Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 267 (TS)

K. Panduranga Reddy v. State of Telangana

2022-03-28

A.ABHISHEK REDDY

body2022
ORDER : 1. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is interrelated with each other, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P. No. 6520 of 2018 is filed by K. Panduranga Reddy represented by his GPA M/s. Empire Meadows Pvt. Ltd. seeking to declare the high handed action of respondents in encroaching the property of the petitioner situated in Survey No. 166 admeasuring Acs. 7-20 guntas situated at Ameenpur Village and Gram Panchayat, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. W.P. No. 11925 of 2019 is filed by M/s. Empire Meadows Pvt. Ltd. and Sri. K. Panduranga Reddy, seeking to declare the action of respondent No. 2 in passing resolution dated 05.07.2017 allotting land admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards in Survey No. 166 situated at Ameenpur Village and Gram Panchayat, Sangareddy District, for construction of overhead water tank and consequent allotment letters dated 05.07.2017, 10.11.2017 issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as illegal and arbitrary. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 11925 of 2019. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 Sri. K. Panduranga Reddy was the pattadar and enjoyer of Survey No. 166 totally admeasuring Acs. 7-20 guntas having purchased the same through registered sale-deed No. 390/1963. Thereafter, a rectification deed was executed by the parties and the extent of land was reduced from Acs. 7-20 gunts to Acs. 7-14 guntas. Subsequently, petitioner No. 2 entered into a Development Agreement with the petitioner No. 1-M/s. Empire Meadows Pvt. Ltd. for developing the property. When the authorities of respondent No. 3-Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) tried to demolish the compound wall, which was constructed by the petitioners, and tried to encroach an area of 200 Sq. Yards, W.P. No. 6520 of 2018 was filed seeking to restrain the respondent No. 3 from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. 6. This Court on 06.03.2018 while admitting the Writ Petition No. 6520 of 2018 has directed the parties to maintain status quo, obtaining as on that date. However, liberty was granted to the respondent authorities to issue notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. 6. This Court on 06.03.2018 while admitting the Writ Petition No. 6520 of 2018 has directed the parties to maintain status quo, obtaining as on that date. However, liberty was granted to the respondent authorities to issue notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. Along with vacate stay petition, a counter has been filed by respondent-HMWSSB denying the title of the petitioners and stating that the Gram Panchayat vide Resolution dated 05.07.2017 has allotted an area of 200 Sq. Yards for the purpose of construction of a overhead tank. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the petitioners are not the owners and possessors of the said land and that it is a temple land, which has been earmarked for the purpose of constructing Lord Shiva Temple. Learned Standing Counsel has also stated that by virtue of the approval of the layout granted by the Gram Panchayat in respect of survey Nos. 165 and 166, the subject land is left open for Lord Shiva Temple, and the same is vested with the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners have absolutely no right, title, interest or possession over the same. Learned Standing Counsel has also stated that on the earlier occasion, petitioner No. 1 has approached the Civil Court for Injunction against some third parties vide O.S. No. 62 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The lower Court after due trial has dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 03.01.2018 holding that the petitioner No. 1 is not the owner and possessor of the land. Learned Standing Counsel has also stated that as long as the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 05.07.2017 and also the consequential letter of allotment are not cancelled, W.P. No. 6520 of 2018 filed by the petitioner No. 2 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. After filing of the counter in W.P. No. 6520 of 2018, the writ petitioners have filed W.P. No. 11925 of 2019 questioning the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat as well as the consequential allotment letters issued in favour of respondent No. 3. 10. 9. After filing of the counter in W.P. No. 6520 of 2018, the writ petitioners have filed W.P. No. 11925 of 2019 questioning the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat as well as the consequential allotment letters issued in favour of respondent No. 3. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that when the entire land in survey No. 166 is admittedly a private patta land belonging to the petitioners, the action of the Gram Panchayat allotting the land to respondent No. 3 under the guise of passing a Resolution is contrary to the well established principles of law. Learned counsel has stated that as long as the title is with the petitioners, the Gram Panchayat has no business to allot any portion of the said land to respondent No. 3 and has therefore prayed this Court to set aside the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat as well as the consequential allotment. 