Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4 MSR,J wp_25022_2015 W.P.No.15871 of 2015 :

3. Petitioner filed W.P.No.15871 of 2015 alleging that the Revenue officials and HMDA officials started interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the property. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 08-06-2015 permitting the petitioner to give a detailed representation to the HMDA and Revenue officials and the said representation was directed to be acted upon by the HMDA and the Revenue officials expeditiously.

11. Matter was then directed to be listed on 13-11-2015. On that day, further time was requested and the matter was adjourned to 04-12-2015. But the matter was again adjourned at the request of respondents to 18-12-2015. Matter was then listed on 29-01-2016 and on that day, their presence was dispensed with and the request for grant of further time for filing counter affidavit by HMDA and respondent Nos.5 and 6 was granted.

THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER OF THE HMDA :

12. The in-charge Director filed an additional counter on 22-01-2016 taking a plea that the land in Sy. Nos.100 and 101 of Miyapur, Serilingampally Mandal is a Government land and it was handed over to HMDA through the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide letter No.LC1/5779/D3 dt.20-08-2003; that the local Site Officer of HMDA has reported about an encroachment and construction of residential building in Sy. Nos.100 and 101 of Miyapur, Sirilingampally Mandal by the petitioner; there was an enquiry caused with the assistance of the Surveyor of the HMDA; that the report was submitted on 20-07-2015 for issuing suitable orders to remove illegal structures; the 6th respondent was directed to analyse the facts with reference to the ground position; that he visited the site on 23-07-2015 and confirmed that the petitioner was making 8 MSR,J wp_25022_2015 construction in the land belonging to HMDA in Sy.No.100; and the 6th respondent submitted a report which was forwarded by the Estate Officer to the Secretary of the HMDA on 24-07-2015 for approval. It is stated that 'Note Orders' were passed by the Secretary on 24-07-2015 not to allow construction in the said survey number; that there were no 'orders' passed specifically on 24-07-2015, and in fact it was only a 'Note Order'.

17. It is contended that the Surveyor of the HMDA and the Site Officer (lands) of HMDA got the land demarcated and thereafter, superimposed the layout plan of the Deepthi Sreenagar Cooperative House Building Society and came to a conclusion that plot No.525/A is falling in Sy.No.150 of Hafizpet village, but land in question falls in Sy.No.100 of Miyapur and is vacant HMDA land; that the land purchased by the petitioner is located on the West Boundary of Deepthi Sreenagar layout and plot Nos.525 and 525/A are shown as extension to the plot No.525 on the south ward direction. It is alleged that the shape of the plot No.525/A is triangular but the land in question is square in shape. It is alleged that though as per the layout, plot Nos.525 and 525/A are continuous, as per the present ground position, there is a 40' road falling on southern side to plot No.525 leading through the northern part of plot No.525/A. It is contended that the boundaries of the HMDA land in Sy. No.100 and that of the Deepthi Srinagar layout were fixed on the ground with reference to the boundaries and final layout as well, and as a result, the subject land is found to fall in HMDA open land. She therefore contended that the construction made by the petitioner is not in Sy.No.150 of Deepthi Sri Nagar layout and is in Sy.No.100 of Miyapur village. The liability to pay any compensation is denied and it is alleged that the procedure prescribed under the Act is followed.

13 MSR,J wp_25022_2015

24. Since it has come to light from the additional counter-affidavit of the In-charge Director of the HMDA that there was an order passed on 04-08-2015 by the Estate officer of the HMDA under the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968, the said officer is suo motu impleaded as 7th respondent in the Writ petition. The Estate officer of the HMDA (7th respondent) has filed a separate addl.counter affidavit of the HMDA stating how she discharged her functions under the said Act, the same has been considered while passing this Order.