The High Court · 2025

SRI p.ROy Counsel for the pertitioner: counser for the Resp rrrdent No.1: Gp FOR nacFl aonaru URBAN I)Eiv Counsetfor the Resporrdent No.2 _ .,SE,BH|?F|TTC"UDHAN REDDY REr)rry, Counset for the Res;pcndent No.4 & 5: SRI SREENIVASA RAO ,TEL.VELA The Court made the foll()wing: ORDER I i I i I I L i I I & s I ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K' LAKSHMAN 899 OF 2018 IONN o.25 PE TIT ORDER: Heard Mr' P' Roy Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioner' Mr' G. Madhusudhan Reddy' Ieamed Standing Counsel for respondent Nos'2 & 3 and Mr' Sreenivasa Rao Velivela' leamed counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5' CAS EO F

2. PE o NE R: i) The petitioner is an Association registered under the provtslons of rhe Societies Registrarion Act, 200r with regisrration No 651 of 2014' It comprises of plot owners of Amar Socie{ Layout situated in Suruey No.47, Guttata Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandat, Rangareddy District, covering an area of Acs'15'23 guntas' iD The said land is a private patta land' Land conversion proceedings under Section - 61 of the A'P' (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli were also issued by the Collector' Hyderabad' uide proceedings dated 22.03.1970 in respect ofthe aforesaid land' iii) The aforesaid extent of land was the subject matter of regularization under G.O.Ms.No'747, dated 16'08'2008 and the same was said to be declared as surplus land under the provisions of the Urban I l 2 Land (C eiling and Regulation ) Act, tya. The sarne , v{rs done on collection rtl \,alue of land fixed by the concemed aurho-itier,. ,,rp rvol,-!*orzora it') ,z.cJacent to the privals rand in Survr:1 N o.4r cf Guftara there is an old Water Body knorvn iis ,l)sygq771 Begumlret \rriJlage, Cheruwr . v) An rrxtent of 1334 square yards of Iand is ear;nrrked for 'amenitir:s' or ,;outhem portion in the aforesaid la1,out. I.h : said area does not comprise of residential plots as the same is meart fc r common communz.l Lts,: r.f residents of the Layout and canno: be own :<l by any single indivrdull vi) Ii eripc ndent Nos.4 and 5 constructed an unr u ihorized compound lrall a.ound the amenities areai.e.,l334 square yarrls. When the petitioner str:iety questioned, they represented that the .iaid area consists o1'I,lot l\Jos.l40 and l4l having purchased unde:. a r,:llistered sale deed <larc:ct 0,5.07.2007 and Gift Deed dated 2g.oi.2oc7. 'TJLus. the said area has h,::r.r shown as plot Nos.l40 and 141 illegall,,. Bar;ing on the same, r:snond:nt Nos.4 and 5 offered the said area to the rilIlvIC for public purpose and in lieu thereof, they are claiming rran sl'errable DeveloPm :n'. t'l'r ghts (TDR)' / ) 3 KL.J W.P. No 25899 ot20l8 vii) Therefore, the petitioner association made representattons dated 11.01.2018 and 14'06'2018 to the GHMC' Despite receiving and acknowledging the same' respondent Nos'2 and 3 did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by their inaction' the petitioner fited the present writ petitron CONTENT IONS J OF RES PONDENTN os.2 &3 i) If any extent of land is earmarked for 'amenities' in the layout' the same should be used for common purpose' like School' Hospital or any other purpose as designated in the layout' ii) The Layout Developer and Owner do not have right over l0o/o open space. iii) The plots of respondent Nos 4 and 5 are falling in the FTL limits of Durgam Cheruvu as per FTL boundaries' Therefore' 'no permission was accorded' iv) On inspection, it is found that respondent Nos'4 and 5 made unauthorized construction of compound wall without obtaining prior building permission from the respondent Corporation' v) The Irrigation Department along with Revenue Offrcials' GHMC and I-IMDA otficials conducted a survey and prepared a 4 KL,J y I No 2589of20t8 map/plan iruli,:ating the area falling within the FTI_ bou rdar,r of Durgam Chertt.tt rrs J e r the FTL stones/points fixed by the Irigaiion Department. !i) .4s per G.O.Ms.No.l68, MA, dared )7.0t.2012, no buildinly'devt.'rpment activity shall be allowed i,r th: b.d of water bodies. like rirer or nala and in the FTL of any lake, por.rd.. cheruvu or kuntaslshilarn,)and. vii) Ihr: subjecr rand is falting wirhin rhe l.Tr_ lir.