Kandikanti Sujatha v. Kandikanti Sujatha

...RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim orders dr: 13.02.202s in wp.No.3rB30 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRI p.ASHOK counsel for the Respondent No.1, 5: Gp FoR pANcHAyAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2, 4,7 & 9: Gp FOR REVENUE counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 6: Gp FoR McpL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.g & 10: SRI P.KISHORE RAO, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT The Court made the following: ORDER h THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVT DEVI \\,RTT PETITION NO.31830 OF 2024 ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Irztandamus declaring the actic,n of respondent No.l0 in making illegal construction, i.e., office in the l0oA of the approved venture layout T.L.P.No. I 66/20 t 4/HRO/H I dt.07. I I .2014 in Survey Nos.72 and 73 in an extent of Ac.zl.r57 cents situated at Kadthal Gram Panchayat, Kadthal Mandal, Ranga Fleddy District, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the resprrndents to enquire into the matter and relocate the same to the public purpose and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ petition are that the petitioner claims that her mother has purchased Plot }.lo.26part in Survey Nos.Tll and 73 admeasuring 146.66 square yards sltuated at Kadthal Gram l)a.nchayat, Kadthal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from her vendor, i.e.. Mohammed Ismail through registered t)ocument No.458412022 dt.26.02.2022 on the file of the Sub-Regisrrar,s Office, Maheswaram, Rarga Reddy District and that they are in peaceful W.P.No.3 1830 of 2024 2 possession and enj oyment of the same ever since. It is submitted that in the north side of the layout l0% of the vacant land was left over as per the DTCP Rules and a gift deed was also executed in favour of the Gram Panchayat for this purpose. It is submitted that without any authority to change the nature of the land, respondent No.3 has issued proceedings in favour of respondent No.10 for construction of office in the 10% of the vacant land as office of Tahsildar-cum-Joint Sub-Registrar-cum- Executive Magistrate, Kadthal. Challenging the said action, the Bresent Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the DTCP Rules, l0% of the total extent of the layout has to be left out for open space as well as pakt area in addition to the area which is covered by roads and such areas have to be gifted to the concemed Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that the vendor of the petitioner who has converted this land into a layout and obtained the layout permission in T.L.P.No.166/20141IIRO/111, has executed a gift deed in favour of the Gram Panchayat and instead of developing park in the said area of the layout for the use of the residents of the layout and others, the respondents have constructed a building therein for the office of the ,.) W.P.No.3l E30 of 2024 Tahsildar-cum-J,:int Sub-Registrar-cum-Executive Magistratt:, Kadthal 3 which is illegal and arbitrary.

4. The learn.ed counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions ancl relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the c:rse of Anjuman E. Shiatge Ali and another Vs. Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group and othersr in support of his contention ttLat the open spaces in the layout are required to be left out for the purprose of creating lung space for owners of othbr plots where constructions are permitted and that in the approvt:d layout, where open spaces are left, they are continued in that manner alone and no construction can be permitted in such open spaces. He also placed reliance upon the decision ofa Single Judge of this Court in the case of Durgam Narsirnha and others Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its Secretary (Panchayat Raj Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others2, wherein the respondents are directed not to nnake any constructions in the open space area earmarked for park. He also referred to G.O.Ms.No.67, Panchayat Raj and Rural Developrnent (Pts- IV) Departmert, dt.26.02.2002 which is a Notification for 4..P. Gram ' (2020) 20 scc 698 ' w.p.No.2o55l of 201'7 <1t.03.10.2024 W.P.No.3l E30 of 2024 4 Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 which have subsequently been adapted by the Govemment of Telangana as well. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the definition of the term "open space" which means an area forming an integral part of the plot, left open to sky and Rule 3 of the said Rules prescribes the documents to be submitted along with the application for layout permission and Sub-rule (3) and Clause (iii) thereof refers to a statement of details and dimensions of each plot, percentage of area under open spaces, roads, amenities and plotted area. Rule 4 of the said Rules prescribes the minimum requirement for approval of layout and Clause (c) thereof refers to minimum open space set apart in the proposed layout for playground/park/educational institution or for any other public purpose to be at the rate of l0%o of the total site area. Rule 11 refers to the conditions for prior technical approval from the Director of Town and Country Planning as necessary for certain permissions and Sub-rule (7) thereofprescribes that all the roads and open spaces such as parks and playgrounds earmarked in accordance with these rules in a layout, which is approved by the Gram Panchayat, shall automatically stand transferred free of cost, and vest with the Gram Panchayat free fr6(al encumbrances and after such vesting, the Gram Panchayat shall '- W.P.No.3 1830 oi 2024 5 maintain all such open spaces for the purpose for which they have been earmarked. Clausi: (iv) of Sub-rule (8) of Rule 11 also provid':s that the sanction of technical approval may be refused if adequate ar':a has not been set apart fbr public pulposes under Rule 4 (1) (c) ofthe said Rules. He therefore pray'ed that the illegal construction made by respondent No.l0 may be directed to be removed and the open area which has been left in the layout be maintained as a park for which it was earmarked.

