SRI G v. S. GANESH

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the 4th and 5th respondents in permitting the vehicles and public through the northern side compound wall of the Court by giving way into the petitioners colony without implementing the orders of the 2nd respondent addressed in letter No.101/HMDA/DEV/S&S/201 5-16 daled 22-02- 20'16 to the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, violative c,f Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents 4 and 5 to llose the northern side dismantling compound wall of the Ranga Reddy District conrplex opened for the purpose of erecting a gate and to allow the vehicles and gen,lral public to use the petitioners colony Roads for their vehicles and general public incoming and outgoing from the Co u rt. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 12ssl oF 2016) 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 pteased to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to implement the letter addressed cv thr:2nd respondent vide letter No 101/HIVDA/DEV/S&S/2015-16 dated 22 02-2016 to the 4th respondent and close the dismantled compound wall on the: northern side of the Ranga Reddy District Court building at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad for not allowing the vehicles and general public to use the petitioners' colony Rozrds for the purpose of entering and exit of the Courts forthwith pending disposal of vrr t petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. V. S. GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR MUNICIPAL ADtvttNtSTRAT|ON AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOLTD, S.C. FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PA,CHWA, S.C. FOR GHMI] Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI RESU MAHENDER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.9929 OF 20'16 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief "Io rssue an appropriate Writ order or d[ectrct1 more in the nature of WRIT OF A/IANDAMUS to declare the action of the 4th and 5'n respondenls in permitting the vehicles and public throLtgh the nofthern side compound wall of the Courl by giving way into the petitioners colony wilhout implementing the orders of the 2"d respondent addressed in letter No.101/HMDNDEV/ S&S/2015-16 dated 22-02-2016 to the 4th respot:dent, as legal, arbitrary, violatrve of principles of natural lustice and consequently direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 lo close the nofthern side dismantling compound wall of the Ranga Reddy District Complex opened fot the purpose of erecting a gate and to allorv lhe vehicles and general publtc to use lhe petftrcners colony Roads lor theh vehicles and general ptrblic incoming and outgotng from the Courl.

2.1 Sri G.V.S. Ganesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent No.6 has opened a gate on the northern side compound wall of the Court premises, providing direct access into the petitioner's residential colony, without \r implementing the orders of the 2nd respondernVH[\/DA, AS contained in [/emo daled 22.02.20 1 6

2.2 The learned Counsel further contends that respondent No.6 has failed to produce any permission obtained from either the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (OHlvlC) or lhe Hyderabad [\4etropolitan Development Authorily (HMDA) for erection of the said gate

2.3. The learned Counsel also submits that the erection of the gate has enabled public access from the Court premises into the petitioner's colony, resulting in significant inconvenience to the residents and increased congestion on the internal roads Accordingly, he prays that this Hon'ble Court issue appropriate direclions to restrain such unauthorized action

3.'1 . Learned Standing Counsel for HMDA submits that, upon representation made by respondent No.6, permiss,ion was initially granted on 30.01.20'16 to erect a gate on the northern srde of the Court building to facilrtate access

3.2 He further states that the layout in questiorr was originally developed bv HMDA. However, upon completion of the development, the public roads and places within rhe layout were - 3 duly handed over to the local municipal aulhority under communication dated 06 02 2012. 3 3. The learned Standing Counsel clarifies that the layout is not a gated community; rather, the roads within it are public open for use by the general public. Therefore, the petitioner's claim that the opening of a gate by the Court onto a public road is unlawful or lacks legal basis is untenable.

3.4. The learned Standing Counsel adds that he has no specific instructions regarding further proceedlngs subsequent to the impugned communication dated 2202'2016, whereby Ht\tlDA directedrespondentNo.6toStopconstructionuntilfurtherorders' Nevertheless,hemaintainsthat,asthelayoutconsistsofpublic roads not forming part of a private or gated community' the petitioner's contention lacks contractual or statutory foundation Hence, he prays for appropriate orders

4. Learned Counsel for the 3'd respondenvcHMc submits that no correspondence was made with respondent No 6 regarding the erection of the gate. However, since the internal roads within the layout are public roads' no specific permission is \-- 4 required for providing access thereto. Accordinglr'. he also prays for appropnate orders

5. I have perused the material placed on record 6 The essence of the petitioner's cont':ntion is that respondent No.6 erected the gate without requir;ite permission' despite a directive from HMDA to halt such construction. The petitioner asserts that the opening of the gate orovides public access through their residential layout, causing inconvenience and traffic congestion to the residents.