-rirs of the aforesairl l)urlttrn Cheruvu. Therefore, the respondent (.op lration has issued a shou-i:ause notice dated 2g.12.2017 under Seclionr 452 (1) and 461 (l t o rhe HMC Act, 1955 to responclent Nos.z anr 5. They have not submitr.ed any expranation. Therefore, notice dared tr6 0l.20rg was issued Lrnder. Section - 452 (2) of the HMC Act, 1955 and also final notice dated I 7 ()l.20lg under Section _ 636 of the HIvIC Act, l9 55. - viii ) 'lhe rt:after, respondent Nos.4 and 5 approached the Civil Court b1 ilins a suit vide O.S. No.l9 of 201g. Upon filing crrrrnter by the respondent I orporation, the interim injunction grantec ear ior stood vacated. 'T-he:cafter, the respondent Corporation gor 11651sli5hsd unauthoriz ed cc nrpound wall in the subject property. Thtrs. ttLe -c is no inaction ort i-s tral1 as alleged by the petitioner. A i ) ONS OF RESP NDo NTE NTI Nos.4&5: 4 CO 5 *, *ofldir""o'' i) The subject plots are not an open space the A.P. Municipalities (Layout) Rutes' 1970, oPen sPace . Under Rule 10 (1) of shall be limitedtol0ToofmaximumglossareacoveredbytheLayout' ii) The Sociery had already set apart ll'65Vo of the gross area covered by the Layout at the time of seeking permission for layout for park area (under open space)' In W'P No 3317 of 2008' this Court also to have been gifted appears to observed that the park area at ll '65o/osaid be beyond the requirements of the relevant condition or rule' iii) The subject tand has been divided into two (02) plots' The society has transferred Plot No'140 in favour of Mr' Madanlal Agarwal vide saledeed bearing document No 6760 of 1995' Subsequently' the legal heirs of Mr. Madantal Agarwal transferred the said ptot in favour of respondent No. 4 vide saledeed bearing document No 9091 of2007 ' iv) Similarly, the Society trausferred PlotNo'141 in favour of Mr' Dayanand Gupta vide sale deed bearing document No'6742 of 1995 and' thereafter, the said Dayanand Gupta transferred the said plot in favour of respondent No. 5 vide saledeed bearing document No'8810 of2007' 6 v) F cspondent Nos.4 and 5 never offererl the s utrjr:ct lands to respondent '! r,2 for public purpose and never sought I I)R a:; alleged in "o ,, I#, orro,, the writ a lll r'a vit.

5. ,{N ALYsIS ANDFINDINGS OFTHECOL RT i) 'n riew of the aforesaid rival submissions, accorCing to the .var,Js is earmarked petitionrrr. the subject land admeasuri ng l334squarc, for 'amerities on southem portion of the Layout. The sa, d ar.:a does not contain r:sidcrrt ial plots as the same is meant for common con,nrunal use of the rr:si,lerts of the layout and cannot be owned by irny single individual. Iv:n then, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have,tbta ncd r<:gistered documents ller;ally and constructed a compound wali arounrl the said amenities ar(la. l'hey have also oflered to the GHMC tbr publir l)urpose, and in lier- olthe same, they are craiming TDS. Theretbre, the ,<:titioner associatiolr ;ubn.ritted the aforesaid two (02) repr3senrations dated

11.01.201{i rrnd 14.06.2018 to respondent No.3 an<l al;o tlie Zonal Commissiont:r, il HMC, with a request to take action against re.itr,ondent Nos.4 and 5. Whr:reas, according to respondent Nos.4 and 5, rh,: subject property !s noi earmarked for the purpose of open spa,x,/public a\nities. l h':" are claiming right over the subje':t plopert'r under registered dr tc': rents' I .I KL,J w P. No.25E99 of20l8 ii) In the light of the said submissions' it is relevant to note that Mrs. Kanta Devi, wife of late Madanlal Agarwat & their four children have executed a registered sale deed bearing document No'9091 of2007 ' dated 06.07.2007, in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of open Plot No.l40 admeasuring 667 square yards in Survey No'47 of Amar Co- operative Housing Sociery, Guttala Begumpet Vitlage' Serilingampally Mandal and Municipatity, Rangareddy District' The husband of Mrs' Kanta Devi, tate Madanlal Agarwal, purchased the said open Plot No.140 from the aforesaid Housing Sociery under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6760 of 1995, dated 3005'1995' The said Madanlal Agarwal died intestate on 08'08'2003 leaving the Vendors of respondent No.4 as his legal heirs' Thus, they have sold the said open plot No.140 to respondent No'4 under the aforesaid document' In the document No.9091 of 2007, dated 06'07'2007' it is also specifically mentioned that after the demise of Madanlal Agarwaf it was observed that the said property was affected under Urban Land Ceiling (ULC) Act