Telangana High Court
K. Parimala Reddy, vs Hyderabad Urban Development ... on 24 March, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.2510, 2511 and 2512 of 2005
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ appeals were analogously heard and by a common judgment, they are being disposed of by this Court.
The facts of the W.A.No.2510 of 2005 are as follows:-
The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 09.12.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21278 of 2004.
The facts of the case reveal that the writ petition was preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the revised/modified sanctioned layout under EWS Scheme of the year 1999 issued by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The appellant's/writ petitioner's grievance was that in the modified layout the roads shown in the original layout plan 2 have been converted into house plots and the revised layout is illegal and arbitrary.
The present case is certainly not an isolated case challenging the revised layout which is subject matter of the present writ appeal. Large number of writ petitions were preferred by other plot owners and some of the writ petitions registered as W.P.Nos.29937 of 1998 and 688 of 2000 were dismissed by this Court on 12.04.2000. Thereafter, the persons aggrieved in the matter of revised layout raised disputes before the Cooperative Sub- Registrar/Arbitrator under Section 62(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. An award was passed in the matter and while delivering the award, it was held that the revised layout does not warrant any interference. Meaning thereby, it is an admitted fact that identically placed persons have earlier questioned the revised layout before this Court and after being unsuccessful before this Court, they took shelter of the mechanism provided under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and again suffered an award.3
In spite of the aforesaid action, the writ petition has been preferred and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
The record of the case reveals that the appellant/writ petitioner is the owner of plot in M/s. Mutyal Rao Cooperative Housing Society Limited and in respect of the said Society, the Gram Panchayat has sanctioned a layout plan on 24.06.1968. The same was forwarded to the Commissioner, Malkajgiri Municipality, and the Commissioner has also approved the layout. The appellant/writ petitioner is not the original allottee. She has purchased the plot from the members of M/s. Mutyal Rao Cooperative Housing Society Limited and the members, when the plots were allotted to them, did not challenge the layout at any point of time. The facts further reveal that though the layout was modified to accommodate more people under the EWS Housing Scheme, the area intended for proposed school, community hall, temple, septic tank and other open areas was left untouched in the revised layout.4
In considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. It is not a case where the park or playground or a plot meant for school has been converted into residential locality. The appellant/writ petitioner is already having access to her house, there is a road for her house and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
W.A.No.2510 of 2005 is accordingly dismissed. The other two writ appeals i.e., W.A.Nos.2511 and 2512 of 2005 are also dismissed.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 24.03.2022 vs