THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.5815 of 2009 4-12-2009 BETWEEN; G.Venkataramaiah ...Petitioner vs. The Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Mad, Hyderabadand others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.5815 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) A person claiming to be a resident of the Defence Housing Co-operative Society has filed this writ petition in public interest for a declaration that the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 in allowing the constructions in plot Nos. 11 to 18, 1-A to 12- A, 386 to 397, 437 to 440, 720 to 726, 723-A to 727-A, 809 to 847 and 927 to 982 in Sy.No.218/1 of Defence Housing Colony, Malkajgiri village, Ranga Reddy district, is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the approved plan and the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and for a consequent direction to the 7th respondent to initiate proceedings against the illegal constructions in the open sites meant for public purposes (as per the Society Land Layout No.26/65 dated 03-11-1965) by cancelling the permissions granted for constructions. The petitioner asserts that the land was allotted to the Defence Housing Cooperative Society (for short “Society”) by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16-07-1964 in an extent of Ac.112.03 guntas. The layout for this land bearing No.26/65 was approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) comprising 660 plots of 350 square yards each and certain other land for public and common purposes. Alleging that the spaces earmarked as open site in the aforementioned lay- out are being sold by certain persons with the cooperation of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and the purchasers are making constructions on the plots meant as open space after obtaining the permission from the authorities, this writ petition is filed. The Zonal Commissioner, North Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has filed a counter-affidavit dated 02.09.2009 on behalf of the 3rd respondent. To the extent relevant and material for the purposes of this writ petition, the counter-affidavit states that after allotment of land by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1100 dated 16- 07-1964, the DTCP, Hyderabad had approved a layout bearing LP No.26/65 dated 03-11-1965 enumerating 660 plots in favour of the 4th respondent-society. Under this layout, part of an extent of Ac.112.03 guntas allotted to the 4th respondent was divided into 660 plots and the remaining area of about Ac.59.17 guntas was reserved for use as “open space”. This lay out was not given affect to in view of a subsequent revised lay out No.328/66 dated 21-01-1966 approved by the then Gram Panchayat, Malkajgiri. Under the revised layout of 1966, the earlier approved 660 plots were increased to 1093 plots by reducing the reserved open site from Ac.59.17 guntas to 10.50 guntas. Building permissions are being granted on the basis of the revised layout of 1966. The Gram Panchayat became a Municipality in 1981. On 11- 03-1990 the Councillor of Ward No.29 addressed a letter accompanied by a resolution No.23/90 passed by the then Malkajgiri Municipal Council under which the Council resolved not to accord further building permissions until the original layout as approved by the DTCP in 1965 is restored; the revised lay out is re- surveyed and the inconsistencies between the two layouts resolved. Aggrieved thereby, some persons owning plots in the revised layout filed writ petitions including W.P.No.2581 of 2001. By the common order dated 26-02-2005, the batch of the writ petitions was disposed of declaring that it is not open to the respondents to treat the plots belonging to the petitioners as open land on the basis of the layout sanctioned by the DTCP vide Layout No.26/65 dated 03-11-1965. Pursuant to the above judgment, the then Malkajgiri Council permitted building constructions on the basis of the layout approved in 1966. The respondent Nos. 6 to 10 were impleaded by the order of this Court dated 17-09- 2009 in WPMP No.23248 of 2009, an application filed by these respondents seeking to come on record as parties to the writ petition asserting that they are aggrieved by the interim order passed in this writ petition on 20-03-2009 interdicting further constructions on the land in question. On behalf of the respondents impleaded as above, the 7th respondent has filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order dated 20-03-2009. While reiterating broadly the averments in the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent referred to above, the 7th respondent asserts to have purchased plot No.833 of an extent of 350 square yards in Sy.No.218/1 of Defence Colony, Malkajgiri Village and Mandal under a registered sale deed dated 12-04-2007 from K.M.Chowdary, who in turn is claimed to have purchased the said property from P.Raghavendra Rao under a registered sale deed dated 29-02-1988. Other respondents among respondent Nos.6 to 10 are stated to have similarly purchased plots from the erstwhile owners who are members of the Defence Housing Colony Society. In this counter, it is asserted that in view of the decision of this Court in W.P.No.2518 of 2001 and batch, no order interdicting the constructions or impeaching the entitlement of these respondents to enjoyment and possession of the plots in question or in respect of the constructions by them under the approved permissions, could be passed. By the judgment dated 20-06-2005 in W.P.No.2518 of 2001 and batch, a learned single Judge of this Court declared that it is not open to the respondents therein (State of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration Department, the Commissioner of Malkajgiri Municipality, the HUDA and the Defence Co-operative Housing Society) to treat the plots as open land on the basis of the layout sanctioned by the DTCP vide lay out No.26/65 dated 03-11-1965. In coming to the above conclusion, this Court observed that the Gram Panchayat had the authority to approve a layout even though no Rules were in force prescribing the procedure for sanctioning the layout. By implication this Court held that the subsequent layout approved by the Gram Panchayat supersedes the layout approved by the DTCP dated 03-11-1965. In the light of the judgment of this Court dated 20-06-2005 referred to above, which is in respect of the very same property, the petitioner’s contention that the earlier layout approved by the DTCP by the order dated 03-11-1965 is operational and would prevail over the subsequent layout approved by the Gram Panchayat, cannot be countenanced. If the petitioner is aggrieved as to the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 20-06-2005 in W.P.No.2518 of 2001 and batch, he should pursue appropriate remedies against the said judgment. On the analysis above, we see no grounds to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in the light of the observations made herein above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 4th DECEMBER 2009. TSNR