IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE TENTH DAY OF November TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENAKUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 9 9 5 5 OF 2009 Between: TVP Prabhakar, s/o TV Nagaraja Rao R/o C-470, NGOs colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. … Petitioner V/s. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Office at Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad & 7-Ors. … Respondents N B: Respondent No.8, Smt.K. Jyothi, d/o. Dr.K.Ramaswamy, aged 39 years, Occupation: Manager, State Bank of India, r//o. 1043 (H.No. 1-2- 56/51), Shyamala Sadan, Advocates Colony, Street No.14, Gagan Mahal, Hyderaad, is impleaded as per Court Order, dated 23-6-2009 in WPMP.No. 15779 of 2009 in WP.No.9955 of 2009. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Bhaskara Rao Bandarupalli. Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue Sri G.Jayaprakash Babu for R8 Sri M.S.Ramchandra Rao for R5, 6 & 7 Sri Dhanamjaya Reddy, SC for HUDA THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 9 9 5 5 OF 2009 O R D E R : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari). The writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of the official respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as illegal, arbitrary and to declare that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 fail to discharge their duties and with a further direction to the official respondents to take appropriate steps to protect the environment by taking action against the unofficial respondents and to pass such other suitable order as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that one of the marketing representatives of Respondent No.5 came to him, offering to sell one of the plots in their venture at Thimmaipalli village, Keesara Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. It is stated that to verify the same, he visited the said land and layout on 04-5-2009, found that the entire land is a water tank. It is also stated that he found that the unofficial respondents are filling up the said water tank with heavy stones and sand by crushing the nearby hills, using heavy machinery, such as; stone crushers, bulldozers etc. When he questioned them about the permissions of the authorities, to his surprise he did not receive any positive answer or any letter of permission. It is stated that on enquiry some of the villagers informed him that it is a naturally developed water tank and they were using the same for the purpose of cultivation. It is further stated that they paid many visits to the Office of the first respondent and further submitted a representation complaining that the water tank and “Nala” from which they draw water for their cultivation is being closed by the unofficial respondents. But till date, no action is being initiated by the first respondent for the reasons best known to him. It is further stated that he visited the offices of the official respondents and he could procure a copy of master plan pertaining to survey Nos. 678, 69, 70 and 74 of Thimmaipalli village, Keesara Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, which shows that the entire land under survey Nos. 69, 70 and 74 are under water belt and survey No. 68 is under conservation zone. The second respondent issued another Proceedings Lr.No. 10742-LU/P5/HUDA/2008 dated 20-8-2008, which clearly reveals the status of the land. It is also stated that the unofficial respondents tried their level best to regularize the unofficial layouts prepared by them and the same were rejected by the fourth respondent. It is further stated that unless and other wise the illegal activities of the unofficial respondents are stalled by the official respondents, who fail to act upon the representation of the villagers and failed to discharge their duties under the constitution, the entire efforts of planning and development as planned by the Government never can be achieved. Therefore, the petitioner states that he being a law abiding citizen and Officer of the Court bring to the notice of this Court about the illegal activities of the unofficial respondents, which action is against the sanction of master plan issued by the fourth respondent and the said action may lead to environmental hazardous to the next generation of this country. Unless and other wise the said illegal actions are stalled immediately the very purpose of filing the writ petition will be defeated. By noting the speedy illegal activities of the unofficial respondents, the petitioner suspects that the entire water tank and adjacent “nala” will be completely filled within a couple of days, therefore, he filed the affidavit and petition in the interest of public. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is averred that respondents 5 to 7 have developed the lands bearing Survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 of Thimmaipalli village and that Brahmanamma cheruvu and Pedda cheruvu are having an extent of Ac:4-08 and Ac:32-13 of tankbed lands respectively. It is averred that Brahmanamma cheruvu and Pedda Cheruvu are located in survey Nos. 75 and 95/1 respectively but not in survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 of Thimmaipalli village. In reply to the averments made in Para No.1 of the affidavit, it is averred that the offer to sell and the visit of the petitioner to the site, the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. With regard to the allegations that the un-official respondents are filling up the water tank with heavy stones and sand by crushing the nearby hills using heavy machinery such as stone crushers bulldozers etc., is denied. In reply to the allegations made in Para No.2 of the affidavit, it is averred that the villagers visited the Office of the first respondent and submitted a representation complaining that the water tank and nala from which they draw water for their cultivation is being closed by the un-official respondents is not totally true. However, on 30-4-2009 some villagers