11. Respondent No. 3 has filed a counter in W.P. No. 11925 of 2019 wherein they have categorically stated that the Gram Panchayat was well within its power to allot the land as the same was vested with the Gram Panchayat. Learned Standing Counsel has stated that once the Gram Panchayat has approved the layout, the open places, parks, roads, etc. earmarked in the said layout will vest with the Gram Panchayat. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the layout of the Gram Panchayat in respect of survey Nos. 165 and 166/P showing that in the layout a portion of the said land is earmarked for Lord Shiva Temple. Learned Standing Counsel has stated that once the Gram Panchayat has approved the layout and as per the layout, the subject land falls within the area of the land earmarked for Lord Shiva Temple, the petitioners have no locus to challenge the said Resolution. Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the petitioner No. 1 having failed to obtain any orders in O.S. No. 62 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, had filed the present Writ Petition. It is further stated that in the suit filed by petitioner No. 1 a categorical finding has been given by the trial Court that petitioner No. 1 is not the owner of the land which is shown as belonging to Lord Shiva Temple. It is further stated that in the suit filed by petitioner No. 1 a categorical finding has been given by the trial Court that petitioner No. 1 is not the owner of the land which is shown as belonging to Lord Shiva Temple. It is further stated that subsequently, the Gram Panchayat was merged with the Municipality. This Court vide order dated 08.02.2022 in I.A. No. 2 of 2019 in W.P. No. 11925 of 2019 has impleaded the Municipality as respondent No. 4. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4-Municipality while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit has stated that as per the Gram Panchayat records, the subject land falls within the area earmarked for Lord Shiva Temple. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat had every right to allot an area of 200 Sq. yards to the HMWSSB. 13. Heard and perused the record. 14. A perusal of the material on record shows that admittedly, the subject land is falling in Survey No. 166 and is part and parcel of Acs. 7-14 guntas purchased by the original pattadar K. Panduranga Reddy i.e. petitioner No. 2, who entered into a Development Agreement with petitioner No. 1. The petitioners after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority have constructed the compound wall as well as multi storied buildings in the area of Acs. 7-14 guntas. As seen from the record, initially the Gram Panchayat and thereafter the HMDA have granted necessary permissions and the subject land falls well within the area of Survey No. 166 of which there is no dispute. The Gram Panchayat is laying claim over the subject land on the basis of an approved layout granted by the Gram Panchayat for Survey Nos. 165 and 166/P. A perusal of the layout shows that there is absolutely no mention in the said layout as to who has applied for the said layout and no record is placed to show as to whether the said person who applied the layout had any title to the property in Survey No. 166. Except the layout, no other proceedings are placed on record before this Court to show as to whether the subject layout has been obtained by petitioner No. 2 i.e. Sri. K. Pandu Ranga Reddy or someone else on his behalf. Except the layout, no other proceedings are placed on record before this Court to show as to whether the subject layout has been obtained by petitioner No. 2 i.e. Sri. K. Pandu Ranga Reddy or someone else on his behalf. In the absence of the same, it cannot be construed that the open spaces, parks or the land earmarked for Lord Shiva Temple in the said layout vest with the Municipality. The right, title and interest of the original owner of Survey No. 166 i.e. petitioner No. 2 cannot be divested on the mere approval of a layout, more so, when the same is not obtained by him. The Gram Panchayat cannot lay a claim on the basis of the layout applied by any third party for the land belonging to the petitioner No. 2 i.e. Sri. K. Pandu Ranga Reddy. Even though respondent No. 3 has vehemently tried to argue that the subject land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and tried to support the Gram Panchayat Resolution and the consequential allotment letters, a perusal of the record shows that the Gram Panchayat does not have any other document except the layout copy and no other documents are filed to show that the subject land vests with the Gram Panchayat. Moreover, in the counter filed by respondent No. 4, it is stated as under: “6. It is submitted that in reply to Para No. 4, the content of this para, it is submitted that the petitioner stated that for the purpose of development of project, they have obtained various permissions from the authorities on different dates mentioned therein for construction of residential apartment in Sy. No. 166 of Ameenpur (V) and Grampanchayat and raised compound wall and completed construction. It this regard, it is to submit that, the petitioner themselves have encroached land reserved for Lord Shivas Temple in approved Layout by the then Grampanchayat and obtained Building Permission by misrepresentation facts and also constructed the compound wall.” 15. That apart, as seen from the record, the petitioners have executed a gift deed dated 25.02.2017 in favour of the Gram Panchayat in respect of the splay land of 1009.60 Sq. yards in survey No. 166 for the purpose of laying a road, which undoubtedly proves that the petitioner No. 2 is the owner of Survey No. 166. That apart, as seen from the