and, therefore, they have obtained regularization proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.455 of Revenue (UL-l) Department' dated 29'07'2002 and G.O.Ms.No.1262 of Revenue (UC-llD Department' dated 3l'08'2006' It is further mentioned that they have no funds to pay the said amount and' 8 KI,,J P No 25899 of20 t8 'V theref,rrr:. tJrry have requested respondent No.4 to pa. . thr raid amount and a:corrl ngly he has paid the said amount 1br rcsulrrization and accorcin.lh, r,tgularization proceedings were obtained. lir .As far as plot No.14l is concemed, Mr. Day:rnard Gupta, son of latt: .l)ulic,hand, had executed a registered (iift Seftlernent Deed bearinll r'or:rrrnent No.8g10 of 2007, dated 2g.06._1007 in la.rour of his sister. iin t. ]ir.ishna Agarwal, respondent No.5 here,in ir. rcslre ct.of Open Plot No. I 4 I . admeasuring 667 square yards. In thr: sa i,l dor:trment, it is mentioncr'l tlrat Mr. Dayanand Gupta purchased the sairl lrlot No.14l from the irfirlesaid Housing Society under a registered sarc rre:d bearing document Nt6742 of 1995, dated 30.05.1995. l.hir; pL,t was also affected rrn,C:r. ULC Act and the same was re1:ular izcd .rnder the aforesaiC rri.()(, It is relevant to note that respondent Nc.5 is tre mother of respondent IIo.4. iv) 1'o show that the subject property is earnrarke cl fb: ,common amenitiesr'. on nrercial,, the petitioner association has file d Liryout. The said Lavorrr rr:ars the signature of Mr. Dayanand Gupta the then Presidenr. c,f tr{,s. Amar Co_Operative Housing Societv Limrtt:d. Thus. the said I)a.rand Gupta is none other than the brother rrl.re;ptx,I:nt No.5. Surther, thtr srril Layout was issued by the competent autlrcrity i.e., t I KL.J w P No.25t99 ot20l8 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in the year 1995' Permit number and date are also specifically mentioned therein' The Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipaliry has also endorsed that it is final layout. Thus, according to the petitioner association, the subject property is earmarked for common amenities/commercial and respondent Nos.4 and 5 cannot claim that it is open plots consists of Plot Nos'140 and 141 purchased from the aforesaid Housing Society' v) Section - 2 (a) of the Telangana Urban Area (Development) Act, 1975 (for short 'Act, 1975') deats with 'amenity', and it inc'ludes road, water supply, street, lighting, tlrainage, sewerage, public works' tourists spots, open spaces, parks and play fields, and such other convenience as the Govemment may, by notification, speciS to be an amenity for the purpose of the said Act, 1975 ' vi) Section - 2 (e) of the Act, 1975 deals with 'development" and it says that with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a master plan or zonal development plan referred to in this Act, and the carrying out of building, engineering' mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes re- development. Chapter - lV deals with 'development of lands'' t0 KL,J \'rI No 2589 oI20lE 'ii) )n R.G.S.G. Karyalaya, rep. by its proprietor ,f. The APIICLT. the High Court of Andhra pradesh at Fivde,.abad had an Srinu v. occasion to cleal with the aforesaid Act, Rules, scolte ar,.l ambit of definitior of ',levelopment' and herd that any activitl o1 cauiiilrg material change irL arrr building or land including re-development ,,vould come within .ht definition of ,development,. i, iii) Ir Koganti Venkata Suryanarayana v. The Strrt,r o[ A.p.2, a Divisio, Iicnch of High Court of Judicature ar Hl dera b;rd for the states .f 'I:la,gana and Andhra pracresh helcr thrrt r, n iuthorized encroachnren:s on public amenities and open spaces in apprr,v:d layouts are illesal antl rnust be removed to protect the rights olthe cornmunity. ir ) In Mayuri Nagar Welfare Association v. State of Telangan:rr, r Division Bench of this Court hetd that cpen sltaces and amenitie s lesig;nated in layouts must be maintaine,l 1br. the ir intended purpose, and thr:ir conversion for private use is impermissib le. x) Irr S ri K.Ramadas Shenoy v. The Chief ()fficrrrs, Town Municipal Corrncil, Udipia, where the property earniark,ro for the purpose ,1- am:,ities in a residential area, there was proposal t ) lonstruct '. (zot+) t r,LI r ;l' r .t . 