along with Sarpanch of Thimmaipalli village approached the District Collector, Ranga Reddy district and on the instructions of the first respondent, the second respondent along with VRO/AMRI/Mandal Surveyor visited the lands in Survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 of Thimmaipalli village wherein certain levelling work was in progress. It is also observed by the second respondent that some part of the said land will obstruct the natural flow of water from Brahmanamma cheruvu to Pedda cheruvu, if the total land is levelled and made into a layout and plotted. The second respondent had temporarily stopped the work and instructed the land owners association not to proceed with development work over the schedule property till the dispute is cleared din the first week of July 2009 and accordingly the work is stopped at present. In reply to para No.3 of the affidavit, it is averred that as per the notified revised master plan vision 2020, the land use break up of the site under reference, survey number wise is as follows: Survey Numbers Land Use 6 8 Major part conservation zone, minor part open space zone (i.e., water body green belt) existing road passing and affected under proposed 30 mts., wide road. 6 9 Water body, Open space zone (i.e., water body 30 mts., Green belt very small minor part conservation zone. 7 0 Conservation zone minor part water body with ‘Nala’ Major part and open space zone (i.e., water body 30 mts., Green belt) 72 Partly conservation zone, partly Water body and open space Zone (i.e., water body 30 mts., green belt) and partly affected under proposed 30 mts., wide road. Village : Thimmaipalli Mandal : Keesara Zone segment : Shameerpet District : Ranga Reddy 4. In reply to the averments made in para No.4, it is averred that respondents 1 and 2 are not aware of the application made by the un-official respondents to regularize their layout made to the concerned authorities and rejection of the same by respondent No.4. In reply to the averments made in para No.5, it is averred that as per the directions of this Court in WPMP.No. 12898 of 2009 in WP.No. 9955 of 2009, dated 13-5-2009, the second respondent along with Junior Planning Officer, HMDA inspected the lands in survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 of Thimmaipalli village and filed inspection report. An application for demarcation of subject lands is pending with the Office of the Assistant Director (S & L R) Ranga Reddy district in File No. A3/444/2009. The Assistant Director (S & L R) Ranga Reddy district also inspected the lands in the second week of August 2009 and demarcation work is under progress. It is further averred that the survey numbers, which are the subject-matter in this writ petition are purely patta lands. It is noticed that Brahamanamma tank is in the upper base and whenever the same overflows the water flows to Peddacheruvu which is on a lower base through the patta lands which are subject matter of this writ petition. It is also averred that in case the un-official respondents level the land and make a layout and further make constructions in the said land, the flow of water will be obstructed. The following violations have been noticed to have been committed by the un-official respondents: (a) The association has failed to obtain the required permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer for conversion of Agriculture land to Non-Agriculture land under A.P. Agriculture Land (Conversion for Non- Agriculture Purpose) Act, 2006. (b) The said association has failed to seek the change of land use as mentioned above under the provisions of HMDA Act, 2008. (c) The Sreepadha Colony Welfare Association has not obtained the approval o residential layout for sub- division of land into plots under the provisions of HMDA norms and layout rules. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, who is none other than Chief Planning Officer of Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, it is averred that Development activities are commenced by Sreepada Colony Welfare Association in Survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 of Thimmaipalli village of Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, un-authorisedly without obtaining required permission from HMDA. Further it is averred that in compliance of the directions of this Court in WPMP.No.12898 of 2009 in WP.No. 9955 of 2009, dated 13-7-2009, inspection as made by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar and during the course of inspection, it is noticed that fifth respondent has commenced unauthorized developments such as levelling of land, removal of boulders, peg marking of plots etc., without any prior approval from fourth respondent. The photographs taken on the day of inspection are filed as Annexure -‘A’. Further the site in question is in proximity to the water body falling in Antayyapalli village of Keesara Mandal. It is averred that the answering respondent has issued a land use certificate in survey number wise. As per the notified revised master plan 2020 and land use details of survey numbers in Thimmaipalli village of Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy district are mentioned below in the preceding para. It is averred that in terms of zoning regulation of revised master plan approved by the Government vide GO.Ms.No. 288, MA dated 03-4-2008 the, residential activity is not permissible in water body and conservation use zone. It is averred that the development in survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 of Thimmaipalli village are totally un-authoriszed and contrary to the provisions of HMDA Act and proposals of Master plan. Further it is averred that even prior to the constitution of HUDA, the Director of Town and Country Planning was empowered authority to accord layout approvals. After the constitution of HUDA under the provisions of APUA (Dev) Act, 1975, the answering respondent is the statutory body to accord layout permissions. It is not known whether the fifth respondent had obtained any approval