IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23625 of 2002 Between: Shantinagar Club & Welfare Association, Shantinagar, Masab tank, Hyderabad-28, Represented by its Secretary. … Petitioner And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Represented by its Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar. Counsel for the respondent: Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent- Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (for short “the Corporation”) in seeking to take possession of the tennis courts being maintained by the petitioner-Welfare Association at Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The petitioner claims to be a Society (Welfare Association) registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with Registration No.320 of 1964. It is averred in the affidavit filed by its Secretary that the Society was formed for the welfare of the residents of Shantinagar Cololny and to provide facilities to them. It is further averred that Shantinagar Colony was formed in the year 1959 by the A.P. Government Gazetted Officers Co- operative House Building Society Limited, which purchased an extent of Ac.25.00 of Government land, vide G.O.Ms.No.1304, Local Administration, dated 30-5- 1958 as modified by G.O.Ms.No.756, Local Administration, dated 19-3-1959; and that layout was prepared on 15-5-1959 with 120 residential plots and four open spaces. The petitioner is interested in open spaces surrounded by ‘B’ and ‘D’ series plots. The petitioner claimed that after formation of the Society a community hall was built, apart from three tennis courts being laid in the open spaces, abutting the Club of the Society. According to the petitioner, the tennis courts are in existence from the year 1979-80 and about 50 children are being coached in the said tennis courts. The petitioner apprehended a move on the part of the Corporation to take over the said tennis courts. The deponent to the affidavit pleaded that on coming to know about the same, he met the Additional Commissioner and Director of Sports of the Corporation on 19-11-2002 and tried to impress upon them that, while the tennis courts in Sanjeevaiah Park, Jubilee Hills, Sindhi Colony and Begumpet were established by the Corporation, the tennis courts in question were established at the cost of the petitioner-Welfare Association. The petitioner averred that Rule 10(A) of the Layout Rules, 1965 - under which all roads and open spaces, such as parks and play grounds, shall stand transferred to and vest with the Corporation - has no retrospective effect and that, therefore, the Corporation is not entitled to take over the tennis courts of the petitioner. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the Corporation. However, at the hearing Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, submitted that though no written orders were passed, the Corporation is interested in taking over all the said courts as the same got vested in the Corporation. It is an admitted fact that the Corporation has not issued any notice to the petitioner conveying its intention to take over the tennis courts. Even if the Corporation is entitled to take over the tennis courts under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the Layout Rules referred to above, it is incumbent upon it to issue a notice to the petitioner, which is in control of the tennis courts. In the absence of such a notice, the Corporation cannot be permitted to take possession of the said courts. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent- Corporation not to take over the tennis courts referred to above, unless the petitioner-Association is given a notice and an opportunity of being heard. If such a notice is given to the petitioner, it shall be free to submit its objections, which shall be dealt with and a detailed order be passed by the Corporation. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.20-3-2009 MNR