IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7315 of 2008 Between: The Umar Miya Colony House Building Society (Regd. No.TM 406), rep. by its President Katla Chandraiah Aged about 64 years R/o. Mancherial, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 4 The Mancherial Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 5 Sd.Saleem S/o.S.A.Hameed R/o.H.No.5-647 (old 5-178) Mancherial, Adilabad District. 6 Gajelli Shankar s/o.Bodaiah R/o. Srisri Nagar, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 7 Gajelli Mallaiah s/o.Bodaiah R/o. Srisri Nagar, Mancherial, Adilabad District. .....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 a Writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 4th respondent in not accepting the conversion fees from the members of the petitioner society and also the action of the 3rd respondent in trying to dispossess the members of the petitioner society from the lands in Sy.Nos. 474/A and 476/B of Garimella village, without issuing any notice and opportunity as illegal, arbitrary, mala ﬁde, intentional and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 4th respondent to accept the conversion fees in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. POLISETTY RADHAKRISHNA, STANDING COUNSEL. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6&7: MR. V.RAVIKIRAN RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: One S.A.Ahmed was owner of the land measuring Ac.12.21 guntas bearing Survey Nos.474/A, 476/B of Garimetla Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District. He converted the agricultural land into house plots. 86 house plots came to be auctioned by the revenue authorities for realization of the forest arrears from S.A.Ahmed. 4 persons viz. Iqbal Ahmad, Yousuf Ahmed, Azamali Khan and Jameel Ahmed purchased the house plots in the auction. Auction in their favour came to be conﬁrmed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nirmal, vide proceedings No.E/459/79, dated 12.03.1979. The auction purchasers formed a Society namely ‘The Umar Miya Colony House Building Society’. The petitioner-Society submitted a representation dated 26.04.2006 to the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality-4th respondent expressing their readiness to deposit the requisite fee, development charges etc. for the lay out area. The Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality-4th respondent under letter dated 27.05.2006 vide Lr.No.497/P/77, requested the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, to clarify as to whether the amounts can be collected from the petitioner-Society. The Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality-4th respondent reiterated the proposal under letter dated 17.10.2006 vide Lr.No.497/P/77. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, under letter dated 12.03.2007 directed the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality-4th respondent to submit the proposal afresh for change of land use subject to the condition that no development shall be allowed till the Government issued conﬁrmation orders. For better appreciation, I may refer the text of the letter dated 12.03.2007, which reads as hereunder: “With reference to your letter 1st and 3rd cited, wherein you have requested this oﬃce to arrange and clarify regarding for collection of conversion fees and security deposit from the President, Umar Miya Colony Co-operative House Building Society and other members represented. In this connection this oﬃce has approved the layout L.P.No.42/78 in Sy.No.474/A and 476/B, Girmilla Shivar to an extent Ac.12.21 guntas in favour of Sri S.A.Hameed subject to conditions that, 1. The conversion fee and security deposit as required under Sections 184 and 185 of A.P.M.Act, 1965 shall be collected after auction of the plots. 2. To submit the necessary proposals for change of land use of the sanctioned Master Plan of Mancherial from Agricultural use to residential use. Therefore, I request you to submit proposals afresh for change of land use subject to condition that no developments shall be allowed till the Government issued conﬁrmation orders, then for layout approval.” The petitioner-Society submitted representation dated 09.10.2007 requesting the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality-4th respondent to permit the petitioner Society to pay conversion fee and security deposit and to submit fresh proposal for change of land use. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Society sensed that third parties viz., G.Shankar-6th respondent and Gajelli Mallaiah-7th respondent are trying to inﬂuence the revenue authorities to dispossess the members of the petitioner Society and submitted a representation dated 20.02.2008 to the Tahsildar, Mancherial, whereunder the members of the petitioner Society asserted that they are the owners and possessors of the land in Survey Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garimetla Village, within the limits of Macherial Municipality and that the land is no longer a government land. There being no action on the part of the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality-4th respondent, in sending the fresh proposal, the petitioner Society approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying aﬃdavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not accepting the conversion fees from the members of the petitioner Society and also the action of the 3rd respondent in trying to dispossess the members of the petitioner Society from the lands in Sy.Nos.474/A and 476/B of Garimetla village, without issuing any notice and opportunity as illegal, arbitrary, mala ﬁde, intentional and opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 4th respondent to accept the conversion fees in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of Justice.” 