HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6957 of 2008 Date: September 10, 2014 Between:
Rasheed Khan.
… Petitioner And
1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & 12 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6957 of 2008 O R D E R:
This writ petition was filed challenging the action of respondents 1 to 3 in erecting a board and demolishing the compound wall partly in the petitioner’s land in Survey No.18/2 (part) admeasuring 2400 square yards situated at Upparpally Village, Attapur Road, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R. District and also to set aside the HUDA sanctioned plan, vide File No.5322/MP2/HUDA/89, issued by the 3rd respondent.
2. The record on which the petitioner placed reliance reveals that Survey No.18/2 is an extent of Ac.5.24 guntas out of which an extent of Ac.5.5 guntas was purchased by respondents 13 and 14. Whereas the petitioner claims ownership over an extent of 2400 square yards of the remaining land. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court at the time of issuing notice before admission, the 3rd respondent submitted an inspection report stating as follows:
“As per the orders of Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.6957 of 2008, officials of Planning & Estate Wings of HMDA & GHMC have jointly inspected the open areas of the layout sanctioned file bearing No.5322/MP2/HUDA/89 (portion A) & 5824/MP2/ HUDA/89 (portion B) in Sy.No.18/2 of Upperpally (V), Rajendranagar (M), R.R. Dist. On 22.08.2014.
The applicant has handed over the physical possession of the open spaces earmarked in the layout to the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Rajendranagar through gift deed bearing No.9340/1991 & 9341/1991 dt.21.10.1991. Thereafter, the final layout was issued vide Lr.DD’s No.5322/HUDA/MP dt.22.04.1992 as already stated in the counter affidavit filed by HMDA.
On inspection, we found that the open spaces gifted to the then Rajendranagar Municipality is now in possession of GHMC. The applicant was owner of the areas gifted to GHMC.
The part area earmarked for Portion-A of the approved layout is available on ground and vacant except one small temporary shed which was constructed for storage of materials by the neighbouring land owner. Action being taken by the GHMC for removal of temporary shed. The compound wall was constructed on western side of the said park and kept open on other three sides.
Regarding the park area earmarked for Portion-B of the approved layout, the 30’-0” wide proposed road shown on northern part of the layout is extended up to eastern boundary of the layout as shown as ‘X-X’ in the layout (copy enclosed with the report) and the CC road was also laid. Further, the measurements of the remaining park area which is vacant are also mentioned in the layout plan. The compound wall was constructed on all sides of the park by the Rajendrajagar Municipality.”
3. Thus, the report indicates that the authorities, respondents 1 to 3, are taking action to protect the land earmarked for park in the layout approved by the 3rd respondent and they have not been interfering in any manner with the private property of other persons. If the petitioner is having any grievance with regard to the land in his possession, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. But, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the extent of land, boundaries of land and other allegations of fact cannot be decided. So long as the respondents take action for protecting the land which was surrendered to them in the layout approved by the 3rd respondent, their action cannot be found fault with. There are absolutely no merits in the writ petition.
4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: September 10, 2014 BSB 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6957 of 2008 Date: September 10, 2014 BSB