HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.23181 of 2008 Date: October 29, 2011 Between: Aziz Mohiduddin Khan, S/o.Mohd. Ghouse Mohiuddin Khan … Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, near Tank Bund, Hyderabad and another … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer as under: “To issue any appropriate Writ, Order of direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in extending the approved park area from 140 ft x 204 ft in Sy.No.91 of Telecom Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District contrary to the approved layout plan of the then Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and consequently demolishing or dispossessing the petitioner from the property admeasuring 600 sq. yards situated in Ward No.9, Sy.No.91 of Gachibowli village (erstwhile Rajendranagar Taluq) Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, bounded by North: Park, South: neighbours’ Plot Nos.4, 40 and 43, East: open plot, West: 40 feet wide road as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and also violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to lay the park in tune with the approval plan of the then HUDA and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” Facts of the case as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as under: Petitioner is the owner of a piece of land admeasuring 600 sq. yards situated in Sy.No.91 of Gachibowli village, Rajendranagar Taluq, Ranga Reddy District having been allotted the same from the Telecom Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., vide allotment certificate dated 22.01.1990. Subsequently, the said Society has also executed sale deed in his favour on 14.02.1990 and the said plot is a part and parcel of the approved layout in File No.2333/MP/2/HUDA/92. To protect the same from land-grabbers, he has constructed a tin shed with a room in the said plot. While sanctioning plan by the then HUDA, an extent of 140 feet x 204 feet, i.e. nearly 3173 sq. yards is earmarked for park and the same is on the Northern side of the plot of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondents are constructing compound wall around the park area which is left in the approved layout and under the guise of the same, they are interfering with his plot and structures raised by him and the 2nd respondent-Assistant Engineer has visited the site and instructed to vacate the premises. Precisely, it is his allegation though he is the owner of the plot in question pursuant to purchase made by him; there is interference and obstruction with his possession. The 2nd respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Serilingampally, Circle XI, West Zone, GHMC has filed counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner has not even mentioned the plot number of which he is claiming to be the owner and the sale deed dated 14.02.1990 is prior to the date of approval of layout. Further, the allegation of the petitioner, that he is the owner and possessor of the plot in question and that he has constructed a tin shed with a room and is in possession of the same from the last 15 years, is denied. The counter-affidavit categorically states that the open plot which is being claimed by the petitioner is part and parcel of the park and not a plot as claimed by him. It is stated that as there are attempts to encroach the area earmarked for park as per the approved layout, steps are being taken to construct a compound wall around the park. It is further stated that the petitioner has encroached the land earmarked for park and in spite of granting time to vacate the premises, he approached this Court and filed this writ petition with false allegations. In the additional counter-affidavit, it is stated that the authorities have approved layout in Sy.No.91 (P) in favour of Telecom Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., vide permit No.2333/92 and there is no open plot earmarked between plot Nos.4, 40, 43 and the park. It is stated that the alleged allotment certificate dated 22.01.1990 and the unregistered sale deed dated 14.02.1990, as claimed by the petitioner, are forged documents and they are created only with a view to grab the park land. The additional counter-affidavit further states that there is no sanction from the Municipal authorities to construct compound wall and no regularisation fee was collected and the plot in question was not assessed to property tax as house No.2-48/6/4/A as claimed by the petitioner. It is further stated that the building permission and other documents claimed by the petitioner are forged including LRS receipt dated 18.01.2010 for Rs.2,15,000/- and a complaint is lodged with the Police to take action against the petitioner and on the said complaint a case is registered in Cr.No.314/2011 on 03.09.2011 on the file of Raidurgam Police Station. Heard Sri Ali Farooque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.Y.Ratna Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the documents claimed by the petitioner are genuine; in spite of the same, there is interference by the respondents without any authority of law. It is further submitted that in spite of the fact that allotment is made in favour of the petitioner and also the subsequent sale deed, petitioner is sought to be deprived of possession of the plot in question, illegally. Learned counsel submits that, in any event, without taking steps for eviction as contemplated under law, no action can be taken. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that though the petitioner is claiming the plot in question, the same is not available in the approved layout. It is submitted that the petitioner has not given any plot number and the same shows that under the guise of some fabricated documents he is trying to occupy valuable park land which is earmarked in the approved layout in File No.2333/MP/2/HUDA/92. It is alleged that all the documents relied on by the petitioner are fabricated and he has no title or possession over the plot in question and the same is a part and parcel of the approved layout which vests with the Corporation; as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the documents filed by the respondents along with the additional counter-affidavit. Though the petitioner is claiming a part of land, i.e. 600 sq. yards in the approved layout, he has not given any particulars of the plot number in the approved layout. It is to be seen that there cannot be any plot in an approved layout without any number being assigned to it. Even the allotment certificate and sale deed claimed by the petitioner are unregistered ones. Furthermore, the sale deed on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming title and possession of the plot in question is earlier to the approval of the layout by the HUDA. Once a layout is approved and it has become final, the area is divided into plots and if certain portion of land is earmarked towards park, the same vests with the Municipal Corporation. Under the guise of allotment certificate and unregistered sale deed, which are claimed by the respondents as forged and fabricated, the petitioner cannot claim possession and title to the plot in question. By virtue of approval of layout, it is clear that the plot of land claimed by the petitioner is part and parcel of park area covered by approved layout. There cannot be regularisation or sanction with regard to such area either by the Municipal Corporation or any other authority. It is also to be noticed that though the petitioner has filed certain documents seeking sanction for construction of compound wall and also for regularisation, it is categorically averred in the additional counter-affidavit filed by the respondents that such documents are forged and fabricated including the receipt in token of paying certain amounts towards regularisation fee. In that view of the matter, there is no basis at all for the claim of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the plot in question and there is interference by the respondents. For the foregoing reasons, the relief sought for cannot be granted. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is open to the respondents to pursue the criminal case filed against the petitioner and also take steps for construction of compound wall to safeguard the park land from encroachments. No costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) October 29, 2011 MRR