiry uide tnterim order dated 2o.o7.2)22by taking upon all the relevant factors and documents and also to consider various reports of the authorities by putting all the parties on notice and to demarcatetheplotNo.2gonground.andsubmitareportby conducting the survcv by the Assistant Director' survey and Land Records, Medak District' ln Purs uance of the same, the resPondent authorities have conducterj a detailed survey by putting all the partiesonnoticeandroughsketchoftheSy.No.l40ofYellamma ,t ..._..- l L4 Che^rvu Tank, and demarcated the same and unfortunately, the plot c,f the writ petitioner was coming part in FTL zone and part in buffer zone. Further, it is not the case of the contempt petitioner that they vrere not put on notice anci that the procedure was deviated, at the most, the only contention raised by the writ petitioner in the conterrpt case is that only to deny the legitimate right of the writ petitioner, the authorities have been adopting unfair methods.

17. r\s seen from the record of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Medak Dislrict, the survey was conducted in pursuance of the interim orders dated 20.07.2022 in the underlying contempt case and the plot of the writ petitioner was demarcated which .iell under the FTL and the buffer zones as seen from the sketch rnap of the demarcation of the ptot No.29 and sy.No.140 of Yellamrna Cheruvu Tank. In view of the same, this Court do not find an1'force in the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel that the resp,lndents, so as to deprive the legitirnate rigl'rt of the contempt petitioner, have been rejecting the case of the writ petitioner and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court and accordingly they are rejected. I -r--.-o.q-*,f *.!*s*,o: i ./' --rr-}l .,/ 15

18. [nsofar as the facts in the decisions in R.K.Enclave Plot Owners Association (supra), E.T.SunuP (supra), and Maninderiit Singh Bitta (supra), are distinguishable with the facts of the case and the said cases are not applicable to the instant contempt case.

19. In the light of the above findings, in considered opinion of this Court, there is no disobedience or much less willful disobedience of the order dated 03.03.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9629 of

2013. The Contempt Case is hereby closed accordingly.

20. However, the writ petitioner is at liberty to challenge the demarcation and survey conducted by the Assistant Director (Inspector), Survey and Land Records, Medak District, pertaining to Sy.No.140 and FTL of Yellamma Cheruvu, Kukatpally, dated

09.01 .2023, before the appropriate authorities, if he desires so There shall be no order as to costs. [']ending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ Sd/. N. SRIHARI ,/ DEPUW REGISTRAR ,/ 6 ) SECTION OFFICER To, I One CC to SRI KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI Advocate [OPUC] 2 oneCCtoSRIKRAVIMAHENDER(SCFoRGHMC)Advocate[oPUC]

3. Two CD CoPies NVB/Sa T@ b- ts=4F.-4.**:" &i i, **''-.&*hri-;. .+.**-;.+*:1*+- "* .rfF.ffi{ ,,d ,.o HIGH CCTURT DATED:1211212025 ORDER GC.No.1011 of 2021 ThE i,:.,ri.),' ui{' .) ? 3 ti: )1'tt 1' (- ! . t'. ., ."f '!. tf.n:)/ CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE KS rzle/e