7. lt is an admitted fact that the gate was ,:rected on the compound wall of respondent No.6's premises, ard that the gate opens inward towards the boundary. The assertlon made by HMDA (respondent No.2) that the petitioner's la)'or1 . no, " gated community, and that the internal roads art: public roads, remains unrebutted, B. ln this factual context, the essential question that arises for consideration is whether respondent No.6 is legerlly required to obtain prior permission from either HIMDA or GHMO for erecting a gate in its compound wall providing access to a puL,li: road -

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on Section 18 read with section 55 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008, which vests development control powers in HMDA. He contends that, by virtue of this provision, HMDA alone has the authority to permit or regulate the erection of any access or opening abutting a public road within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is argued that respondent No.6 was obligated to comply with the Hlt/lDA memo dated 22.02.2016 and refrain from opening the gate.

10. However, a careful reading of these provisions indicate that the power conferred upon HtVIDA pertains to granting permissions and overseeing development projects or schemes during the phase of layout development or for ongoing development works financed under the Act. ln the present case, it is undisputed that the layout was fully developed and formally handed over to the Municipal authority on 06.02.2012. Once such transfer occurs, all control, maintenance, and regulatory powers over public roads vest with the local body, i.e., GHMC, under the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (GHMC Act) Thus, any subsequent issues concerning access to or regulation of public roads fall within the jurisdiction of GHMC, not HMDA. 6 - 11 Under the GHMC Act, Sections 373 to 427 comprehensively govern the regulation of ptrLrlic streets in Hyderabad. Notably, Section 400 prohibits the erection of any door or gate that opens outward onto a public streeland obstructs convenient passage, empowering the Commissioner to prevent or modify such openrngs. Seclion 401 empowers tht: Commissioner to regulate or remove any structure causing obstruction upon a public street. Seclion 405 aulhorizes removal of any fixture erected over or upon a streel without proper aL tltority. Seclion 473 mandates that no person shall open or brerak up a street without the prior written permission of the Commissicner

12. ln the present case, the pleadings establish that the gate in question is located on the boundary wall of respondent No.6 and opens inward, providing access to an existing puolic road within the petitioner's layout. There is no evidence of any encroachment upon, obstruction to, or modification of the public road, or of any projection or structural interference with the strer:t, footpath, or municipal utilities

13. Accordingly, the erection of the gate does not contravene the above provisions of the GHMC Act. Since the gate merely facilitates internal access to a public road without encroaching upon or obstructing it, no specific prior approval was required under law.

14. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that respondent No 6 was required to obtain specific permission from either HMDA or GHt\4C lacks statutory support. The erection of the gate by respondent No.6 cannot, in these circumstances, be held to be illegal or unauthorized. Consequently, the relief sought by the petittoner cannot be sustained.

15. However, insofar as the petitioner's grievance relates to public inconvenience or traffic congestion allegedly resulting from the gate's usage, such issues fall within the purview of the competent municipal or traffic authorities. The petitioner is at liberty to approach those authorities for appropriate remedial measures in accordance with law.

16. With the above observations and liberty, the writ petitton is dismrssed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

1. One CC to SRI G. V. S. GANESH, Advocate IOPUCI 2. Two CCs to GP for lVlunicipal Administration and Urban Development, High 3. One CC to SRI V. NARASIMHAGOUD, S.C. for HMDA [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA, S.C. for GHIVC [OPUCI 5. One CC to SRI RESU MAHENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies To nilP HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 /J^ t' .-; l.) I-r ,-r 15 riB\i ?tfi ,l \ *^ \--,' ORDER WP.No.9929 ot 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 'tT1 ( t\ \1r\