THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.9433 of 2011 Date : 17-8-2011 Between: K.Swarna and others .. Petitioners And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri K.Rama Krishna Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri B.Mahender Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Dr.Y.Padmavathi, Standing Counsel for GHMC Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 : A.G.P. for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 : Sri Ganta Rama Rao Counsel for respondent No.9 : Sri N.Harinath Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who is the owner plot No.34, situate in a layout which was unauthorised and which was subsequently regularised under various regularisation schemes brought by the State Government, filed this Writ Petition, inter alia assailing the validity of G.O.Ms.No.1350, Revenue (UC.III.1) Department, dated 29-12-2009 whereunder it has allotted the excess land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the Act”) in favour of four persons including respondent Nos.12 and 13. The basic complaint of the petitioner is that in the layout of Survey Nos.72 and 73 of Madhapur village, pertaining to Arunodaya Co-operative Housing Society, a 30 ft. road was shown to exist on the Western side of the petitioner’s plot and that subsequently respondent Nos.12 and 13 have got the said road converted into a plot illegally and sold the same to respondent Nos.5 to 8. The petitioner and the contesting respondents have raised several pleadings, reference to which is not necessary, in the manner in which this court is proposing to dispose of the case. It has come out at the hearing that after the impugned G.O. was issued, the petitioner approached respondent No.4 with a representation on which the latter has submitted a report in letter No.F1/455/2148/05 in C.C.No.F1/3255/6(1)/04, dated 5-5-2011 to respondent No.3. Sri K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the said report and submitted that having regard to the findings and conclusions arrived at by respondent No.4 in his report, the impugned G.O. is liable to be set aside. Sri Ganta Rama Rao, learned counsel representing the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 8, invited my attention to their counter-affidavits filed in WPMP No.26652/2011 wherein it is inter alia stated that when the issue relating to validity of the G.O. was pending in this court, it was not proper for respondent No.4 to hold a parallel enquiry and that the said report was prepared behind their back. It is further averred that their enquiries revealed that after submission of the report to respondent No.3 by respondent No.4, the former has felt it appropriate to get a joint inspection conducted by respondent No.4 along with the municipal authorities and submit a report. The learned counsel also placed reliance on proceedings dated 9-9- 2010 of the Chief City Planner of respondent No.1 wherein it is stated that respondent No.1 has regularised plot Nos.34 and 35 based on the Urban Land Ceiling orders issued by the Government, wherein there is no indication of any road on the Western side of plot No.34 or on the Eastern side of plot No.35. There is no dispute about the fact that the layout prepared by respondent No.9 was not approved, obviously for the reason that the land was declared surplus under the provisions of the Act. The parties have evidently approached the competent authorities for regularisation of the layout and the plots situated therein and on such requests, regularisation orders were passed. In the absence of a sanctioned layout, it would be rather difficult for this court to render conclusive findings as to whether the alleged road originally existed, and if so, its conversion into plots is illegal. The contents of the impugned G.O. do not suggest that the controversy relating to the existence of the road engaged the mind of the State Government when the plots were allotted in favour of the four persons, including respondent Nos.12 and 13. In the face of these undisputed facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the legality or otherwise of the impugned G.O., with the direction to respondent No.3 to re-examine the entire issue in the light of the objections raised by the petitioner and decide whether existence of a road in the layout was legally recognised at any point of time and whether allotment of plots in favour of respondent Nos.12 and 13 was legal and proper. Before taking such a decision, respondent No.3 shall give the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 8, in whose favour respondent Nos.12 and 13 have sold the plots, an opportunity of personal hearing. They shall be supplied with all the material on the basis of which respondent No.3 proposes to take the decision. It is made clear that the impugned G.O. will not in any manner preclude respondent No.3 from passing an appropriate order. Respondent No.3 shall complete the entire process and take appropriate decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.11689/2011 and 26652/2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 17-8-2011 AM