Telangana High Court
Amar Society Plot Owners Welfare ... vs The State Of Telangana on 9 June, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.25899 OF 2018
ORDER:
Heard Mr. P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5.
2. CASE OF THE PETITIONER:
i) The petitioner is an Association registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 2001 with registration No.651 of 2014.
It comprises of Plot Owners of Amar Society Layout situated in Survey No.47, Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District, covering an area of Acs.15.23 guntas.
ii) 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, vide proceedings dated 22.03.1970 in respect of the 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 2 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The same was done on collection of value of land fixed by the concerned authorities.
iv) Adjacent to the private land in Survey No.47 of Guttala Begumpet Village, there is an old Water Body known as 'Durgam Cheruvu'.
v) An extent of 1334 square yards of land is earmarked for 'amenities' on southern portion in the aforesaid layout. The said area does not comprise of residential plots as the same is meant for common communal use of residents of the Layout and cannot be owned by any single individual.
\
vi) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 constructed an unauthorized compound wall around the amenities area i.e., 1334 square yards. When the petitioner society questioned, they represented that the said area consists of Plot Nos.140 and 141 having purchased under a registered sale deed dated 06.07.2007 and Gift Deed dated 28.07.2007. Thus, the said area has been shown as plot Nos.140 and 141 illegally. Basing on the same, respondent Nos.4 and 5 offered the said area to the GHMC for public purpose and in lieu thereof, they are claiming Transferrable Development Rights (TDR).
3
KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018
vii) Therefore, the petitioner association made representations 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 filed the present writ petition.
3. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.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 10% 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 Officials, GHMC and HMDA Officials conducted a survey and prepared a 4 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 map/plan indicating the area falling within the FTL boundary of Durgam Cheruvu as per the FTL stones/points fixed by the Irrigation Department.
vi) As per G.O.Ms.No.168, MA, dated 07.04.2012, no building/development activity shall be allowed in the bed of water bodies, like river or nala and in the FTL of any lake, pond, cheruvu or kuntas/shikam land.
vii) The subject land is falling within the FTL limits of the aforesaid Durgam Cheruvu. Therefore, the respondent Corporation has issued a show-cause notice dated 28.12.2017 under Sections - 452 (1) and 461 (1) of the HMC Act, 1955 to respondent Nos.4 and 5. They have not submitted any explanation. Therefore, notice dated 06.01.2018 was issued under Section - 452 (2) of the HMC Act, 1955 and also final notice dated 17.01.2018 under Section - 636 of the HMC Act, 1955.
viii) Thereafter, respondent Nos.4 and 5 approached the Civil Court by filing a suit vide O.S. No.19 of 2018. Upon filing counter by the respondent Corporation, the interim injunction granted earlier stood vacated. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation got demolished unauthorized compound wall in the subject property. Thus, there is no inaction on its part as alleged by the petitioner.5
KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018
4. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.4 & 5:
i) The subject plots are not an open space. Under Rule 10 (1) of the A.P. Municipalities (Layout) Rules, 1970, open space shall be limited to 10% of maximum gross area covered by the Layout.
ii) The Society had already set apart 11.65% 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 observed that the park area at 11.65% said to have been gifted appears to be beyond the requirements of the relevant condition or rule.
iii) The subject land has been divided into two (02) plots. The society has transferred Plot No.140 in favour of Mr. Madanlal Agarwal vide sale deed bearing document No.6760 of 1995. Subsequently, the legal heirs of Mr. Madanlal Agarwal transferred the said plot in favour of respondent No.4 vide sale deed bearing document No.9091 of 2007.
iv) Similarly, the Society transferred Plot No.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 sale deed bearing document No.8810 of 2007. 6
KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018
v) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 never offered the subject lands to respondent No.2 for public purpose and never sought TDR as alleged in the writ affidavit.
5. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
i) In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, according to the petitioner, the subject land admeasuring 1334 square yards is earmarked for 'amenities' on southern portion of the Layout. The said area does not contain residential plots as the same is meant for common communal use of the residents of the layout and cannot be owned by any single individual. Even then, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have obtained registered documents illegally and constructed a compound wall around the said amenities area. They have also offered to the GHMC for public purpose, and in lieu of the same, they are claiming TDS. Therefore, the petitioner association submitted the aforesaid two (02) representations dated 11.01.2018 and 14.06.2018 to respondent No.3 and also the Zonal Commissioner, GHMC, with a request to take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5. Whereas, according to respondent Nos.4 and 5, the subject property is not earmarked for the purpose of open space/public amenities. They are claiming right over the subject property under registered documents.7
KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018
ii) In the light of the said submissions, it is relevant to note that Mrs. Kanta Devi, wife of late Madanlal Agarwal & their four children have executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.9091 of 2007, dated 06.07.2007, in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of Open Plot No.140 admeasuring 667 square yards in Survey No.47 of Amar Co- operative Housing Society, Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal and Municipality, Rangareddy District. The husband of Mrs. Kanta Devi, late Madanlal Agarwal, purchased the said open Plot No.140 from the aforesaid Housing Society under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6760 of 1995, dated 30.05.1995. 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 Agarwal, 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-I) Department, dated 29.07.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.1262 of Revenue (UC-III) Department, dated 31.08.2006. It is further mentioned that they have no funds to pay the said amount and, 8 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 therefore, they have requested respondent No.4 to pay the said amount and accordingly he has paid the said amount for regularization and accordingly regularization proceedings were obtained.
iii) As far as Plot No.141 is concerned, Mr. Dayanand Gupta, son of late Dulichand, had executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.8810 of 2007, dated 28.06.2007 in favour of his sister, Smt. Krishna Agarwal, respondent No.5 herein in respect of Open Plot No.141, admeasuring 667 square yards. In the said document, it is mentioned that Mr. Dayanand Gupta purchased the said Plot No.141 from the aforesaid Housing Society under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6742 of 1995, dated 30.05.1995. This plot was also affected under ULC Act and the same was regularized under the aforesaid G.Os. It is relevant to note that respondent No.5 is the mother of respondent No.4.
iv) To show that the subject property is earmarked for 'common amenities/commercial', the petitioner association has filed Layout. The said Layout bears the signature of Mr. Dayanand Gupta, the then President of M/s. Amar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited. Thus, the said Dayand Gupta is none other than the brother of respondent No.5. Further, the said Layout was issued by the competent authority i.e., 9 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in the year 1995. Permit number and date are also specifically mentioned therein. The Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality 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') deals with 'amenity', and it includes road, water supply, street, lighting, drainage, sewerage, public works, tourists spots, open spaces, parks and play fields, and such other convenience as the Government may, by notification, specify 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 - IV deals with 'development of lands'. 10
KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018
vii) In R.G.S.G. Karyalaya, rep. by its proprietor T. Srinu v. The APIICL1, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad had an occasion to deal with the aforesaid Act, Rules, scope and ambit of definition of 'development' and held that any activity of causing material change in any building or land including re-development would come within the definition of 'development'.
viii) In Koganti Venkata Suryanarayana v. The State of A.P. 2, a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held that unauthorized encroachments on public amenities and open spaces in approved layouts are illegal and must be removed to protect the rights of the community.
ix) In Mayuri Nagar Welfare Association v. State of Telangana3, a Division Bench of this Court held that open spaces and amenities designated in layouts must be maintained for their intended purpose, and their conversion for private use is impermissible.
