Telangana High Court
M/S Narne Constructions Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs The State Of Telangana And 7 Others on 29 March, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 31592 OF 2021
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the inaction of Respondents 6 and 7 in considering the representations of the petitioners dated 24.11.2021, 25.11.2021, 26.11.2021 and 29.11.2021 and not acting upon UC No. 4744 dated 27.11.2021 and 4753 dated 29.11.2021 for protecting the amenities area in the layout of the petitioners sanctioned vide permit dated 08.07.2014 and proceedings dated 17.02.2016 of CENTRAL PARK PHASE-II, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners purchased an extent of Ac.39.21.6 guntas in Survey Nos. 218/4 and 218/5 situated at Kondapur Village and developed the same into open plots by laying road as per the lay out approved by Respondents 1 and 2. After completion of development, the petitioners executed a registered gift deed bearing document No. 13415 of 2013, dated 31.08.2013 in favour of the 3rd respondent and handed over the roads and park area in the lay out retaining the area demarcated for amenities. The grievance of the petitioners is that Respondents 2 and 3 are trying to encroach and erect structures in the area demarcated for 2 amenities belonging to the petitioners. In spite of the repeated representations made by the petitioners, the official respondents have failed to take any action, resultantly, unauthorised construction has been raised in the land. The petitioners have addressed a letter dated 25.11.2021 to the Municipal Commissioner, for which on 21.12.2021, they received a reply stating that if any construction activity is undertaken without approval from the competent authority, as per Section 23 of the HMDA Act, the local body is primarily responsible and authorised to take necessary enforcement action against the unauthorised construction and powers are delegated to the Municipalities vide letter dated 19.03.2020. Hence, the petitioners approached the Municipal Corporation which also failed to take action and the unofficial respondent is proceeding with the construction on day to day basis. Hence, they are before this Court.
3. Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation filed a counter-affidavit. He submits that as per the approved lay out, the earmarked space for amenities vests with the developer who developed the same for providing amenities. It is stated that the Corporation officials immediately basing on the representation of the petitioners have initiated necessary action against the unauthorised construction and tried to stop the same, but the 8th respondent is proceeding 3 with the construction activity in the night time. It is stated that since the issue is sensitive and involves religious sentiments, the respondent Corporation could not proceed with further action as large number of people gathered and obstructed the work. It is stated that apprehending breach of law and order, the respondent Corporation vide letter dated 29.11.2021 requested Respondent No.7 - Station House Officer, Gachibowli to depute the police personnel to stop the construction activity and to put strict vigil at the site in night time. It is also stated that in the meantime, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition, wherein the following interim order was passed on 01.12.2021:
" The submissions made by the petitioners are borne by record. The area left out for amenities, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, belong to the petitioners. There are attempts of illegal construction thereon. Further, they are made without any permission from the authorities concerned, which is illegal, arbitrary and needs to be interdicted by this Court. Therefore, the respondent No.8 his agents, workers etc. shall not proceed with any construction over the said premises till 29.12.2021. Further, it is open to respondent Nos. 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 to take necessary action pursuant not the complaints / representations, dated 24.11.2021 and 25.11.2021, 26.11.2021 and 28.11.2021 made by the petitioner against the persons mentioned therein."
It is stated by the learned Standing Counsel that the respondent Corporation has demolished the unauthorisedly-constructed wall 4 in the space earmarked for the amenities in the approved lay out and further action is going to be initiated for removal of the temple with the assistance of police personnel as it may cause law and order problem.
4. Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the 8th respondent submits that the petitioners, who are the developers have no right when once they developed the lay out and sold the same. He submits that the unofficial respondent is in occupation of the property, formed into an Association and they are using the said area for amenities. It is submitted that the petitioners have no locus to file this Writ Petition. Relying on A.P. Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987, the learned counsel submits that once an Association is formed, the petitioners for that matter, the Municipal Corporation has no role to play and the entire area vests with the Society. In response to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a lay out consisting of open plots and the provisions of the said Act have no application.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material available on record.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation, it is stated that in the amenities area, the unofficial respondent has raised certain unauthorised 5 construction and basing on the report of the petitioners, they have initiated action. As there is a Hanuman Temple in the disputed area, to avoid law and order problem that might be created, they addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police in the year 2021 seeking necessary assistance. Till now, it appears, the Municipal Corporation has not taken any action for removing the unauthorised construction made in the amenities area.
7. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to take appropriate action for removing the unauthorised encroachments in the amenities area within one month from today. Respondent No.7 shall give necessary assistance to the Corporation officials in removing the encroachment whenever an Application is filed. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 29th March 2022 ksld 6 7