THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.8648 of 2008 Order: By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to declare the inaction of the respondents in taking steps to develop the green belt area situated adjacent to the premises of the petitioner bearing H.No.12-5- 21/7, Vijayapuri, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, in spite of representations made by the petitioner and residents of the locality, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to take steps to develop the green belt in the area. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of premises bearing H.No.12-5-21/7, Vijayapuri, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deed in the year 1979. He states that adjacent to his house, land in an extent of 300 sq.yds. is earmarked for Green Belt, and that it is earmarked for the said purpose, no steps have been taken by the respondents to develop the same. He states that since 1994 they have been representing the respondents to take steps to develop the Green Belt, and that the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, instead of developing the Green Belt, for better environment, illegally constructed a small room surrounded by compound wall. The said room, according to the petitioner, is being used by anti-social elements for their illegal activities. Therefore, he and other locality people submitted representation dated 07.03.2008 to respondent No.3, namely the Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, requesting him to remove the illegal structure and develop the land into Green Belt, followed by similar letter dated 25.03.2008 addressed to respondent No.2, namely the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, but no action thereon had been taken. The petitioner contending that the respondents are duty bound to protect the areas earmarked for Green Belts and develop them and protect them from encroachments, filed the present writ petition praying to declare the inaction of the respondents in taking action pursuant to their representation. On 19.04.2008, when the writ petition came up for admission, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents to file status report. Thereafter, on 19.08.2009, this Court admitted the writ petition. On 02.09.2009, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents filed status report submitted by the Assistant City Planner, Circle No.18, Secunderabad. In the report, the Assistant City Planner, has stated that he inspected the site and observed that there is a community hall in existence towards western side and towards the eastern side there is open land to a depth of 68’ x 35’ and that the Engineering Staff is developing the Green Belt which is under progress towards the Eastern side, and that there is no encroachment of open space. That Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, has itself developed the land into park and filed photographs, and further stated that there exists a community hall towards western side to a depth of 56’ x 35’, which is bounded on the north by H.No. 12-5-21/3, east by 30’ wide road, south by petitioner’s house and west by 30’ wide road. He further reported that he took measurements of the Green Belt and prepared a sketch showing structures and the extent of land that is vacant, which is even supported by photographs filed along with the status report. That out of the total extent of 408.16 sq.yds., earmarked for Green Belt, the erstwhile Municipal Corporation had constructed a community hall along with Watchman room, toilet in an extent of 172 sq.yrds. The plinth area of the structures i.e. community hall, toilet and Watchman room consisting of ground floor, is 667 Sft and the remaining open land on the eastern side admeasuring 236.16 Sq.yds. is used for Green Belt. He further reported that the locals and members of Vijayapuri Colony Residents Welfare Association, are utilizing the community hall for the purpose of library, gym, yoga etc., and the rest of the open land towards the eastern side is being maintained as Green Belt and senior citizens are using the same and growing vegetables under no profit and no loss basis. However, the petitioner filed reply affidavit to the status report stating that the status report is vague and not convincing, that he does not know whether Vijayapuri Colony Residents Welfare Association exists, that no material whatsoever has been placed to substantiate the same and that the community hall is being used by anti-social elements for carrying on their illegal activities. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. As can be seen from the status reports and the photographs submitted by the Assistant City Planner pursuant to the orders of this Court, in a part of the open land that is earmarked for Green Belt, the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad had constructed a community hall with other amenities, like library and gym, for the benefit of the local residents who formed into an Association called Vijayapuri Colony Residents Welfare Association, and while the rest of the open land, is reported to be being used by senior citizens for practicing yoga, and that they are also collectively growing vegetable plants on no profit and no loss basis. Since substantial part of the open land is used for Green Belt and even though the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is said to have constructed a community hall in the Green Belt area, but the same being for the benefit of the local residents, it cannot be said that the respondents are not maintaining the Green Belt. If according to the petitioner, some anti-social elements are making use of the community hall for carrying their illegal and nefarious activities, the remedy of the petitioner is either to bring the same to the notice of the President of the Association concerned or report the matter to the police, for taking action against such anti-social elements, who are creating nuisance in the area, but certainly he cannot seek demolition of the community hall, which is constructed for the benefit of the local residents and out of public funds. With the observations as above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:02.11.2009 VGB/KSR