THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21759 of 2005 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in passing resolution No.6/9, dated 05.10.2001 alloting/alienating plot Nos.173 and 174, to an extent of 430 sq.yards, in favour of the third respondent, and executing Exchange Deed vide document No.2168/2002, dated 12.06.2002, as illegal and null and void. The facts are in a narrow compass. Owners of land admeasuring Acs.10.18 guntas covered by Survey Nos.687 and 688 situated at Shamshabad in Ranga Reddy District, got approved the layout to divide the said land into house plots. As per the approved layout, entire land was divided into 191 plots, and in the said residential layout, a colony, which appears to be named as Brindavan Colony, has come up. The petitioner claims that she is the owner of plot No.177 therein. It is her case that in the said approved layout, plot Nos.173 to 175, admeasuring 717.57 sq.yards, were reserved for Public Park. It is her grievance that though the said plots were reserved for public park, respondents 1 and 2 have passed the impugned resolution to transfer them in favour of the third respondent and consequent to such resolution, Exchange Deed was executed vide document No.2168/2002, dated 12.06.2002. The impugned resolution and the consequential Exchange Deed executed in favour of the third respondent by the Gram Panchayat are mainly questioned on the ground that as per the approved layout, plot bearing Nos.173 to 175 were reserved for public park, as such, they cannot be alienated for the purpose of construction. Although the writ petition is of 2005, no counter-affidavit is filed by the Gram Panchayat, but counter-affidavit and additional counter- affidavit were filed on behalf of the third respondent, in whose favour, plots in question were transferred. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the third respondent is the owner of plot admeasuring 438 sq.yards in block No.5, which is situated on the western side of plot Nos.173 and 174. It is further stated that adjoining her plot, the Gram Panchayat has constructed a community hall and as the facility of dining hall was lacking in it, at the instance of the elders, there was a proposal to exchange her plot, admeasuring 438 sq.yards, which is by the side of the community hall, with that of plot bearing Nos.173 and 174, admeasuring 430 sq.yards. It is further stated that when she has agreed for the said proposal, by passing the impugned resolution, a deed of exchange was executed vide document No.2168/2002 and possession of plot Nos.173 and 174 was delivered. It is also stated that plot Nos.173 and 174 were not reserved for Public Park but they were earmarked for community purpose in the plan approved by the local authority. In the additional counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner is a member of Brindavan Colony Residents Welfare Association, which has already filed O.S.No.447 of 2004 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the third respondent, her husband and respondents 1 and 2 herein and at the first instance, in the said suit, it has filed I.A.No.829 of 2004 seeking temporary injunction but the same was dismissed vide order, dated 17.10.2005. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. Mainly, the impugned resolution and the consequential Exchange Deed were questioned on the premise that plot Nos.173 and 174 are reserved for public park, as such, they cannot be used for the purpose of construction by transferring the same in favour of the third respondent. During pendency of the writ petition, along with the additional counter-affidavit, a copy of the order, dated 17.10.2005, passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, in I.A.No.829 of 2004 in O.S.No.447 of 2004 is filed. A perusal of order, dated 17.10.2005 passed in I.A.No.829 of 2004 filed for grant of ad interim injunction, shows that the learned Junior Civil Judge, while dismissing such I.A., observed that as per the approved plan, plot Nos.173 and 174 were not reserved for park but they were earmarked for community purpose. While it is true that any area, which is reserved for park, cannot be used for construction, in the instant case, as evident from the counter-affidavit and also the observation made by the learned Junior Civil Judge in the order, dated 17.10.2005, the said plots were reserved only for community purpose but not for park. In any event, it is to be noted that the impugned resolution came to be passed resulting in execution of the exchange deed, pursuant to the acceptance of the proposal of the elders to provide a dining hall for the constructed community hall. As it was found that there was lack of facility for dining in the community hall, which was already constructed, and as the plot owned by the third respondent was by the side of the community hall, she was requested for exchange of her plot with plot Nos.173 and 174. It is also to be noted that plot owned by the third respondent in the very same layout was to an extent of 438 sq.yards, whereas plots, which were transferred in her favour by way of impugned exchange deed, were admeasuring only 430 sq.yards, which is less than the plot area owned by her. As much as plot Nos.173 and 174 were not reserved for public park and in view of the fact that the third respondent exchanged her plot in lieu of transfer of plot Nos.173 and 174 in her favour, as proposed by the elders and accepted by the Gram Panchayat, I do not find any illegality in the impugned resolution and the exchange deed. Further, in view of the fact that as plot Nos.173 and 174 were reserved for community purpose, where constructions are permissible as per layout rules, it cannot be said that park area is used for construction purpose by illegally transferring the said plots in favour of the third respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality, which warrants interference in the impugned resolution and the exchange deed executed in favour of the third respondent. The writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th SEPTEMBER, 2010. kvni