5. Respondents 10 and t have filed their respectivr: bounter afhdavits. According to respondent No.10, who is the custodian of the 10% of the approved venture layout, the petitioner has no locu,r standi to hle the present Wr:it Petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is not the owner and posriessor of any plot in the layout where the public functioning office in the name of Mini Skill Devetopment (lentre has been constructed. tt is further submitted that the Mini Skill Development Centre was not constructed by respondent No. 10, but the same was constructed by the State Govemment, Revenue Department and that the office of the Tahsildar is functioning in the said Mini Skill De'relopment Centre. He also enclosed a copy of the gift settlement deed d1.15.09.2018 under which the owner of the open area, i.e.,800 square W.P.No.3l830 of 2024 6 yards in Survey No.72 and park area admeasuring 652 square yards total admeasuring 1,452 square yards situated at Kadthal Revenue Village and Gram Panchayat was gifted to the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that it is in the open area of800 square yards that the building has been constructed and the park area has remained intact and is being maintained as park only.

6. Respondent No.9 in his counter affidavit has reiterated the above contentions raised by respondent No. 10 in his counter affidavit and submitted that Kadthal Village was newly formed in the year 2016 and there was requirement of construction of Govemment off,rce building and there was no Govemment land available and on verification, it was found that the Mandal Praja Parishad and Gram Panchayat possessed certain land and therefore, resolutions were passed on 03.06.2021 for allotting 2,000 square yards, i.e., I0o/o vacant land for construction of new building for Tahsildar Office, Kadthal Mandal in Survey Nos.72 and 73 ofKadthal Village and the said proposal has been forwarded by the MPDO, Kadthal Village to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District v ide letter No.PtswING/23 I 2021 dt.03.06.2021 and thereafter, the District Collector and Member Secretary, District Mineral W.P.No.3l830 of 2024 7 Foundation, Ranga Reddy District has accorded administrativ,: sanction for execution of the work, i.e., construction of Mini Skill Development Centre at Tahsildar Office, Kadthal to the District Panchayat Raj Engineer, PIU, R.anga Reddy District with an estimated cost ol'Rs.68.00 lakhs in Kalwakurthy assembly constituency from the available funds from the District l\4ineral Foundation Trust in Ranga Reddy District and accordingly, the construction was done in the year 2021 and the same has been completed and it is now being used as Tahsildar offic,: bpilding for utilisation for public purposes. He has also referred to the iesolution dt.03.06.2021 for such usage. Therefore, according to respondent No.9, there is no illegai construction and the building has been constructed strictly in accordance with the rules, for public purposcs, as is permitted under the DTCP Rules and the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no locus to fite this Writ Petition as her pl,o1 is not in the layout in which the Tahsildar office has been constructed

7. Learned Govemment Pleader for Revenue has referrr:d to the proceedings of the DTPC authorities, dt.07.11.2014 under which the Iayput approval was registered and there is reference to lOYo ot the open l W.P.No.3 1630 of 2024 6' 8 space area, i.e., Ac.0.47 cents of the total area of Ac.4.67 cents. It is submitted that the petitioner is referring to T.L.p.No. I 6 6/20l4fiIliolli,l, wherein the total extent of land in the layout was Ac.5.00 in Survey Nos.72 and 73 of Kadthal Village. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner has no locus to challenge as her plot is not in the subject layout. Further, he has relied upon the decision of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of M. Saleem Vs. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai and others3, wherein.it was observed that when the subject land is reserved for public purposes and it is not an open space or park or playground, it can be used for public purposes provided construction permission has to be obtained from the municipal authorities/municipal body. He placed reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of K.Rajamani and others Vs. Alamunagar Residents, Welfare Association and othersa 1n support of the proposition that once permission is accorded by the Govemment for a layout plan and in that permission if a specified area is earmarked for public purpose, even the Planning Authority shall not have power to exempt the said land from ' w.e.iuro;No. tot 39 of 2o2o in w.M.p.(MD)No.46ii ot 202t dt.29.02.2024 o zot t gy crc zst W.P.No.3l830 of 2024 9 being put to use for any other purpose. He referred to the decision ofa Division Bench .1-Madras High court in the case of sri Devi Nagar Residences wellare Association vs. subbathar and otherss, wherein the expression 'lrublic purpose" has been held to be not capable of precise definition zLnd has no rigid meaning and it can be deflned by a process ofjudicial inclusion and exclusion and that it has to keep pace with the realities oI the social and poritical evolution of the country as reflected in the constitution. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal cif the Writ Petition.

