ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 to 6 over the representations of the petitioner society and its plot owners in permanently protecting or restoring the 30 feet wide existing common public road in between Ragavendra Colony situated in Survey No.181/P and the land in Survey Nos.182, 183/P, 184, 185, 187, 188, 189/1 and 189/2 of respondents 7 to 12 situated at Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and in not removing the barricades and metal sheets which are illegally erected by respondents 7 to 12 in the middle of 30 feet wide existing public road, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner society was registered before the Registrar of Societies, Ranga Reddy District vide Registration No.1743 of 2014 dt.20.12.2014 for the welfare of the plots and their owners situated in Survey No.181/part. It is submitted that the said survey number admeasuring Ac.4.20 gts., situated at Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal (old), now in Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was made into 61 plots and the vendors had obtained layout approval from the then Gram Panchayat, Puppalaguda on 08.01.1992 by leaving separate road of 30 feet wide common public road on Northern side of the layout being the main approach road for the purpose of ingress and egress to all the plot owners of the petitioner society and also to the adjacent land owners. The Gram Panchayat, Puppalaguda sanctioned the layout on 08.01.1992 declaring the 30 feet wide common public road in between Ragavendrapuram Housing Colony in Survey No.181/part and the land in Survey Nos.182, 183/P, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189/1 and 189/2 of Puppalaguda Village by taking 15 feet road each from both sides of the lands for the purpose of common public use and according to the petitioner, the said road is existing from the past 30 years and both, the residents of the petitioner society, as well as, the land owners of the adjacent land owners are using the same as common road. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 had also erected electrical poles, transformers and laid drainage and water pipelines along the 30 feet wide public road on Northern side of the petitioner society layout for the purpose of providing amenities to the residents of the colony. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 had also erected electrical poles, transformers and laid drainage and water pipelines along the 30 feet wide public road on Northern side of the petitioner society layout for the purpose of providing amenities to the residents of the colony. LRS proceedings from HMDA and Manikonda Municipality were also issued confirming the existence of 30 feet wide common public road on their Northern side facing which the main road of the colony is existing. It is submitted that respondent No.12 claiming to be the Development Agreement Holder-cum-GPA Holder with respondents 7 to 11 who are the original landlords, highhandedly and illegally, interfered on 20.11.2019 into the common public road, disturbed the pipelines of the drainage and water and obstructed the thorough passage by illegally erecting the barricades with metal sheets encroaching into the entire 30 feet wide common public road covering electrical poles and transformers meant for the residents of Ragavendra colony. The petitioner society, therefore made a complaint to the police on 20.11.2019 which is registered as Crime No.796 of 2019 dt.20.11.2019 against respondent No.12 management. Thereafter, the petitioner society has made a representation to respondent No.4 on 30.11.2019 for protecting the 30 feet wide common public road. Since no action has been taken by the respondents on representations of the petitioner, this Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Bala Subramanyam, reiterated the above submissions and has drawn the attention of this Court to various representations made by the petitioner and has also drawn the attention of this Court to page No.82 of the writ papers, wherein a copy of the unapproved layout of the petitioner society is filed to show the existence of 30 feet wide road on its Northern side. He has also filed copies of photographs of erection of tin sheets by respondent No.12 in the middle of the alleged 30 feet road. He submitted that the petitioner and the owners of the land, i.e., the vendors of the petitioner as well as the vendors of respondent No.12 had agreed to leave 15 feet wide road on Northern and Southern side of each other’s property to provide for 30 feet road and respondent No.12 in violation of the said agreement is trying to encroach the 30 feet road thereby causing severe inconvenience and injustice to the residents of the petitioner society. 4. 4. When the matter had come up for hearing on 23.12.2021, this Hon’ble Court had granted maintenance of status quo in respect of the road in between the two layouts. The said interim order has been extended from time to time and is in force as on today. 5. Respondent No.2 and respondent No.12 have filed their counters. 