x) In Sri K.Ramadas Shenoy v. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi4, where the property earmarked for the purpose of amenities in a residential area, there was proposal to construct 1 . (2014) 1 ALD 730 2 . (2018) 3 ALD 72 (DB) 3 . W.P. No.11734 of 2018, decided on 23.06.2022 4 . (1974) 2 SCC 506 11 KL,J W.P. No.25899 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 Municipalities in such cases. The Municipality cannot act in disregard of the scheme. The Municipality is not the authority to vary or modify the Scheme. The Municipality acts for the public benefit in enforcing the Scheme. Where the Municipality acts in excess of the powers conferred by the Act or abuses those powers, then in those cases it is not exercising its jurisdiction irregularly or wrongly but it is usurping powers which it does not possess. The right to build on his own land 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 line 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 12 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 given to build by contravening a bye-law, the jurisdiction of the Courts will be invoked on the ground that the approval by an authority of building plans which contravene the bye-laws made by that authority is illegal and inoperative. The Apex Court further held that the Court enforces the performance of statutory duty by public bodies as obligation to rate payers who have a legal right to demand compliance by a local authority with its duty to observe statutory rights alone. The Apex Court also held that the breach of a statutory duty created for the benefit of an individual or a class is a tortuous act.
xi) In Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India 5, the Apex Court held that though, the competent legislatures have, from time to time, enacted laws for ensuring planned development of the cities and urban areas, enforcement thereof has been extremely poor and the people have violated the master plans, zoning plans and building regulations and bye- laws with impunity. Despite repeated judgments by the Apex Court and High Courts, the builders and other affluent people engaged in the construction activities, who have, over the years shown scant respect for regulatory mechanism envisaged in the municipal and other similar laws, as also the master plans, zonal development plans, sanctioned plans etc., have received encouragement and support from the State apparatus. 5 . (2009) 15 SCC 705 13 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 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, building regulations and bye-laws etc.
xii) The Apex Court in Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao v. Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority 6, and this Court in R.G.S.G. Karyalaya1, considered the word 'development'. In Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao6, permission was granted for construction of temple in the land earmarked for park in the development land. On examination of the said facts, the Apex Court quashed the permission to construct temple.
xiii) In the light of the above principle, 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, like 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 . (2011) 12 SCC 154 14 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 Corporation. The Irrigation Department along with Revenue Officials, GHMC and HMDA Officials conducted a survey and prepared a Map/Plan indicating the area falling within the FTL boundary of Durgam Cheruvu as per the FTL stones/points fixed by the Irrigation Department. As per G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2012, no building/development activity shall be allowed in the bed of water bodies, like river or nala and in the FTL of any lake, pond, cheruvu or kuntas/shikam land. Therefore, they have already issued a show-cause notice dated 28.12.2017 to respondent Nos.4 and 5. They have not submitted any explanation. Therefore, they have issued final notice dated 17.01.2018 under Section - 636 of the HMC Act, 1955.
xiv) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed a suit vide O.S. No.19 of 2018 against the respondent Corporation. Initially status quo order was granted by the trial Court and, thereafter on filing counter by the respondent Corporation, the said status quo order was vacated. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation demolished unauthorized compound wall. Thus, according to respondent Nos.2 and 3, they have considered the aforesaid representations submitted by the petitioner.
xv) It is apt to note that along with counter, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have filed a copy of registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing document 15 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 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 Serilingampally Municipality. In the said registered gift settlement deed, it is mentioned that the said society has purchased an extent of Acs.15.23 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. Prafulla 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 layout. As per the said layout, an extent of 8784 square yards of piece of land was left for the purpose of laying 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 favour 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 16 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 Gupta, to declare the action of respondents in trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land admeasuring 300 square yards in Plot No.8 in Survey No.47 of Guttala Begumpet Village. Vide order dated 03.04.2013, this Court allowed the said writ petition. In the said order, there is reference to two layouts and also the 11.65% area towards parks. There is a finding that the park area said to have been gifted at 11.65% clearly appears to be beyond the requirements of the relevant condition or rule. Referring to the same, respondent Nos.4 and 5 contended that the subject property is not earmarked for amenities/parks. They have also filed copy of the layout. Perusal of copy of layout filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 would reveal that there is no stamp or proceedings number, whereas the layout filed by the petitioner, there are proceedings numbers, file number and date etc. However, it is for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the same.