from the Director of Town and Country Planning or not. It is averred that the developments undertaken are partly in water body and partly in conservation use zone as per sanctioned master plan. The developments are highly objectionable, as they are not in conformity with land use proposed in master plan. It is further averred that in purpose of the orders of this court dated 13-5-2009 the officials of HMDA along with the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar of Keesara Mandal had inspected and noticed the developments in water body and conservation zone, as per sanctioned master plan which are highly objectionable. Therefore, the answering respondent has directed Executive Officer of Thimmaipalli Gram Panchayat to take action against un-authorised developments vide L.No. 4591/ P5/ LU/ HMDA, dated 06-7-2009. Respondent No.4 avers that it is true that the answering respondent has rejected the layou7t regularization proposals of the fifth respondent as per GO.Ms.No. 902, M.A. dated 31-12- 2007. Hence, respondent No.4 prayed to dispose of the writ petition with appropriate directions in the circumstances of the case. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 5, 6 and 7, it is averred that under two registered sale deeds dated 27-8- 1984 and 07-2-1985 Sri Nageswara Housing Corporation purchased an extent of Acs:4-00 in Survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 in Thimmaipalli village of Keesara Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy district and the said land was made into plots and sold to 430 persons. It is averred that 430 persons have formed Sreepada Colony Welfare Association. It is averred that in Khasra Pahani of the year 1954-55 and also in pahanies from 1956 till date, the land in the above survey numbers is shown as ‘patta land’ only and nowhere the existence of any water body/tank is shown to exist in these survey numbers in the revenue records for more than fifty years. It is further averred that in fact there has been no water body/tank in the land in possession of the members of Sreepada Colony Welfare Association since 1984-85 till date. Even the Joint Inspection Report dated 29-7-2009 filed by the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy (East) and the Junior Planning Officer, HMDA states that the land in the above survey numbers are only patta lands as per revenue records. It is averred that the report also nowhere states that there is any water-body/tank in the said lands. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioner that there is entire water tank in the above land or nala in it is false and not supported by any material. In the absence of any such water body/tank in the above land, the question of respondents 5 to 7 filling it up does not arise. It is further averred that according to the Joint Inspection Report, the tank/water bodies are only in Survey Nos. 75 and 95/1 and not located in Survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 of Thimmaipalli village in possession of Sreepada Colony Welfare Association Members. This Association has nothing to do with the said water bodies in Survey Nos. 75 and 95/1 and has also not done anything to fill up the said water bodies. It appears that the petitioner is only a busy body who appears to have been misled by some local people inimical to Sreepada Colony Welfare Association into believing that there are water bodies/tanks in Survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 of Thimmaipalli village in the possession of Sreepada Colony Welfare Association to file the present writ petition. There is no truth in the allegation made by him that he found a water tank in the above land when he allegedly visited it on 04-5-2009 or that the said land was allegedly being filled up by Sreepada Colony Welfare Association or its members or agents. 6. It is further averred that on 14-3-2007, the-then Hyderabad Urban Development Authority in it’s letter No. 3529- LU/P5/UDA/2007 has stated that in the masterplan, the land in survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 is shown as “conservation zone”. It is not known on what basis, the HUDA, hardly a year later, in its letter No. 10742-LU/P5/HUDA/2008, dated 20-8-2008, showed that there are water bodies in portions of the above survey numbers. Admittedly, in the Revenue Records there is no mention of any water body in the above survey numbers, which is also supported by the Joint Inspection Report, dated 29-7-2009 mentioned above. Without applying its mind, the HMDA/HUDA authorities, contrary to the Revenue Records and contrary to the existing ground situation, appear to have modified the master- plan and showed water bodies in the survey numbers, where there are none on the ground. It is averred that HMDA/HUDA may be directe4d to produce the material on the basis of which the change in land use was made by them contrary to the Revenue Record and the existing ground situation. Under Section 12 of the AP Urban Areas (Development) Act 1975, the HUDA cannot effect important alterations in the character of the Master Plan and which do not relate to the extent of land uses. Thus, HUDA has no jurisdiction to make the alteration in the character of the Master Plan from mere “Conservation Zone” to what is set-out in its letter dated 20-8-2008 (allegedly notified in GO.Ms.No. 288 (MA) dated 03-4-2008). The said alteration in the character of the land is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and also Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, they are null and void and cannot be made applicable to the lands in possession of Sreepada Colony Welfare Association. It is also strongly averred that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the letter dated 30-8-2008 to harass the respondents 5 to 7 by making incorrect allegations. 