2. Respondents 3, 4, 6 and 7 filed counter-affidavits. 3. Salaman Raju, Tahsildar, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the 3rd respondent. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the revenue authorities never encouraged either the respondents 5 to 7 or any others to interfere with the possession of the members of the petitioner Society over their respective plots. 4. M.Bhadraiah, In-charge Commissioner of Mancherial Municipality, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the 4th respondent. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the petitioner Society has not deposited the required amounts under the two heads for conversion of the land use. For better appreciation, I may refer paras.4 to 7 of the counter-aﬃdavit and they read as hereunder: “4. It is respectfully submitted that the municipality has forwarded the application to the Director of Town & Country Planning, Hyderabad for consideration and for necessary action. Accordingly the Director of Town & Country Planning, Hyderabad, has approved the layout vide L.P.No.42/1978. The lands covered under L.P.No.42/78 are above said two survey number there were 86 house plots, inner roads as well as open land for public purpose. 5. It is respectfully submitted that the society was directed to pay the conversion fee as well as security deposit vide letter dated 21.08.1985. But due to reasons best known to them, the society has not deposited the required amount under the two heads, till date. 6. It is respectfully submitted that meanwhile some of the plot owners have applied for building permission in the year 1999, but due to nonpayment of conversion fee as well as security deposit, the building permission applications were rejected. 7. It is respectfully submitted that the municipality has requested the Director of Town & Country Planning, Hyderabad, to clarify on the issue. This oﬃce has received instructions to submit fresh proposals for the change of land use with a further direction that not to allow any development on the site until further orders, same was informed to the society. But they did not act accordingly.” 5. Gajelli Shankar-6th respondent has sworn to the counter- aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents 6 and 7. Respondents 6 and 7 claim Ac.8.20 guntas as protected tenants and Ac.1.18 guntas as purchasers. Various other details in their counter-aﬃdavit need not be mentioned since the title dispute between the respondents 5 to 7 on the one hand and the petitioner Society on the other hand cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioner Society ﬁled reply aﬃdavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 6 and 7. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Society and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 3; learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-Municipality and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Society submits that the 4th respondent-Municipality having sent the proposal to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, has not made any eﬀort to collect the conversion fee despite the fact of the readiness of the members of the petitioner Society to pay the same. A further submission has been made that the 4th respondent-Municipality did not send the fresh proposal in spite of direction given by the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the 4th respondent Municipality to send fresh proposal for conversion of the land. 9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Municipality submits that the petitioner Society has to submit a fresh proposal for sanction of lay out and then only the proposal can be forwarded to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, for necessary action. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7 submits that the respondents 6 and 7 are the owners of the land admeasuring Ac.8.20 guntas as protected tenants and Ac.1.18 guntas as purchasers and therefore, the petitioner Society cannot be permitted to lay its claim over the said land. 11. I made it clear in the afore said paras that the dispute between the petitioner Society on the one hand and the respondents 6 and 7 on the other hand is out side the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the respondents 6 and 7 claim any tenancy rights over the lands, which were subject matter of the auction, they have to work out their remedies before appropriate Court. A fact remains that the 4th respondent-Municipality has sent the proposal to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, under letter dated 12.03.2007, and the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, requested the 4 th respondent to send the proposal afresh. The text of the letter has already been extract supra. 12. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent Municipality to send fresh proposal to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, subject to the petitioner Society paying all the necessary fees, development and conversion charges etc. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:14th October, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}