120181 .l \ t_ l) ;: )B ) \..U,.p. No II7 4., -.,t8-decidedon 23.06.2022 '. Ytgzq r I srtr <rr, d It KL,J w P No.258Sq of 2018 cinema building. A representation was submitted to the Municipal Authorities to take action, the same was not considered' On examination of the said facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a scheme in a residential area means planned orderliness in accordance with the requirements of the residents' If the scheme is nullified by arbitrary acts in excess and derogation of the powers of the Municipality' the Courts will quash orders passed by Municipatities in such cases' The Municipality cannot act in disregard of the scheme' The Municipality is not the authority to vary or modify the Schemc' The Municipality acts for the public benefit in enforcing the Scheme' Where the Municipality acts in excess of the powers conferred by thc Act or abuses those powers, then in those cases it is not exercising its jurisdiction inegularly or wrongly but it is usurping powers which it does not possess The right to build on his own tand is a right incidental to the ownership of that land. Within the Municipality the exercise of that right has been regulated in the interests of the community residing within the limits of the Municipal Committee' If under pretence of any authority which the law does give to the Municipality, it goes beyond the tine of its authority' and infringes or violates the rights of others' it becomes like all other individuals amenable to the jurisdiction of the Courts' If sanction is ( t2 KL,J \rI I No 25899ot2018 given , buitd by contravening a bye_law, the jurisdiction of the Courts will b,: nr,,rl:ed on the ground that the approval by an authority of buitding rlans which contravene the bye_laws made b) tha. lruthority is illegal rn,l ir.perative. The Apex court further heltl t.hrLt the court enforce s rhe or:rformance of statutory duty by publir: boclies i Ls obligation to ratc pai,erl u,ho have a legal right to demand crrmpJianc,: by a locat authorit\, ,.\ it I its duty to observe statutory rights alone. .Ihe Apex Court also held rhat thc breach ofa statutory duty created for rhc tenefit ofan individual or a class is a tortuous act. x;) ln Shanti Sports Club v. Union of lndias, the . \pex Court held that rho ri1h, the competent legislatures have, fiora firrrr: to time, enacted la,vs frrr ensuring planned development of the r.ities rLnd urban areas, erlbrcelent thereof has been extremely poor an<J Lhe, ;errple have violated thr,: rna:;ter plans, zoning plans and building regulatior.s and bye_ laws with inpuity. Despite repeated judgments by r.he hpr:x Oourt and High Cour:s. the builders and other affluent people engal:.ed in the constructio, a(trvities, who have, over the years shorvn s( ant ..espect lbr regulatorr ,ech rnism envisaged in the municipal and otht:r sir,ilar laws, as also the rnastt:r plans, zonal development plans, sanctioned olans etc., have recr:ir,erl encouragement and support aom the State .+,paratus. \{4ooe1 r: :;cr ' ;,t \ 1 l3 KL,J w P No 2589 of20lE Therefore, the State has to take serious action to stop constructions and see that there would not be any violation of master plans, zonal plans, buitding regulations and bye-laws etc. xii) The Apex Court in Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao v' Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority6, and this Court in RG'S'G' Karyalayar' considered the word 'development'. In Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao6' pemrission was granted for construction of temple in the land earmarked for park in the development [and. On examination of the said facts' the Apex Court quashed the permission to construct temple' xiii) In the light of the above principte' coming to the case on hand, even according to the GHMC, the plots claimed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 are falling in FTL boundary of Durgam Cheruvu and' therefore, no permissions were accorded. The subject property is earmarked for the purpose of 'amenities' in the layout' Therefore' the same should be used for common purpose, tike School, Hospital or any other purpose as designated in the layout' On inspection' it is found that respondent Nos.4 and 5 made unauthorized construction of compound wall without obtaining prior building permission from the respondent