8. Having rega.rd to the rival contentions and the materiar on record, this court finds that the first and foremost question to be decided is whether the petitio,er has locus standi to file this writ petition. The petitioner claims t. be the owner and possessor of a plot in the liryout in which responde,t rrrrr. l0 has permitted construction of a buirdinlg which is now being used a.s office of the Tahsildar_cum_Joint Sub_Registrar- cum-Executive Magistrate, Kadthal. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the petitio,er's plot is in the very same layout to decide the maintainability of the writ petition filed by her. In the sale deecr in the t 2oot -3-t.w. z5g 1j W.P.No.3 1830 of 2024 t-L t0 name of the petitioner, there is reference to the approved layout in L.P.No.l66l2014lHRO/H1, C.No.l082l2014lHRO & Ref.Lr.No.107/ 2014 in Survey Nos.72 and 73 of Kadthal Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and in L.P.No.166/2014, it is noticed that the toral layout area is Ac.4.64 cents and that the open space 100/o is Ac.0.47 guntas in Survey Nos.72 and,73. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.10, it is stated that in respect of the above layout, a gift settlement deed Document No.17305 of 2018 dt.15.09.2018 has been executed in favour of respondent No.10 gifting l0%o of open space for public purposes, and keeping in view the lack ofspace for public purposes, the land has been allotted for public purposes and the building has been constructed. On perusal of the gift settlement deed Document No.17305/2018, it is noticed that it refers to L.P.No. 1082/20l4tLIROlIll and the total area of the layout was Ac.5.2l guntas and the open area of 800 square yards and park area of 652 square yards, total admeasuring 1452 square yards (Ac.0.12 guntas) was gifted in favour ofrespondent No.10. The open area in respect of the layout in which the petitioner's property is located is Document No.7550/2016. In both the documents, the subject land is Survey Nos.72 and 73 of Kadthal Village, Kadthal Uundf nunga Reddy District. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is i1 W.P.No.3 1830 of 2024 not one of rhe plot owners in L.p.No.l0g2/ZOl4/IIRO/I1l and she has no locus standi to lire the present writ petition. The first objection of the respondents is therefore upheld.

9. Without prej udice to the above, on merits, the questi,tn to be decided is whetrrer the r,yo of the open space which is earmarked for purpose of open space and park can be used for construction of a building thereon f,or. Government office. As per the DTCp Rules,. there is a minimum requlrement of l0%o to be left out for open spaces and parks which are to be used for public purpose and there are decisions relied upon by both the leamed counsel that once the area is ear.marked for specific purpose, the same cannot be converted to any other purpose and carurot be utilisred for any other purpose. As seen from the gift deed executed in favour of the Gram pnchayat, vide Document No.l11305 of 2018, there was open space of g00 square yards and also park area admeasuring 652 square yards total admeasuring 1452 square yards which have been gilted to the Gram panchayat and the contention ofthe respondents has bee,n that the construction has been done in the open qace which is me:rnt for public purpose and not in the park area. However, this Court has gone through the resolutions passed for I I I I w.P.No.3l830 of 2024

6. l2 allotment of land by the Mandal parishad Development Officer for construction of Government buildings and it is noticed that the totar area earmarked for construction ofTahsildar office in Survey Nos.72 and 73 is 2,000 square yards. Therefore, it is clear that it is not only the open area but even the park area has been allotted for construction of Tahsildar's office building which is not permissible under the DTCp Rules and also as per the judgments of the Hon'bre supreme court and the Coordinate Benches of various High Courts. lt is pertinent to observe that both the layouts have been formed by brothers and it is not known whether the open areas in both the layouts are adjacent to each other. If that is the case, the respondents would have constructed the building in the open area of the other layout too and the petitioner would have locus standi to fi le this case. 10' In view thereof, this court is inclined to allow this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to either demolish the building which has been constructed in the area which is meant for open space in the layout or to allot any equivalent/alternative site nearby to the petitioner,s colony. / W.P.No.3 I 830 of 2024 13

11. With the above directions, the Writ petition is allowecl. No order as to costs. 12- Pending r,iscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGIYTRAR .N *. ./ SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretar at, Hyderabad, state of Telanrlilna.

2. The principal isecretary, Revenue Department, secretariat, Hydeiabad, State of Telangana.

3. The Directorater of Town and country Planning (DTCP), r3overnment of - Telangana, O/o Opposite PTI Building, AC Guards, Hyderabad

4. The District Collector, Rangareddy District, Rangare-ddy' 5. The District Panchayat Offaer, Rangareddy District. 6. The Directorale of Town and country Planning (DTCP), Rangareddy District, Rangareddy

7. The Revenuer Divisional officer, Kandukur Division, Kandukur Mandal, RangareddY Dtis;trict B. The Mandal Parishad Development officer, Kadthal Mandal, Rangareddy District.

9. The Tahsildar l(adthal lvlandal, Rangareddy District. 10. The Secretarlr, Gram Panchayat, Kadthal Village and [Vland al, Rangareddy District. 1 1. One CC to SFll P.ASHOK, Advocate [OPUC] 12.One CC to SFll P.KISHORE RAO, SC FOR GRAIM PANCHAY'{T IOPUC] 13.Two CCs to rGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

14.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

15.Two CCs to CiF' FOR MCPL AD[/N & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana al HYderabad [OUT]

16.Two CD CoPies; esR 6)- o GJP IWA,/ -/\ A U'\ \ I I CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 1910312025 6e STATE o 1 ?1 \\i\1 2t25 71, a-) f T'-.,,,t. ,.,.,t"'y' -_;. ORDER WP.No.31830 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS J\