Telangana High Court
M/ S. Rksr Homes Private Limited vs State Of Telangana And 6 Others on 4 February, 2021
Author: A.Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.23569 of 2020
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.2, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA for respondent Nos.3 and 4, and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.7.
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the rejection letter No.038969/SMD/LT/U6/HMDA/10092020, dated 16.10.2020, for not granting draft layout approval in respect of schedule property, with an endorsement "the proposal is rejected in view of less road width and in view of dispute on ownership".
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as a matter, there is a connecting 40 ft road for entering into the land of the petitioner and the same has been reiterated by the Gram Panchayat vide letter, dated 19.02.2020. That the official respondents cannot reject the application on the ground that some encroachments are made on the said road by some third parties. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the encroachments and it is either for the Gram Panchayat or the HMDA to take necessary action for removal of the encroachments made on the public road. Insofar as another contention regarding the Sign Board is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is concerned only with Acs.6-00 of land and he is not concerned with other Ac.0-20 guntas of land on which the Sign Board is there. The official respondents, without proper verification, cannot state that there is dispute with regard to the 2 property when the documents are clear and no third party has come forward to file any objections, moreover the land claimed by the petitioner is only Acs.6-00. Hence, the rejection order passed by the authorities is liable to be set aside.
Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the official respondents, after due verification of the road, have come to the conclusion that the road is not uniform or 40 ft width, that there are encroachments on the road and the size of the road is reduced at some places. That as per the relevant GOs the minimum length of the road should be 9 meters or more. The learned Standing counsel has stated further that the petitioner should take necessary steps by making complaints before the concerned authorities for removal of the encroachments, which has not been done in the present case. That without filing any complaint before the authorities, the petitioner has straight away approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
A perusal of the impugned order, dated 16.10.2020, passed by the HMDA would reveal that the same is rejected on two grounds. Firstly, the width of the road which the petitioner is claiming is not in uniform in nature and there are encroachments on the road and secondly that at the time of spot inspection the authorities have seen the Sign Board stating that it is an agricultural land.
As can be seen from the documents i.e., the letter dated 19.02.2020, issued by the Gram Panchayat clearly states that there is a connecting 40 ft width road for entering into the land of the petitioner. Even if the contention of the official respondents that at some places some encroachments are there, is taken to be 3 true, it is not understandable as to how the petitioner can be blamed for the encroachments. It is for the authorities to see that no encroachments take place on a public road and the petitioner cannot be held accountable for the same.
In view of the above made submissions, taking into consideration that the petitioner cannot be blamed for the encroachments made by some third parties on the public road, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the authorities to reconsider the issue, afresh. The official respondents shall once again inspect the land in question duly putting the petitioner on notice and also take into consideration the fact that if any encroachments are there on the road, it is for the Gram Panchayat or HMDA to take necessary action to remove the encroachments and the petitioner cannot be blamed or made accountable for the same. Before passing any orders on the application of the petitioner, if the official respondents receive any third party objections, they are obligated to consider the same in accordance with law. 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.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date: 04.02.2021 va/sur