Avula Anitha vs State Of Telangana And 6 Others

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not taking any action on the representations of the petitioner dt.03.04.2019 and 10.02.2021 for removal of the gate erected by respondents 6 and 7 along with compound wall over the public road which passes through the land in Survey Nos.301/1, 303, 310 and 309 of Janawada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from Shankarpally Main Road to Vattinagulapally, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct respondents 2 and 3 to protect the public road as shown in HMDA master plan and also direct respondents 2 and 3 to open the gate which has been illegally erected by respondents 6 and 7 to have access to the public road which passes through the land in Survey Nos.301/1, 303, 310 and 309 of Janawada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.01½ gts., in Survey No.309 of Janawada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District on purchase of the same through a registered sale deed Document No.8795 of 1996 dt.31.10.1996 from its original owner C.Shamlal by paying valid sale consideration. According to the petitioner, respondents 6 and 7 constructed a compound wall and erected a gate in Survey Nos.301/1, 303, 309 and 310 of Janawada Village. Alleging that the respondents are encroaching upon the land of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.48 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella and the same was decreed in her favour on 8.12.2009 and the unofficial respondents preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.78 of 2012 before the Hon’ble District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad and the same was remanded to the trial Court for rectification of errors and clarification of the document mentioned in the judgment and decree. The said rectifications were carried out in I.A.No.359 of 2014 in O.S.No.48 of 2004 by order dt.11.12.2014 and thereafter, the respondents did not file any appeal but filed set aside petition vide I.A.No.310 of 2018 in I.A.No.359 of 2014 in O.S.No.48 of 2004 and the same is pending. It is submitted that respondents 6 and 7 have encroached upon the public road and erected a gate and raised a compound wall in and around their land without valid permission from the competent authorities with an intention to grab the petitioner’s property. It is submitted that there is a road of 30 metre width and the same is notified by respondent No.2 in Shankarpally Mandal map and the said road is also notified by respondentNo.2 in master plan of Sahankarpally Mandal vide G.O.Ms.No.33 MA & UD (II) Department, dt.24.01.2013. It is submitted that the public road is being used by villagers and is also shown in map as well as HMDA master plan and also the said road leads to the petitioner’s and other neighbouring land owners and is being used by the petitioner for ingress and egress. It is submitted that respondents 6 and 7 have erected a gate and also raised a compound wall without valid permission and thereby causing serious hardship not only to the public in general but also to the petitioner in particular. Since the representations of the petitioner to respondents 2 and 3 did not yield any success, this Writ Petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. S. Madhavi, is relying upon the information given by HMDA to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act with regard to the road in Survey Nos.303, 309 and 310 of Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal. The information was given to the petitioner vide letter dt.24.07.2019 and it refers to the Metropolitan Development Authority Plan (MDP)-2031 for Hyderabad Metropolitan Region notified vide G.O.Ms.No.33, MA & UD (II) Department, dt.24.01.2013. It is submitted that information with regard to the proposed roads is available in the notified Shankarpally Mandal map and further that for the existing road from Shankarpally main road to Vattinagulapally, the amount was sanctioned for laying of roads and as the subject matter pertains to Gram Panchayat, Janwada, the petitioner’s application is forwarded to Gram Panchayat, Shankarpally Mandal for further information. On receipt of this information, the petitioner made representations to the respondents to take action on the illegal construction of the compound wall and erection of the gate on the public road by respondents 6 and 7. However, no action was taken.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the village map which is placed at page 20 of the writ papers to demonstrate that there is an existing road in Survey Nos.309 and 310 as alleged by the petitioner.

Initially on 17.03.2021, while issuing notice before admission, this Court has directed the authorities to consider the representations made by the petitioner on 03.04.2019, 10.02.2021 and 11.02.2021 and further that if the allegations made therein are found to be true, the official respondents were directed to take action immediately strictly as per law and that too after issuing notices to respondents 6 and 7.

The respondents 6 and 7 have filed their counter affidavit and also stay vacate petition and the learned counsel representing respondents 6 and 7 reiterated the contentions raised therein. In the counter, the respondents 6 and 7 have narrated the history of the land transactions in Survey Nos.309 and 310 of Janwada Village. According to the respondents, the land in Survey No.309 admeasuring Ac.11.03 guntas stood in the name of Madan Gopal Shyamlal originally and he along with one Sharyu Bala Dubey sold an extent of Ac.5.21 guntas to one Rohini and Suresh Kumar through a registered sale deed of 1980; and later the said Shyamlal sold away further Ac.5.1 guntas in Survey No.309 out of the remaining extent of land to one Rajendra Prasad Dubey and Pradeep Kumar through a registered sale deed in the year 1982 and therefore by the year 1981, Shyamlal was left with only an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas. It is submitted by the respondents 6 and 7 that the property underwent several transactions through different persons under various registered sale deeds and respondents 6 and 7 have finally acquired title to the land in Survey Nos.309 P and 310 P and the petitioner could not have purchased the extent of Ac.6.01½ guntas from Shyamlal by any stretch of imagination when he was left with only 20 guntas of land as narrated above. It is submitted that the allegation of the petitioner that there is a road in the land in Survey Nos.309 and 310 P is factually incorrect and relying upon the master plan of 2031 for alleging the existence of road is preposterous. The learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 also referred to various sale deeds and schedules thereto to demonstrate that there is no land in Survey Nos.309 and 310 P as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7, the allegations of the petitioner are without any substance and the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands.

Official respondent No.2 has also filed counter stating that the alleged road is only a proposed road as per the master plan 2031 and there is no existing road as alleged by the petitioner. It is also stated that on receipt of the representation of the petitioner, this respondent has addressed a letter to the Executive Officer, Janwada to take action against the unauthorised construction as per the delegation of powers as per Section 23(2) of HMDA Act, 2008. It is submitted that HMDA has delegated the powers to the Local Bodies vide letter No.15048/HMDA/2008, dt.17.01.2009 and as per the said delegation of powers issued by HMDA, the enforcement powers, i.e., monitoring and detection of development activity contrary to the master plan/zoning development plan, etc., is to be exercised by the Local Bodies and therefore there is no inaction on the part of respondent No.2.

From the above averments of the respondents, it is clear that the petitioner is alleging existence of road in Survey Nos.309 and 310 of Janwada Village only on the basis of information received by her under RTI Act and the said information was given only on the basis of the proposed master plan of 2031. As can be observed, the proposed plan only proposes a road to be laid in future in Survey Nos.309 and 310 of Janwada and where there is no road existing in the land in Survey Nos.309 and 310 as alleged by the petitioner, there is no illegality on the part of respondents 1 to 5 in not taking any further action on the representations of the petitioner.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.