xvii) As discussed above, according to respondent Nos.2 and 3, they have already demolished the compound wall by following the procedure laid down under law. In proof of the same, they have filed photographs.
xviii) It is relevant to note that the Government has issued G.O. Rt. No.851, MA & UD, dated 16.10.2018, constituting a Five-Member 17 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 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 following conclusions and recommendations:
"1) Durgam Cheruvu was once an Irrigation Tank with catchment area upstream and Ayacut area in the downstream side of the tank. With complete construction in catchment and Ayacut areas, the Durgam cheruvu became almost a recreational pond with lot of IT industries and residential colonies, newly constructed Cable Bridge around. This ornamental 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/Municipality 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 18 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 habitats or water spreading into the residential areas as observed during unprecedented floods in 2020 which exceeds far more than the floods observed in 2000 based on which revised FTL was fixed.
4) As such it is desirable to put an end to this long pending litigation by taking practical stand based on the developments that have taken place during last two decades. This helps in regularizing town planning norms and demolishing those which do not comply the norms. This way Government will receive periodic revenue in the form of property tax, permission fee etc. Hence, residents will be free from litigation and mental agony.
5) With the above said beautification works all-round Durgam Cheruvu on Amar Society side and Hitech City side, with the laying of walking track around the lake which is above the FTL, the boundaries of recreation areas and residential/commercial areas have been clearly established and theoretically the FTL contour confined to periphery of the walking track. There is no scope for further encroachments by nearby habitants or water spreading beyond walking track into residential areas as observed during unprecedented floods in 2020.
6) Most of the constructions in Amar Society are falling in layout approved by the then HUDA and as per the building permissions given by Serilinagmapally Municipality about 20 years ago. No new constructions have been not permitted since 2020 i.e., since FTL was refixed by Irrigation Department and litigation is continuing in Hon'ble Court for long.
19
KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018
7) Any decision to be taken by the government on the request of Amar Society Plot Owners Welfare 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 of the lake at FTL to spread beyond the walking 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. Challenging the same, they have filed writ petitions vide W.P. No.23838 of 2024 and batch. Vide common order dated 02.09.2024, a Division Bench of this court disposed of the said writ petitions directing that the said notices shall 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 20 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 created the aforesaid documents in collusion with the President of the aforesaid Housing Society, the brother of respondent No.5 and maternal uncle of respondent No.4, are trying to grab the property earmarked for the purpose of amenities/commercial. They have constructed compound wall. Therefore, the petitioner association has submitted two representations, dated 11.01.2018 and 14.06.2018 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 with a request to take action against respondent Nos.4 and 5. Despite receiving and acknowledging the same, respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not take any action. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
xxi) Perusal of representation dated 11.01.2018 would reveal that the petitioner has submitted the said representation to the Zonal Commissioner of GHMC and he is not a party to the present writ petition. The representation dated 14.06.2018 has submitted to respondent No.3.
6. CONCLUSION:
i) The aforesaid rival contentions would reveal that according to the petitioner, the subject property is earmarked for 'amenities/ commercial', whereas according to respondentNos.4 and 5, it is not earmarked for 'amenities' and it is not in FTL and they are the owners of 21 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 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 Article - 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 14.06.2018, respondent No.3 and the Zonal Commissioner did not inform 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 respondent Nos.4 and 5 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 is pending.
ii) In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the aforesaid representations submitted by the petitioner to the Zonal Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner considering the aforesaid 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 22 KL,J W.P. No.25899 of 2018 affording them an opportunity of hearing. Respondent No.2 shall consider the aforesaid recommendations of the Five-Men Committee and re-fixation of FTL of Durgam Cheruvu and also the provisions of the aforesaid Acts. However, he shall complete the entire exercise within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iii) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 9th June, 2025 Mgr