6. (zon) tz scc ts+ ( I4 KL,J ! P No 25E99 of20l8 Corporation The Irrigation Department along wirh R:ven lc Officiats, GI{MC , rnd HMDA Officials conducted a sur/ey and prepared a . Map/l)Jan rr dicating rhe area falling within tht: Fl.L I.oundary of Durgorn 'l;ht ruvu as per the FTL stones/points fixed by the Irrigation Deparlrnent. As per G.O.Ms.No.l6g, date<l (7.0t.r,ll2, no buildinlr/d.'r:1,)pment activity shall be allowed in the b.d of water bodies, lil c r iver or nala and in the FTL of any lake. pond.. cheruvu or kuntosi.: hikar,t land. Therefore, they have already issut,cl a show_cause not.ice rlated ?8.12.2017 to respondent Nos.4 and 5. They have not submittt:d anr r:xplanation. Therefore, they have issued final r.Lotice dated

17.01.2()lti i.rrrcler Section - 636 of the HMC Act, 1955. xir') Fl,:spondent Nos.4 and 5 filed a suit vide O.S No I ) of 201g against th,.: 1 3. pondent Corporation. Initially stahrs luo order was granted b) rilrc trial Court and, thereafter on filing counr.er by the responde nt r: or?oration, the said stah$ quo o.rder tva.r vacated. T'herealtur. tlrer rs5psndrart corporation demolished urarthorized compound rr,rr I fhus, according to respondent Nos.2 arLd 3, t rey have considere d re aloresaid representations submitted by the petiho.rer. xv I lt is Npt to note that along with counter, responrlelt Nos.4 and 5 have filed a r opv of registered Gift Settlement Deec bearing dtcument ,/ l5 KL.J w.P No 25899 of20l8 No.3493 of 1994 executed by M/s. Amar Co-Op' Housing Society Limited, represented by its President, Mr. Dayanand Gupta S/o late Doolichand in favour of the Municipal Council of Seritingampally Municipality. In the said registered gift settlement deed, it is mentioned that the said society has purchased an extent of Acs. I 5.23 guntas of land in Survey No.47 from 1) Mr. A.N. Singh S/o late Subedar Singh, 2) Mr' Anand Raj Singh S/o A.N. Singh, 3) Mr. Pratulta Raj Singh S/o A'N' Singh, represented by his GPA, Mr. Anand Raj Singh' There is also mention about obtaining exemption from ULC. It is further mentioned that the aforesaid Housing Society applied to HUDA for development of land into plots and HUDA has approved the tayout' As per the said layout, an extent of 8784 square yards of piece of land was left for the purpose of taying roads and open areas etc. Therefore, the said society has agreed to transfer the said piece of land left for the purpose of development through a gift deed for public purpose' Thus, it has executed the said gift settlement deed for public purpose in lavour of Serilingampally MuniciPalitY. xvi) It is also relevant to note that one Mr' T'V'R' Satya Prasad filed a writ petition vide W.P'No'3317 of 2008 against the GHMC' HUDA and the aforesaid Housing Society represented by Mr' Dayanand t l6 KI.I iVP No 25899 ot20l8 Gupta, t,r 11 :c:lare the action of respondents in trying to inte rlbre with the possesisir)n and enjoyment of the petitioner,s ltrnd adm,:u.suring 300 square l"rrrrJ; in Plot No.8 in Survey No.47 of Guttala Fiegu,npet Village. Vide ordc,r cared 03.04.2013, this Court allowed thr: sairl wr t petition. In the said rrrdr:r'. there is reference to two layouts and also the 11.65%o area towards ltarl<s. Thcre is a finding that the park area sairl ro have been gifted al 1. 659/o clearly appears to be beyond tht: requirernents of the relevarr r. on lition or rule. Referring to the same, resp(,n(le;rt Nos.4 and 5 conterrd:l that the subject property is not eann ked for amenitics 'parks. They have also filed copy of the la1 orLt. perusal of copy ol lal0trr fired by respondent Nos.4 and 5 wourd reveal t^at there is no starlp ,lr proceedings number, whereas the la1,o..rt f tt:d by the petition:r. [h:r'e are proceedings numbers, file ntrmbe r ard date etc. Howevr r. it i:, ttr respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the sam:. x.,,ii r ,r: discussed above, according to respondert Nl;.2 and 3, they ha.re alr.eady demolished the compound wall by fbl owing the procedure la itt down under law. In proof of the same, they t ave filed photographs. .