6. As per the counter filed by respondent No.2, after receiving the complaint of the petitioner, the Municipal Commissioner, RDO, MRO and RI inspected the site on 05.06.2020 and observed that a 15 feet road is provided in the unapproved layout at the time of formation of the layout all along the corner edges in Plot Nos.1, 12, 13, 23, 24, 34, 35, 36, 45, 46, 53 and 54 of Raghavendra Nagar Colony of Puppalaguda. It is also submitted that the 12th respondent has encroached the 15 feet road by fixing blue sheets at some part of the road illegally and that the town planning staff of Manikonda Municipality have removed the blue sheets erected on 15 feet encroached road with the coordination of the Revenue staff on 06.06.2020 and cleared the road area. On the allegation of encroachment of 30 feet road, it is submitted that internal roads are provided in Raghavendra Nagar Colony by providing 25 feet road in the layout and in the layout 15 feet road is provided by the landlord at the time of formation of the layout and there is no 30 feet road which is existing. It is submitted that on receipt of the application for approval of LRS for Plot No.12 in Survey No.181/P situated at Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the same has been examined and LRS was approved based on the sale deed without inspection of the site due to LRS Mela. It is submitted that on receipt of the application for approval of LRS for Plot No.12 in Survey No.181/P situated at Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the same has been examined and LRS was approved based on the sale deed without inspection of the site due to LRS Mela. It is submitted that the 12th respondent had applied for excavation permission to HMDA for residential apartments consisting of one cellar in Survey Nos.182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189/1 and 189/2 of Puppalaguda Village to an extent of Ac.9.33 gts., or 39760.36 square metres and has shown the area affected under the road widening to depth of the 2.28 metres and has also shown that 15 feet width from the centre of the road is being maintained by Raghavendra Colony layout road on Southern side of the site and after examination of the proposal, permission for excavation of one cellar work on 18.03.2021 was issued subject to the following conditions: (1) The applicant shall abide by the outcome of the court case W.P.No.10960 of 2020, i.e., this writ petition which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana and shall give an affidavit to this effect. (2) The applicant shall maintain the 15 ft width from the centre of the road for Raghvendra Colony layout road on southern side of site under reference and affected area is to be handed over to the local body for free of cost. Subsequently, M/s. EIPL Constructions, represented by its partner K. Sridhar Reddy has submitted an application for Multi Storied Residential buildings through online DPMS file No.045100/SKP/R1/U6/HMDA/09042021 dt. 09.01.2021 for 10 Towers- Each tower consisting of 2 cellars + Ground + 14 upper floors and Club House with Ground + 3 upper floors in Sy No. 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189/1 & 189/2 situated at Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to an extent of 39760.35 sqmtrs and same is under consideration. 09.01.2021 for 10 Towers- Each tower consisting of 2 cellars + Ground + 14 upper floors and Club House with Ground + 3 upper floors in Sy No. 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189/1 & 189/2 situated at Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to an extent of 39760.35 sqmtrs and same is under consideration. It is submitted that the layout of the petitioner society is an unapproved layout and it was approved by the then Puppalguda Gram Panchayat though it did not have any power to approve the layout and as per HMDA Act, 2008 and as per HUDA Act, 1975, it is the HMDA which is the competent authority for approval of any layout plan and it is only after approval of the layout plan by the HMDA, that it is sent to the concerned Local Body for release of plans to the layout owner on collection of local body charges. It is submitted that the HMDA has issued LRS permission on unauthorised layout as per G.O.Ms.No.151 dt.02.11.2015. Thus, it is submitted that the HMDA has been following the provisions of the HMDA Act and there is no inaction on their part in taking any action on the representations of the petitioner. 7. Respondent No.12 has also filed counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner and also further submitting that since the layout of the petitioner society was unauthorised and plots were regularised under LRS scheme, no reliance could be placed on the unapproved layout. It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner with regard to a separate road of 30 feet wide common public road on Northern side of the layout is totally false and misleading and is contrary to the documents filed by the petitioner. According to respondent No.12, there exists only a 15 feet wide road left by the vendors of the members of the petitioner society and even as on date, there exists a 15 feet wide road only. It is also submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the 15 feet road is the approach road to the petitioner society is also false as the main road to the colony is a different one. It is also submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the 15 feet road is the approach road to the petitioner society is also false as the main road to the colony is a different one. Respondent No.12 also relied upon the inspection report of the municipal authorities along with RDO, MRO and RI who inspected the site on 05.06.2020 and reported that, in the layout, only a 15 feet road is provided for by the landlord at the time of formation of the layout and there is no 30 feet road existing on the site. Therefore, according to respondent No.12, the allegations made by the petitioner are incorrect and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and respondent No.12 is under no obligation to leave 15 feet road on the Southern side of its project. