IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14878 of 2008 Between: 1 G. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. G. Ganga Reddy, R/o. H.No. 6-3-1186/A/9, Kanchana Ganga, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 2 G. Padmaja Reddy, W/o. G. Srinivas Reddy, R/o. H.No. 6-3-1186/A/9, Kanchana Ganga, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3 V. Vishal Reddy, S/o. V. Vidyasagar Reddy, R/o. 268-A, MLAs' Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 4 V. Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. V. Vidyasagar Reddy, R/o. 268-A, MLAs' Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, represented by its Commissioner. 2 The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Addl. Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampalli Division, Ranga Reddy District. 5 The Asst. City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Serilingampalli Division, Ranga Reddy District. 6 P. Nagabhushanam, S/o. not known, R/o. C/o. Green Park Function Hall, Sy.No. 31 & 32, Guttala Begumpet, Serilingampalli Division, Ranga Reddy District. 7 M/s. Rishikanth Developers, represented by its Partner, Jaya Prakash, C/o. Green Park Function Hall, Sy.No. 31 & 32, Guttala Begumpet, Serilingampalli Division, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or Direction declaring the action of the Respondents NO. 1 to 5 herein in seeking to grant permission in favour of Respondents No. 6 & 7 for making constructions in the land bearing Sy.No 18 situated at Guttala Begumpet Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without considering the Representations made by petitioners on 8-2-2008 and 1-7-2008 and without putting the petitioners on notice, as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction unconstitutional and violative of Art. 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents No. 1 to 5 herein not to grant any permission in favour of respondents No. 6 & 7 herein for making constructions over the aboe property, unless and until a reasoned order is passed after considering the representations dt. 8-2-2008 and 1-7-2008 made by petitioners and after they are heard in the matter; Award costs and pass such other or further orders as are deemed ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioners are owners of Ac.0-38 guntas in Survey No.19 of Guttala Begumpet village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same from P.Venkaiah and his sons. The property purchased by them is encircled by a compound wall. Survey No.18 is adjacent to the land purchased by the petitioners. P.Nagabhushanam-6th respondent entered into development agreement with 7th respondent-M/s Rishikanth Developers by showing a way in Survey No.19 owned by the petitioners. R6 and R7 applied for grant of construction permission vide application No.132 CSC TP 11/2007. On coming to now of the application made by R6 and R7, the father of 1st petitioner made a representation on 8.2.2008 to 1st respondent- GHMC raising objections to the building permission application made by R6 and R7. R1 to R5 are allegedly going ahead with the process of granting permission in favour of R6 and R7. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioners assailing the inaction of R1 to R5 in considering their objections to the building permission application of R6 and R7. R6 and R7 entered appearance at the admission stage. R6 ﬁled counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the vendors of the petitioners have shown open spaces in the lay out plan. The vendors executed a gift settlement deed on 31.5.1996 bearing Document No.6415/95 with regard to open spaces in the lay out plan. The petitioners executed two sale deeds dated 13.3.2006 bearing document No.5728 and 5729 of 2006 to have unlawful gain. The lands so transferred under the gift settlement deed are open spaces and roads which stood vested with Serilingampally municipality and by virtue of gift deed, P.Venkaiah and his sons were divested of their title and interest over the said lands. The petitioners earlier ﬁled writ petition without ﬁling sale deeds and also by suppressing the gift settlement deed executed by their vendors in favour of Serilingampally Municipality. After ﬁling the writ petition, the petitioners made a representation dated 26.7.2008 before the GHMC for rejection the building permission application of R6. R6 purchased land admeasuring Ac.1-36 guntas in Survey No.18 situated in Guttalabegumpet village, Serilingampalli Mandal under an agreement of sale cum GPA from M/s Kasetty Kiran Kumar and others. His vendors delivered physical possession of the land to him in pursuance of the registered agreement of sale cum GPA dated 14.8.2006. He applied for building permission for construction of group houses. The building committee of GHMC has approved the plan. The petitioners having come to know about the preliminary approval of the building permission application chose to submit objections. The existence of approach road is evident from the sale deeds under which the petitioners claim the property and also the gift settlement deed executed by their vendors. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for R1 to R5 and learned counsel appearing for R6 and R7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the draft lay out in respect of Survey No.19 came to be cancelled and consequently the gift settlement deed executed by vendors stood cancelled. He further submits that the petitioners ﬁled W.P.No.17391 of 2008 assailing the action of HUDA and GHMC in not considering their representation for release of gift deeds executed by the vendors consequent on cancellation of the draft lay out and the said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 21st August, 2008. He further contends that once the draft lay out in respect of Survey No.19 is cancelled, the gift settlement deed executed by the vendors in favour of Corporation authorities also stood cancelled. He would also contend that the petitioners raised objections for the building permission application ﬁled by R6 and R7 since the plans submitted by R6 and R7 show the existence of road in the land owned by the petitioners. As the objections raised by the petitioners remained unattended, necessary direction is required to be given to R1 to R5 to consider their objections before release of building permission to R6 and R7. Learned counsel appearing for R6 and R7 submits that P.Venkaiah and his sons who are the original owners of Survey No.19 secured draft lay out and executed the gift settlement deed in respect of open areas and therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that no road exists in Survey No.19. A fact remains that a draft lay out in respect of Survey No.19 has been cancelled and consequent there on a representation has been made by the petitioners to the Corporation for release of the gift deed. There being no action on the representation, the petitioners approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.17391 of 2008 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of on 21.8.2008 directing GHMC to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “ Once the draft lay out is cancelled, gift deed executed by the vendors of the petitioners in respect of open places is required to be released. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners keeping in view the letter No.Lr.No.10311/Misc/CC/CDA/08, dated 20.8.2008 of Cyberabad Development Authority to the Zonal Commissioner, South Zone, GHMC, Serilingampally, R.R. District, Hyderabad and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Indisputably, permission has not been accorded to R6 and R7. The petitioners placed on their objections stating that the rasta shown in the plans ﬁled by R6 and R7 does not exist consequent on the cancellation of the draft lay out in respect of Survey No.19. These objections are required to be considered by R1 to R5 before conveying their approval with regard to the building permission application submitted by R6 and R7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing R1 to R5 to consider the objections raised by the petitioners with regard to building permission applications of R6 and R7 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. NO costs. 29th September, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) cc tomorrow/tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MJ} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14878 OF 2008 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008