\ xviii , I. is relevant to note that the Govemment has irrsrred G.O. $r. No.Sl1 l/zr. & UD, dared 16.10.201g, constituting a Fiv:-Member t7 KL,J w P. No 25899 of20l8 Committee for fixing FTL of Durgam Cheruvu' The said Committee consists of Chief City Planner, GHMC, Joint Collector, Rangareddy District, Superintending Engineer, Irrigation, GHMC, Director Planning, HMDA, Superintending Engineer, Lakes, HMDA' The said Committee after detailed discussions and deliberations and observations found the fo I towing conclusions and recommendations: "1) Durgam Cheruvu was once an Irrigation Tank with catchment area upstream and Ayacut area in the downstream iide of the tank. With complete construction in catchment and Ayacut areas, the Durgam cheruvu became almost a recreational pond with tot of IT industries and residential colonies, newly constructed Cabte Bridge around. This omamental pond will have tourist value and attracts tourists if it is further beautified ad constructions are legalized in the private lands in the vicinity' 2) Legally speaking, most of the constructions in Amar society are in once approved layout and as per the building permissions given by the Serilinagmapally Grampanchayat'{t'Iunicipality about 20 years ago. New constructions have not been permitted since 2020.i.e since FTL was refixed by Irrigation Department and litigation is continuing in Hon'ble High Court for long' 3) The HMDA/GHMC having taken up several beautifications like walking tracks, Gym, Contour bund, land scaping' fencing etc around Durgam Cheruvu on Amar society side and Hitech city side the boundaries of recreation areas and residential/commercial areas have been clearly established' There is no scope for future encroachments by the nearby I \ t l8 KL,J \'t t No 25899 ot20l8 Italri11115 o. water spreading into the residential arc Ls as obserretl during unprecedcnted floods in 2020 u.hich :x;r,eds lhr nrcrr: than the floods observed in 2000 based on ,yhich rev se,i [rTL was fixed. 4) {s sLr:h it is desirable to put an end to this lonl; perrding lit gaticn by taking practical stand based on the devr:loprne nts thlt ha,re taken place during last two decades. Thir; hel;ts in rellularizing town planning norms and dem,tlish ng h)se wlich do not comply the norms. This way Govemrent r,,rill :eceiv: periodic revenue in the form of property trx, termi:.sion fee etc. Hence, residents will irc fl_ee iom , itir3ation and mental agony. 5) !r'ilh tlre above said beautification works all_ror-rnd Dur giLm (lhr:nrrt on Amar Society side and Hitech City side, witlr the lay;ng of walking track around the lake which is above the I'Tl-. the boundaries of recreation arei s alld r:siCer,tial/commercial areas have been clearlv esrablilhr:d and theo.etically the FTL contour confined to periphery ol t)re v,al<inr1 lrack. There is no scope for further encroachrnentt try n:aibv l11gl1nn15 or rvater spreading beyond walking track n o r(!si(lcn i.rl areas as observed during rinprecedented floodr, :n 2t')Zt). 6) Ivlost o[ the constructions in Amar Sociery are falling in la,'o rt irpproved by the then HIJDA arid as per thc build ins p€,mrissions given by Serilinagmapally MunicipaJity about 2J v€ar.i ar1( ,. No new constructions have been n()t p( rmit.e,l sirrcc 1020 i.e., since FTL was refixed b,r Ir_igattcn D(rpartlr ent and litigation is continuing in Hon,ble Court ,br long. \ i -::]4*< t' l9 KI.J w.P No25899 of2ol8 7) Any decision to be taken by the government on the request of Amar Society Plot Owners Wel lare Association shall be based on the developments that have taken place during last two decades and also based on the changed landscape which do not allow the water ol the lake at FTL to spread beyond the watking tack and cycling track around the lake'" xix) It is also relevant to note that the Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal has issued notices under Section - 23 of the A'P' Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 to several people alleging that they have made constructions within FTL area of Durgam Cheruvu' Chaltenging the same, they have filed writ petitions vide W'P' No'23838 of 20i4 and batch. Vide common order dated 02.09.2024, a Division Bench of this court disposed of the said writ pctitions directing that the said notices shalt be treated as show-cause notices and they shall submit explanation to the Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal and also directed the Tahsildar to consider the same, afford an opportunity of hearing to them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law xx) As discussed above, the petitioner herein is a registered association. Plot owners of Amar co-operative Housing Society Limited in Survey No.47 of Guttala Begumpet are its Members' It is the specific contention of the petitioner association that respondent Nos'4 and 5 (r 20 KL,J