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed reply affidavit to the counters filed by the official as well as the unofficial respondents denying the allegations made in the counter affidavits about the petitioner and reiterated that 30 feet road is existing between the two layouts. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Bala Subramanyam, vociferously argued in support of the contentions in the writ affidavit while Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA relied upon the contentions in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and learned Senior Counsel, Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, appeared for unofficial respondent, i.e., respondent No.12 and submitted that respondent No.12 undertakes to abide by the conditions imposed by HMDA while granting the permission for construction. 10. Upon careful consideration of the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noted that one of the conditions imposed by respondent No.2 for granting permission to respondent No.12 to construct is that the applicant, i.e., respondent No.12 herein shall maintain a 15 feet width from the centre of the road for Raghavendra colony layout road on Southern side of the site under reference and the affected area is to be handed over to the local body for free of cost. If this condition is to be followed, then the width of the road between the petitioner society colony and respondent No.12 project would be only 22.5 feet. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 has referred to G.O.Ms.No.168 dt.07.04.2012. If this condition is to be followed, then the width of the road between the petitioner society colony and respondent No.12 project would be only 22.5 feet. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 has referred to G.O.Ms.No.168 dt.07.04.2012. As per Rule 4 of the Building Rules, minimum abutting existing road width required for various uses of building activities has been given thereunder in Table-II. According to the said Table, all residential (other than group housing) and commercial buildings with maximum permissible height of 10 metres and for other categories, the minimum width of the road shall be as given in B1 category, i.e., 9 metres, i.e., 30 feet wide and also with regard to B1 category, i.e., non-high raise (residential) buildings including group housing including cellar and stilt as permissible + maximum up to 5 floors also, the road should be 9 metres and for category B2 buildings, i.e., high raise buildings/complexes up to a height of 24 metres, high raise group housing (cellars as applicable + 6 floors) and also others not specified in the Table and all non-high raise buildings up to 18 metres height, the road should be 12 metres and for all other high raise buildings above 24 meters and up to 30 metres categorised as B3, the minimum road shall be 18 metres. Therefore, in accordance with these building rules, it can be seen that minimum requirement of approach road for buildings/sites/plots shall be 30 feet wide road. Therefore, it is not understandable as to how and why respondent No.2 has imposed a condition of providing the road width as 22.5 feet. 11. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that this is only a preliminary permission given to the petitioner. 12. From the averments in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2, it is seen that respondent No.12 has submitted an application for multi storied residential buildings through online DPMS File No.045100/SKP/R1/U6/HMDA/09042021 dt.09.01.2021 for 10 towers-each tower consisting of 2 cellars + ground + 14 upper floors and club house with ground + 3 upper floors in Survey Nos.182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189/1 and 189/2 situated at Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to an extent of 39760.35 square metres and that the same is under consideration. 13. 13. Since the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.12 has also given an undertaking that they will follow the conditions imposed by HMDA while granting permission, respondent No.2 is directed to issue permission to respondent No.12 strictly in accordance with the building rules specified under G.O.Ms.No.168 dt.07.04.2012. Further, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that (against respondent No.12) a Writ Petition was before this Court in W.P.No.3760 of 2022 and by order dt.25.01.2022, this Hon’ble Court had directed respondent No.2 HMDA to consider and dispose of the representations of the petitioner therein within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and if it is found that the building permission has not been granted to the 4th respondent therein, i.e., respondent No.12 herein, then to take necessary action to stop the construction work being undertaken by the 4th respondent therein immediately. 14. This Writ Petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 herein to pass the final order of permission to respondent No.12 herein, by considering the objections of the petitioner society herein as well as the petitioners in W.P.No.3760 of 2022 and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.168 dt.07.04.2012. 15. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.