IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2004 of 2009 Between: Sri Tirumala Venkateswara Cooperative Society Limited, (TAB No. 533), A Societies Act, 1964 having its Regd. Office At 2-4-614, CIB Quarters, Amberpet Road, Hyderabad, Presently situated at 8-1, Plot No. 64, Aditya Nagar Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad, Rep. by its President K. Prabhakar Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 D. Mar Reddy, R/o. 13-6-432/28, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 2 M. Neetha Prasad, D/o. M. Prasada Reddy, R/o. 13-6-432/29, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 3 M. Hemalatha, W/o. Dr. M. Prasada Reddy, R/o. 13-6-432/30, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 4 Vijaykumar Reddy, S/o. V. Narasimha Reddy, R/o. 13-6-432/31, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 5 V. Vikram Reddy, S/o. V. Narasimha Reddy, R/o. 13-6-432/32, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 6 Shailesh Patel, S/o. Kishoribhai Patel, R/o. 13-6-432/33, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 7 M. Murali, S/o. Narayana, R/o. 13-6-432/34/A, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 8 K. Sadasiva Rao, S/o. K. Bhaskar Rao, R/o. 13-6-432/34, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 9 P. Sandhya Rani, D/o. P. Gandiah, R/o. 13-6-432/35, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 10 P. Anasuya, W/o. P. Gandiah, R/o. 13-6-432/35/A, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 11 D. Yashoda, W/o. D.Y. Durga Prasad, R/o. 13-6-432/36, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 12 S. Anveshana, D/o. S. Hanumantha Reddy, R/o. 13-6-432/37, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 13 S. Hanmanthu Reddy, R/o. 13-6-432/38, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 14 M. Anil Kumar, S/o. M.B. Reddy, R/o. 13-6-432/40, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 15 G. Kranti, S/o. Satish Reddy, R/o. 13-6-432/40, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 16 G. Tarun Kumar, S/o. Satish Reddy, R/o. 13-6-432/41, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 17 T. Heera Singh, S/o. T. Jagath Singh, R/o. 13-6-432/42/A, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 18 Smt. Rukmini Bai, R/o. 13-6-432/3/A, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 19 Moinuddin Khalid, R/o. 13-6-432/4, Guddimalkapur, Hyderabad. 20 The Special Court Under A.P. land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. declaring the order of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad dated 18-11-2008 passed in I.A.No. 1165 of 2008 in LGC NO. 85 of 2003 as arbitrary ad illeal and consequently set aside the same; ii. to direct the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad to implead the Hyderabad Metro Development Authority, Begumpet, Hyderabad and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad as respondents 20 and 21 respectively in LGC NO. 85 of 2003 and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No :2004 of 1999 Oral Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, dated 18.11.2008 passed in I.A. No. 1165 of 2008 in L.G.C. No. 85 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Court dismissed I.A. No. 1165 of 2008 filed by the petitioner. The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein filed L.G.C. No. 85 of 2003 before the Special Court to declare the respondents 1 to 19 herein as land grabbers in respect of Ac.1.37 guntas in Survey No. 222/4 of Gudimalkapur Village, Asifnagar Mandal, Hyderabad District. It is further stated that the petitioner filed an application before the Hyderabad Metro Development Authority (H.M.D.A.) for grant of lay out in respect of total extent of Ac.13.10 guntas in the said Survey number and the H.M.D.A. granted lay out and forwarded the same to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (G.H.M.C.) for approval. The H.M.D.A. has also directed the G.H.M.C. to verify the issue regarding the urban land ceiling and release the lay out. Petitioner states that the lay out in all respects has become final and any alteration or non-adherence to the conditions of the lay out will entail serious consequences to the petitioner-society. It is further alleged that the Respondents 1 to 19 have grabbed the area ear-marked for the ‘green belt’ and the common area meant for public utility in the lay out approved by H.M.D.A. Therefore, it filed an application in I.A. No.1165 of 2008 to implead H.M.D.A. and G.H.M.C. as respondents 20 and 21 in the said L.G.C. for the purpose of establishing the averments of the petitioner that the common area ear-marked for public utility purpose has been occupied by the land grabbers; that the H.M.D.A. and G.H.M.C. are proper and necessary parties to the said L.G.C. and, therefore, they are liable to be impleaded. The said application has been dismissed by the Special Court by the impugned order dated 18.11.2008 on the ground that the G.H.M.C. has not yet approved any tentative lay out; that no developmental activities are being carried out; that no gift deed is executed and as such no rights are vested in the local authority in the alleged proposed common areas. It is further stated that though the H.M.D.A. has granted technical sanction for the proposed lay out, but, unless the G.H.M.C. sanctions the plan, it cannot be deemed that the lay out has been approved. It is stated that as the G.H.M.C. refused to grant the certified copy of the approved lay out plan, the petitioner filed the implead petition seeking to implead the H.M.D.A. and G.H.M.C. as parties to the said L.G.C. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the controversy involved in the L.G.C. is with regard to the allegation that the Respondents 1 to 19 are land grabbers of an extent of Ac.1.37 guntas, which forms part and parcel of a total extent of Acs. 13.10 guntas and the said Ac.1.37 guntas is the area which has been shown by the petitioner while submitting the lay out plan as open area meant for public utility purposes. Admittedly, the G.H.M.C. has not approved the lay out or issued any sanctioned plan so far. So long as the approved lay out is not issued or sanctioned by the by the G.H.M.C., the question of issuing the certified copy of the lay out plan by the G.H.M.C. does not arise. However, if any technical sanction is granted by the H.M.D.A., it is always open for the petitioner to take certified copy of the technical sanction approved by the H.M.D.A. and make use of the same. We are also of the opinion that even if the sanctioned plan of the lay out is approved and issued by the G.H.M.C., the petitioner has to independently establish that the respondents 1 to 19 are land grabbers and there cannot be any justification on the part of the petitioner in coming up with such an implead application after lapse of five years after filing of the LGC, that too after filing of the written statement and especially, during the course of arguments in the main LGC. We, therefore, do not find any merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J Date: 13th February, 2009 _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J pnb