IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25519 of 2007 Between: 1 Margadarsi Co-opeative House Building Society Ltd, (Regd. No. TB-148), rep by President, Sri, R. Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o Bhasakara Murthy aged 63 years Occ: Retd. Bank Office R/o 9-114/1, SBI Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad 2 R. Satyanarayana Murthy S/o Bhaskara Murthy Occ: Retd. Bank Office R/o 9-114/1, SBI Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corportion, Repby its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corportion, LB Nagar Circle, Saroorngar, Hyderabad. 3 Assistant City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corportion, LB nagar Circle, Saroorngar, Hyderabad-500035. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or Writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to make construction in the open land admeasuring 933 sq. yds. in Sy. No. 9/1/D at SBI Colony, Saroornagar Village & mandal, R.R. District as illegal, arbitrary and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner No.1 in respect of the said land and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners, who are 2 in number, with a prayer to issue an order or writ, particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to make construction in the open land admeasuring 933 sq. yards in Sy.No.9/1/D at SBI Colony, Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The 1st petitioner is a Co-operative House Building Society formed for acquiring plots for its members for development of residential colonies. 1st petitioner Society purchased an extent of about Ac.0.30.5 guntas of land in Survey No.9/1/D at Saroornagar, Hyderabad, under a registered sale deed dated 09.02.1979. After acquiring the property, the 1st petitioner Society obtained a sanctioned lay out from the then Gram Panchayat as per the regulations in vogue on 27.10.1978. The Gram Panchayat passed resolution sanctioning the layout on 27.10.1978. The sanction was accorded on 13.11.1978. The 1st petitioner Society developed the property as per the layout into plots and allotted plots to its Members. A part of the area shown as ‘owner’s land’ in the layout was subsequently sold to SBI Staﬀ Co-op. Housing Societies Limited of Narayanguda, ECIL and Market Street Branches. In the layout sanctioned, a small portion admeasuring about 933 sq. yards was left out for the purposes of the society in future. Whileso, the respondents, according to the petitioners, are trying to make constructions over the said piece of land on the basis that the subject land forms part of the common land handedover to them. The said action of the respondents is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. Respondents ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. S.S.K.Kaundinya has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter- aﬃdavit that the respondents proposed to protect the area for the safety of public in view of the existence of a dilapidated well therein. For better appreciation, I may refer para.5 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “5. The contention of the petitioners that the Society left out a portion of 933 square yards for the purpose of society is denied for want of suﬃcient proof. Further the contention that the said plot was, other than the open spaces left out for public purposes is denied. It is submitted that on inspection of the site by this Respondent with reference to the layout produced by the Petitioner Society, it is found that it is not totally an open space as alleged, but it is also covered by a dilapidated well. Probably the said well was used by the Colony people when it was with Grampanchayat. The said well is situated just adjacent to the road posing threat to the pedestrians and vehicular traﬃc especially during the night times. That being the situation as complaints from the local residents the 2nd respondent Corporation decided to construct a compound wall around the well and open space to avoid any danger to the public, since it was the duty of the Corporation to safeguard the citizens from such dangers. When the construction was about to start the petitioners approached this Hon’ble Court and ﬁled the Writ Petition with false allegations. It is further submitted if the well is ﬁlled up to the ground level it would get all the features of an open plot and in these days of real estate boom its cost would be nearly a Crore of rupees. Having the same in mind the Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court with false allegations that the plot is kept aside for the society when the other plots were sold. It is learnt that the 1st petitioner Society is no longer in existence and the 2nd petitioner with an ulterior motive of grabbing the same has come forward with this Writ Petition.” 4. The petitioners ﬁled a reply aﬃdavit. In the reply aﬃdavit it is stated by the petitioners that they will construct the compound wall in and around the open space. Para.7 of the reply affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “7. Be that as it may, we are hereby clarifying that in case that we will construct the compound wall in and around the open space, the respondents ought to have given appropriate notice to the petitioners in such an eventuality. The further allegations made in para.5 of the counter-aﬃdavit are not correct and hence denied.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation. 6. In view of the statement made by the petitioners in the reply aﬃdavit that they will construct the compound wall in and around the open space, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the petitioners to construct the compound wall in and around the open space. The petitioners shall make an application to the respondents seeking permission for construction of the compound wall within two weeks from today and the petitioners shall complete the construction of compound wall within 8 weeks from the date of permission. In the event of the petitioners failing to construct the compound wall, the respondents are at liberty to construct the compound wall. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:06th November, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. within three days. B/o cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}