HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.24587 of 2008
Date: July 22, 2014
Between:
Renuka Enclave Residents Association, Rep. by its Secretary R.N.kothari.
… Petitioner And
1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner & 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.24587 of 2008
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the first respondent.
2. It is stated that the petitioner association purchased large extent of land admeasuring 30000 square yards comprised in Survey No.32/1 of Somajiguda, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad, from one Jaya Bhale Rao, prepared a layout plan and applied for sanction. While approving the layout, an extent of 700 square yards was earmarked for the purpose of formation of park for common enjoyment by the residents of the colony and as required under the layout rules. In the year 1986 one Viquar Haleem claimed ownership of the subject land earmarked for parking. His application for construction of building was rejected on 21.05.1986 and 26.07.1986 holding that the said property is meant for park.
3. While so, respondents 2 and 3 filed O.S.No.4262 of 2000 on the file of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the President and Secretary of the petitioner association seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the subject land earmarked for park. They claimed that an extent of 429 square yards in Survey No.32/1 bearing premises No.6-3-1238/6/A belongs to them. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 15.12.2003. Challenging the same, respondents 2 and 3 preferred appeal A.S.No.251 of 2004 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the said appeal was also dismissed on 16.11.2005. Respondents 2 and 3 also filed O.S.No.1339 of 2000 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the first respondent without impleading the petitioner, challenging the notice dated 22.09.2000 issued by the first respondent. Though the first respondent contested the same by filing written statement stating that the land claimed by respondents 2 and 3 is meant for park, the suit was decreed on 16.08.2004. Against the same, the first respondent preferred A.S.No.244 of 2011 and the same is pending in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Since the petitioner was not a party to the said proceedings, the petitioner is not aware of the same and now the petitioner wants to take steps for getting impleaded in the pending appeal and support the appeal.
4. Though the writ petition was filed challenging the inaction of the respondents in not preserving and protecting the property vested in them in the layout of the petitioner, in view of the facts stated above and in view of the pendency of the civil proceedings, the first respondent could not take any action. Now, the first respondent submits that subject to the orders passed by the competent civil Court they will take action against unauthorized constructions made in the park area of the petitioner.
5. Recording the said submission of the first respondent and giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in the pending A.S.No.244 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the writ petition is closed.
6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: July 22, 2014 BSB
27 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24587 of 2009
Date: July 22, 2014
BSB