V,No25899of2018 create(l lhe,aloresaid documents in collusion with the prrsident of the afores.id I llLsing society, the brother of respondt:nt lrlo.5 arrd matemal uncle of rcs tondent No.4, are trying to grab the propertv errrmarked for the ptupr se c I amenities/commercial. They have constructt.d compound wall. Tlrerr:fbre, the petitioner association has sut,nLitted two representrrtic ns. dated 11.01.2018 and 14.06.201g to resD(,nlent Nos.2 and 3 rvrth a request to take action against respcndent l.,cs.4 and 5. Despitr, rccr3 r,lpg and acknowledging the same, respon(lent Nos.2 and 3 did not take any action. Aggrieved by the said inaction o1- cspondent Nos.2 and -i, thc petitioner filed the present writ petition. XXI , Perusal of representation dated I 1 .0 I .201 g r.,,oul, I :eveal that the peliti,rne r has submitted the said representatior ,:o Lhe Zonal Commir;sitne r of GHMC and he is not a party to lhe 1.r,:sent writ petition fh,: representation dated 14.06.201g has su:rnittecl to respond:n,. |J r.3

6. (]O]{,CLUSION: i) l'hc aloresaid rival contentions would reveral that a,:c ording to the petiticner'. the subject properfy is earmarked [or ,z.menities/ commert:ia [', u,hereas according to respondentNos.4 a,rd j, it is not earmarked lor 'amenities, and it is not in FTL and tht:t ar3 th( owners of t ) 2l KL,J W P. No 25899 of20l8 the subject property. They are claiming right over the subject property under the aforesaid registered documents' As discussed above' there is specific contention by the petitioner herein that respondent Nos'4 and 5 created layout. This Court cannot consider the said factual aspects in a writ petition filed under Articte - 226 of the Constitution of India and it is for respondent No.2 to examine the said aspects and take action against respondent Nos 4 and 5' Having received the representations dated 11.01'2018 and l4'06'2018, respondent No'3 and the Zonal Commissioner did not inlorm the said fact to the petitioner herein' According to respondent Nos'2 and 3' they have considered the said representations and took action against respondent Nos 4 and 5' Admittedly, a suit in O'S' No'19 of 2018 filed by respondentNos'4 and 5 against respondent Nos'2 and 3 is pending' iD In the light of the above discussion' this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No'2 to consider and dispose of the aforesaid representatlons submined bY the petitioner to the Zonal considering the aforesaid Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner aspects, more particularly the provisions of the Act' 1975' and take action against respondent Nos'4 and 5 strictly in accordance with law by putting the petitioner and respondent Nos'4 and 5 on notice and t t ( 22 KL,J U P No 25899 of20t8 afforcins rh:m an opportunity of hearing. Respc,nderrt No.2 shall consirler 1lr. rrfbresaid recommendations of the Fir.e-M:n L crnmittee and re-fixrLtion tl' FTL of Durgam Cheruvu and also the pro, ir;ions of the aforesirici .r\ lts. However, he shall comprete the entire ex e'cise within eight ()8 ) iv:r:ks from the date of receipt of copy ol.rhis or.dr rr iii) lr rhe circumstances of the case, there shall be n,t order as to AS a rir)ctuel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if anr,, pe n,ling in the wrrt pctitirtn ,ihall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- P. POI'INA KRISHNA ASqI$TANI REGISTRAR 1 '6Ec'l'toN oFFtcER

1. The Principal fiercretary, Municipal Administration and L rbal Development Departmelt, Sec'etariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Commir;siorer, Greater Hyderabad tVlunicipal C:orporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyrlerabitci.

3. The Dep Lty (:c mmissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipa CDrporation, Serilinganrpall'7 l{Yderabad.

4. One CC to SRI P.ROY REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC kr SRI SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA, Advocate [OPLrC,l 6. One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHI'4C [r)PUC] 7. Two CCs to GF l=OR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Cou( Ior the State of Telanganzr at H Tderabad [OUT] To,

8. Two CD Cop ies BSR/BSK 5 HIGH COUR'r DATED:09 tO6t2O2S ORDER WP.No.25899 of 2O1B ./i/ l,.t o () 1 I fll( Ll t\ 1 .lJ{ N mIt l) c - *.t:_ --=:-, ; DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WTHOUT COSTS 0c"t,t4 W