HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 17656 OF 2009 . DATED 4th February, 2011. BETWEEN Dr.Rajneesh Chandra Reddy …Petitioner And The District Collector, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 17656 OF 2009. ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and demolish the structures in the property called ‘Anila Reddy Lay Out’ No. 82/Layout/8/80/1229, dated 11.8.1981, comprised in Survey No. 129/69 of Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, without following due procedure established by law and complying principles of natural justice. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and others had applied for change of land in Sy.No. 129/69 at Road No.11 of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and relaxation of building Byelaws. Pursuant to the same, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No. 387, M.A., Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated 21.4.1981 relaxed the provisions of Byelaw No. 70 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Building Byelaws, 1972, to the extent of change of land use from Recreational to Residential use zone, and, Rule 10(1) of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Layout Rules, 1966, to the extent of allowing 30’-0” wide road instead of 40’-0” since the approach road will provide access to only 4 plots. The said relaxation is subject to payment of developmental charges to HUDA as per G.O.Msd.No. 647, dated 29.9.1980. It is further stated that pursuant to the said Government Order, the Municipal Authorities issued Layout plan by letter dated 11.08.1981 for the aforesaid land and permission for construction of building on the plots of the layout adhering to the sanctioned layout plan and in accordance with the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Building byelaws, 1972. It is stated that as per the sanctioned layout, the existing 30 feet wide road goes from north to south and takes western direction and next into the property in plot No.1, and that this 180 feet length road travelling from east to west has only 20 feet wide in view of the fact that it caters way to only four plots and same cannot take any additional traffic as it is meant for the said layout residents only. There is no right of way beyond the dead-end of the said road and at that juncture, one watchman abode was constructed. It is the case of the petitioner that the road stated supra is sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the same is not a thorough-fare and does not connect to any other layout on the western side and that immediate nighbours of the western side have their own access and therefore there is no necessity to use the road in the Anila Reddy Lay Out. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that one Mr. B.L.K. Reddy, who is a resident of adjacent colony, is exerting pressure on the official respondent authorities and Municipal authorities to demolish the construction made at the end of the aforesaid 20 feet road, which is their private property and to use the said road as thorough-fare. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the above said 20 feet wide road which is sought to be made as a thorough- fare cannot be interfered with in view of the sanctioned plan. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on 21st August, 2009 the personnel of the second respondent came to the site and threatened to demolish the property to make the aforesaid road as thorough-fare. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking the relief stated supra. At the stage of admission, this Court vide order dated 24.8.2009 granted interim stay of demolition and interference with the possession of the property in question. Thereafter, Capt. B.L.K. Reddy and K.Arjun Reddy were impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 vide order of this Court dated 01.12.2009 The official respondents as well as private respondents filed their respective counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that as per the town survey records, the land in T.S.No.4, Block-R, Ward No.11, and T.S.No.2, Block-S, Ward No. 11 of Shaikpet village, situated at Road No.11, Banjara Hills, is Government land and the petitioner encroached upon the Government land to an extent of 79 square yards, which is a road and 61 square yards within the compound wall respectively and that since the layout in question is in dispute, the GHMC/MCH authorities, who is competent to sanction such layout, has not been made as party to the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, they denied the submission of the petitioner that road mentioned in the layout is not a thorough-fare since the same does not connect to any other layout on its western side. It is further stated that as the petitioner encroached the Government land, they will take necessary steps for demolition of the structures and eviction there-from, by following due procedure contemplated under law. The impleaded respondents filed counter affidavit stating that as per the inquiry conducted by the GHMC authorities, it was found that there is no lay-out sanctioned much less ‘Anila Reddy Layout’ in Sy.No.129/69 of Road No.11, Banjara Hills. They denied the contention of the petitioner that the road from east to west caters to only four plots. It is stated that the road which was encroached by the petitioner is the only approach road to the fourth respondent’s plot and therefore fourth respondent has every right to access the road encroached by the petitioner on the ground that it is a dead-end plot, and, the ground level of the road and the fourth respondent’s plot are same. It is stated that the approach road from the southeastern side, as per the municipal records, is 30 feet, however, the same was narrowed down to 20 feet. The petitioner filed reply denying the counter allegation of the respondents that the petitioner has encroached the government land. Reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, the petitioner stated that the land in question is a private patta land, that the road in question is not a thorough-fare and in case it is a thorough-fare, it shall not cross the private property, and that the respondents cannot demolish the structures in the piece of the land situated at the end of the road, which is their private property Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and gone through the case file, it is clear that as per the Town Survey Records the land in T.S.No.4,Block-R, Ward No.11 and T.S.No.2, Block-S, Ward No.11 of Shaikpet village situate at Road No.11 of Banjara Hills is a Government land and that the petitioner herein encroached upon the Government land which is also a road to an extent of 79 sq. yards and within compound wall 61 square yards respectively without having any lawful right and ownership over the same in the above town survey numbers, which forms part of the Government land. It is further clear that the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land and made illegal construction over the road which fact came to light only after the physical inspection of the subject land by the Mundal Surveyor. Further, from a perusal of the case file, it is clear that no document is placed before this Court showing title or ownership over the house bearing No.8-2-616/1/B/1, Banjara Hills and sanctioning of layout in the name of ‘Anila Reddy Layout’ in the land in question, except filing the layout plan etc.,. Except stating that the property in question is their private property and they have not encroached upon the Government land, the petitioner has not placed before this Court any document denying the allegations of the respondents. The respondents denying the averment of the petitioner that the road mentioned in the layout is sanctioned by the MCH and there is thorough fare and the same does not connect to any other lay out on the western side, it is stated that the constructions raised over the Government land that too road is illegal and neither the petitioner nor any other person have any right to make such constructions over the road under the guise of non existence of thorough fare and does not connect to any other layout. In that view of the matter, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 4th February, 2011. Msnro