record, the petitioners have executed a gift deed dated 25.02.2017 in favour of the Gram Panchayat in respect of the splay land of 1009.60 Sq. yards in survey No. 166 for the purpose of laying a road, which undoubtedly proves that the petitioner No. 2 is the owner of Survey No. 166. Admittedly, the petitioners got a revised layout from the HMDA and the said applications were processed through Gram Panchayat concerned and necessary fee has also been paid. As seen from the revised plans approved by the HMDA, the subject land is also shown to be belonging to petitioner No. 2 and the Gram Panchayat did not object for including the subject land in the Revised Plans even though they were aware of the same. The revised plans hold good even till date as no one has challenged the same. When such is the case, it cannot be said that the petitioners do not have any title to the subject land, which is admittedly falling in Survey No. 166. In the absence of any record or document to show as to how the Gram Panchayat has acquired the land in Survey No. 166, the question of they allotting the same to respondent No. 3 for the purpose of construction of overhead tank does not arise. Even in the counter filed by respondent No. 4-Municipality, they have admitted that the petitioner is the owner of the land and that the land is encompassed with a compound wall. 16. In Pt. Chet Ram Vashist vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1995) 1 SCC 47 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had to consider whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in the absence of any provision in the Delhi Corporation Act, 1957, was entitled to sanction a plan for building activities by imposing a condition that the open space for parks and schools be transferred to it free of cost. Section 313 of the said Act entitled the Standing Committee of the said Corporation to accord sanction to a layout plan on such conditions as it may think fit. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Reserving any site for any street, open space, park, school etc. in a layout plan is normally a public purpose as it is inherent in such reservation that it shall be used by the public in general. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Reserving any site for any street, open space, park, school etc. in a layout plan is normally a public purpose as it is inherent in such reservation that it shall be used by the public in general. The effect of such reservation is that the owner ceases to be a legal owner of the land in dispute and he holds the land for the benefit of the society or the public in general. It may result in creating an obligation in nature of trust and may preclude the owner from transferring or selling his interest in it. It may be true as held by the High Court that the interest which is left in the owner is a residuary interest which may be nothing more than a right to hold this land in trust for the specific purpose specified by the coloniser in the sanctioned layout plan. But the question is, does it entitle the Corporation to claim that the land so specified should be transferred to the authority free of cost. That is not made out from any provision in the Act or on any principle of law. The Corporation by virtue of the land specified as open space may get a right as a custodian of public interest to manage it in the interest of the society in general. But the right to manage as a local body is not the same thing as to claim transfer of the property to itself. The effect of transfer of the property is that the transferor ceases to be owner of it and the ownership stands transferred to the person in whose favour it is transferred. The resolution of the Committee to transfer land in the colony for park and school was an order for transfer without there being any sanction for the same in law.” 17. In the case on hand, the only claim to the property by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is the layout for Survey Nos. 165 and 166/P where the subject property along with adjacent area is shown to be earmarked as ‘Lord Shiva Temple’ but there is no proof or document filed by the contesting respondents to show that the petitioner No. 2 had applied for the said layout and therefore the said layout is binding on him. 18. 165 and 166/P where the subject property along with adjacent area is shown to be earmarked as ‘Lord Shiva Temple’ but there is no proof or document filed by the contesting respondents to show that the petitioner No. 2 had applied for the said layout and therefore the said layout is binding on him. 18. For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the above of proposition of law laid down in Ram Vashist (referred supra), this Court is of the opinion that either the Gram Panchayat or through them HMWSSB cannot not have any claim, right, title over the subject property in Survey No. 166 merely on the basis of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and the consequential allotment, unless the Gram Panchyat has any title to the property, they cannot convey a better title to the respondent No. 3-HMWSSB. Therefore, the Resolution dated 05.02.2017 as well as the consequential orders dated 05.07.2017, 10.11.2017 are set aside, however, leaving it open to the Gram Panchayat/HMWSSB to seek appropriate relief before appropriate authority if they have any right, title or interest over the subject property. 19. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. 20. Miscellaneous petitions pending in these writ petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.