7. Respondents 5 to 7 in their counter-affidavit submitted that Sreepada Colony Welfare Association has incurred huge expenditure for levelling the land and if it is prevented from developing the same at the instance of the petitioner, grave and irreparable loss would be caused and that respondents 5 to 7 deny that Sreepada Colony Welfare Association has done any act to damage the environment. Further it is true that HMDA erroneously rejected an application on 12-12-2008 seeking regularization of layout prepared by Sreepada Colony Welfare Association under the AP Regulation of Un-Approved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2007 under the mistaken impression that the said layout is located in land falling in tank area. The Sreepada Colony Welfare Association has approached HMDA with the correct facts to rectify the said mistaken rejection. It is denied that any land in occupation of Sreepada Colony Welfare Association members is Government land or the Government land. Hence, the petitioner cannot place any reliance on the notice dated 19-6- 2009 allegedly issued by fist respondent indicating an intention to demarcate the land in survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 because admittedly as per Revenue Record all the land in these survey numbers is patta land and no water-body/tank exists therein. Respondents 5 to 7 averred that this writ petition is not filed bonafidely but with a view to blackmail and harass the members of Sreepada Colony Welfare Association. Therefore, Respondents 5 to 7 prayed to dismiss the writ petition with costs. 8. On the other hand, the petitioner filed reply to the counter-affidavit of respondents 5, 6 and 7. In reply to para no. 3 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 5, 6 and 7, it is averred that they might have purchased the lands and formed the present respondent association. But the fact is that, whether any permission for development and conversion of the lands is granted in their favour is the moot question. On the other hand, it is submitted that in the report filed by the first respondent, it is clearly stated that no permission is granted by them to convert the status of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural, as required under AP Agriculture Land (Conversion for Non- Agriculture Purpose) Act 2006. When such permission is not there, the lands cannot be treated as patta lands. In the report submitted by the official respondents it was clearly mentioned that survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 are under water body and conservative zone. This aspect is suppressed for their benefit. In reply to para 4 of their counter-affidavit, it is averred that it is totally false to say that water bodies are in survey Nos. 75 and 95/1. The proceedings issued by the fourth respondent rejecting the proposal of layout of the unofficial respondents, the master plan and the present report of the first respondent clearly indicates that survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 are water bodies and conservative zones. In reply to para 5 of their counter- affidavit, it is averred that when the petitioner himself personally visited the land on 04-5-2009, he found that these respondents blasting the nearby hills and filling the water tank on the same day then he got photographed the same and filed before this court for perusal. When he enquired them with regard to their permission they just slipped away and that he was not influenced by any others with only a positive attitude to protect the environment, he filed the writ petition. In reply to para No.6 of their counter-affidavit, it is averred that these respondents are not aware that the status of land has to be declared by the master plan and implementing authority is HMDA. It is pertinent to submit that the revenue records are not the basis to decide the status of the land. Once master plan is approved, no authority is competent to alter it. The AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 has no application to present case and the respondents are trying to divert the attention of this court from the present case. There is no question of harassing the respondents in this connection only he is trying to expose the inefficiency of the official respondents to protect the environment. In reply to para No.7 of their counter-affidavit, it is averred that incurring of huge expenditure is no excuse for the unofficial respondents when they are doing damage to the nature. Further in reply to para No.8 of the counter-affidavit, it is averred that whether any mistake is occurred or not is a matter of concern of the official respondents and these respondents have no locus standi to say the same. On the other hand, in the joint inspection report when the HMDA is a party clearly stated the status of the land as water body and conservative zones. In reply to para No.9 of their counter- affidavit, it is averred that the unofficial respondents are confused and they cannot rely on the revenue records, which are tampered one. In the objections on the report of the Respondent No.1, he clearly established the tampering of records and he denied the allegation of blackmailing the respondents, if they do not withdraw the said allegation, he may be permitted to take legal action against these respondents. Further it is averred that the document dated 14-3-2007 cannot help the unofficial respondents, as the conservative zone also cannot be converted. At the outset, when he filed the writ petition with a good intention, the unofficial respondents are trying to blame him personally for their personal gains. Therefore, he prayed to allow the writ petition with costs. 9. Further the writ petitioner also filed objections on the report submitted on behalf of the first respondent. It is stated that the report filed on behalf of the first respondent is itself contradicting with regard to the status of the land. In para No.1 of the report, it is stated that the lands in survey Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 74 are patta lands as per revenue records. It is mentioned as residential plots in cultivation column of pahani. In the same report, it is stated that “the Association has failed to obtain the required permission from the Revenue