HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19438 and 22193 of 2004 Dated: 30.09.2010 Between: Tummala Aruna Lakshmi & others. …..Petitioners And Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Secunderabad, rep. by its Vice Chairman & others. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19438 and 22193 of 2004 COMMON ORDER : In view of the common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, both these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.22193 of 2004. This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in constructing the bund around Kummarikunta, by encroaching and enclosing the plots of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.334, 336, 337, 340, 341, 343 and 344 to 349 of Anmagal village of Hayatnagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the aforesaid lands are purchased from the private pattedars, the respondents are taking steps for constructing a bund surrounding Kummarikunta, which belongs to Government, by covering their plots. It is stated that the original owners have obtained approved layouts from the Grampanchayat and the petitioners have purchased the plots in such approved layouts, and in that view of the matter, unless the respondents acquire the plots of the petitioners, they cannot construct the bund, covering their plots. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Secretary of the 1st respondent-Urban Development Authority, wherein, it is stated that the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable, as much as some of the petitioners have already approached the Civil Court by filing a suit in O.S.No.1571 of 2004 and obtained status quo orders. It is stated that without disclosing the said fact of filing the suit, the present writ petition is filed, as such, it is not maintainable. Counter further states that respondents have taken up steps to conserve and develop lakes in the urban areas and they have identified about 169 lakes as most polluted ones and that Kummarikunta is one of such lakes. It is stated that in order to protect the lake from pollution and encroachments, the respondents have taken up the works like desalting the lakebed in order to remove the sediments, and formation of ring bund. It is stated that the protection of these water bodies have become essential for managing the ecological balance on long term basis and for improving the quality of ground water in the surrounding areas by diverting all the untreated sewage being let out into this lake. The counter further states that the bund being formed all along the periphery of the lake, is based on the full tank level and the said construction of bund is taken up as per the boundary shown by the Mandal Revenue Officer of Hayathnagar Mandal. With reference to the allegations of the petitioners that the plots purchased by them are in the approved layouts, it is stated in the counter that Sy.Nos.334, 336, 337, 340, 341, 343 and 344 to 349 of Anmagal village of Hayatnagar Mandal, are notified as water bodies and the said lands fall under the full tank level of water bodies from the very inception of these tanks. While disputing the validity of the layouts obtained by the petitioners, it is stated that as the area is under the jurisdiction of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), the Grampanchayat has no jurisdiction to approve the layouts within the said area. It is stated that any such layouts, which are approved by the Grampanchayat, does not have any effect. Reference is also made to G.O.Ms.No.229, Municipal Administration, dated 02.05.2002, wherein, instructions were issued by the Government to all the urban bodies to take all measures to evict and prevent any encroachments in the lakes. Counter further states that the use of such lands, which are falling under the FTL area, have serious adverse affect on the efforts being made by the respondents to improve the over all environment and reducing pollution in the ground water. Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for HUDA, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and also the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents. Though it is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased plots in the approved layouts, as evident from the averments made in the counter, it is clear that the such approvals are not made by the competent authority. It is to be noticed that in the areas covered by the Urban Development Authority, constituted under the A.P.Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, the Grampanchayats have no authority for grant of approval for layouts. In any event, it is to be noticed that when the part of the above said survey numbers are coming within the full tank level area of the water bodies, no constructions are permissible in such areas. In the absence of any valid approval of layouts and as it is stated that the steps, which are being taken by the respondents are for desalting the lake, which is identified as one of the 169 polluted lakes, for the purpose of protecting the same, it cannot be said that desalting and constructing bunds to protect the lakes, is illegal. It is also to be noticed that in the counter, it is stated that some of the petitioners have already approached the Civil Court and obtained status quo orders. In view of the averments made in the counter, several factual disputes arise for consideration, as to where the actual bund is being constructed by the respondents, whether the approvals of layouts sought to be relied on by the petitioners are sanctioned by the competent authority or not, and the further question is, whether in the areas falling in the full tank level of Kummarikunta tank, any constructions are permissible, in the absence of any consent from the irrigation authorities. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any material and evidence in support thereof, it is not possible for this Court to record any findings on the factual disputes, which arise for consideration. But, so far as these writ petitions are concerned, as evident from the counter affidavit that there is no approval from the competent authority for the layouts wherein the petitioners’ plots are situated, and further, as it is stated that the steps which are being taken by the respondents are for improving the lakes and to prevent encroachments, I do not find any illegality in taking such steps by the respondents. For the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. However, as it is stated that some of the petitioners have already approached the Civil Court, it is also open for the other petitioners to approach the Civil Court, and it is made clear that if any such suits are filed by the petitioners, it is open for the Civil Court to dispose of the matters, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th September 2010. ajr