Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Writ Petition No.16595 of 2023, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:

"...to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order Dt.9-01-2023 vide Lr.No.117404/21/02/2017/HO/29 of the respondent No.1/The Commissioner GHMC, disposing off the objection and upholding the revised permit No.2755/Layout/CDA/PLG/HMDA/2002 Dt 26-04-2013 and permit No.39591/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2015 Dt.20-1-2015 vide file No.B/429/TPS/TP-11/GHMC/2014 and revised permit vide file No. 53374/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016 Dt.3-11-2017 in file No.117404/21/02/ 2017/HO as illegal, arbitrary without power or authority in terms of Art 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently declare the Relinquishment deed No.4361 of 2013 dated 18-03-2013 executed by respondent No.2/Metropolitan Commissioner HMDA in favour of the respondent No.3/M/s.Patel Engg Ltd and the gift deed No.4360 of 2013 dt.18-03-2013 executed by the respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No 2, and gift deed No.18628 of 29-10-2021 as null and void....."

4. Writ Petition No.3698 of 2023 is filed by M/s.Rolling Hills House Owners Association (hereinafter referred as 'Association') and W.P.No.16595 of 2023 is filed by the members of the Association. Writ Petition No.16595 of 2023 is taken up as a leading case to decide the lis in these two cases.

5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

6. It is stated that the members of petitioner No.1-Association had purchased residential plots in a gated community developed over land admeasuring Ac.18.14 guntas in Survey No.31, situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to a final layout approved by the-then Cyberabad Development Authority (CDA). On 26.07.2004, the CDA issued final layout approval upon completion of the project, after accepting the gift deed and taking over the designated open spaces. It is further stated that on 10.08.2004, the CDA released the mortgaged area for finalization of the layout, and subsequently, the final layout approval was granted vide Permit No.2755/Final/Layout/CDA/2002 dated 23.08.2004. Thereafter, the land was developed into a gated community, and construction of 101 independent residential buildings was undertaken based on Permit No.5085/BP/CDA/2004 dated 10.11.2004. It is stated that the Respondent No.3 sold several houses in the said layout to the petitioners under registered sale deeds and the members of the Association have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective houses since 25.04.2009, and they have also been maintaining the internal roads and open spaces. Since then, the respondent No.3 ceased to have any ownership, title, possession, or interest over the said land. It is further stated that on 17.08.2006, respondent No.3 submitted an application seeking revision of the approved layout. In response to the same, the CDA, vide letter No.2755/LO/CDA/PLG/HMDA/2002 dated 10.12.2012, clarified that any revision to the layout must retain the pattern of open spaces, plots, and road network. However, the respondent No.3, in collusion with others, sought a revised layout including adjacent land in Sy.No.32 admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas and proposed alterations to the earmarked open space, park area, and internal roads without obtaining consent from the petitioners. It is further stated that on 18.03.2013, respondent No.2 executed a deed of relinquishment in respect of open space land measuring 1718 square yards in Sy.No.31(P), which was already deemed to have vested under law. On the same day, respondent No.3 executed a gift settlement deed in favour of HMDA for lands admeasuring 718 square yards and 400 square yards, which was already under occupation of the purchasers. Based on these developments, the original layout was revised vide proceedings No. 2755/Layout/CDA/PGL/HMDA/2002 dated 26.04.2013, 39591/ HO/WZ/Cir.-11/2015 dated 20.01.2015, and 53374/HO/WZ/Cir.- 11/2016 dated 03.11.2017. Thereafter, an amended Gift Deed dated 29.10.2021 was executed, transferring 2419 square yards including part of the land already forming part of the approved layout No.2755/Final/Layout/CDA/2002. Aggrieved by the issuance of revised layout and attempts by the respondents to alter the original layout and demolish the existing compound wall in the lands between Sy.Nos.31 and 32, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 07.03.2022. When there was no action, the petitioners filed O.S.No.165 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking an injunction, and also filed W.P.No.18266 of 2022 on the file of this Court. This Court, vide order dated 12.04.2022, disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 07.03.2022 in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.1, without properly considering their objections, passed the impugned order No.117404/21/02/2017/HO/29 dated 09.01.2023, rejecting their claim on irrelevant and extraneous grounds. Hence, the W.P.No.16595 of 2023.

8. The Respondent No.2-Metropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), filed counter affidavit, inter alia stating that respondent Nos.3 and 4 had filed an application seeking revision of the originally sanctioned layout for the land admeasuring Ac.18.10 guntas in Survey No.31 of Gachibowli Village, under File No.1308/MP2/HUDA/2000. However, the said application was not approved by the-then authority and was rejected vide Letter No.1304/MP2/HUDA/2000 dated 02.05.2000 on the ground that the land fell within the jurisdiction of the Cyberabad Development Authority (CDA), and that a Special Action Plan/Master Plan for that region was still under preparation. Subsequently, a revised layout proposal in respect of Survey No.31 was treated as a fresh application and was examined by the CDA in light of G.O.Ms.No.538 MA dated 29.01.2001. It is stated that the land in Sy.No.31 was earmarked partly for Residential Use Zone and partly for Commercial-cum-Housing Use Zone and was also affected by proposed 45-metre and 36-metre roads as per the notified Master Plan of the CDA. As per CDA norms at the relevant time, the open space requirement in such layouts was 25% of the total layout area. Further, the Government had issued Letter No.23622/H2/2001-3 MA dated 16.05.2002 revising the External Betterment Charges (EBC) for plotted development layouts and regulations relating to Free Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Clarification was issued through Letter No.3661/H2/2002-1 dated 20.05.2002 stating that building applications filed before the issuance of CDA Master Plan, and not rejected on technical grounds, shall be treated as old cases. Thereafter, vide letter dated 29.06.2022, the representation was once again forwarded for re-examination and for furnishing a detailed report. In the meantime, under G.O.Ms.No.343 MA dated 09.07.2003, the Government revised the Free FAR from 0.75 to 1.00 and reduced the percentage of open space requirement from 25% to 10% of the total layout area. Based on the revised norms, the revised layout proposal was technically approved by HMDA on 19.01.2013 and forwarded to respondent No.1 vide Letter No.2755/Layout/CDA/ Plg/HMDA/2002 dated 26.04.2013 for issuance of layout release orders. The Respondent No.2 further stated that development control powers were conferred on HMDA by the Government vide Letter No.15048/HMDA/2008 dated 17.01.2009 to exercise all development control powers under Sections 18, 19, 20, 23, and 52 of the HMDA Act in respect of residential, commercial, and industrial constructions, including grant of building permissions. It is the specific stand of respondent No.2 that the procedure adopted in approving and releasing the revised layout in favour of respondent No.3 was strictly in accordance with law and applicable government orders. It is contended that there is no illegality or procedural irregularity in the approval process. Respondent No.2 also submits that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches, as the challenge is raised after a long lapse of time.

18. Before examining the issues raised, it is necessary to consider the object of the HMDA Act, 2008 and the provisions thereunder. The Act was enacted to establish the Metropolitan Development Authority for the purposes of planning, coordination, supervising promoting and securing the planned development of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Region and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. As per Section 18 of the Act, all development powers of land vest with the Metropolitan Development Authority. Section 19 mandates obtaining prior permission for undertaking development. Incase developers fail to implement the layout conditions, under Section 22, HMDA is empowered to revoke such permission if it is found that the same was obtained by false statement or misrepresentation or suppression of any material facts or rule. Section 23 states that if during the execution of any development works/layout works/and civil works any deviation/ departure is made from the Development Permission granted, the owner shall obtain revised sanction as per the procedure laid down in Section 19.