Petitioners challenged the municipality's construction of a graveyard on their open plot via a writ petition. The court found disputed questions of fact regarding property identification, which it cannot decide under Article 226.
Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach competent civil court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
\
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
,)
MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION N O: 6416 OF 2021
Between:
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in forcefully earmarking the triangular open plot admeasuring 1000 Sq yards situated at Srinidhi Nest Layout in Sy.No.574 at Ghatkesar Village and Mandal, Rangareddy Districtas being illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutio nb I and in violation of petitioner right to property and consequently direct the respondentsnot to construct Vaikuntadhamam over the triangular open plot admeasuring 1000 Sq yards situated at Srinidhi Nest in Sy.No.574 at Ghatkesar Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the respondents to Stay the Construction of Vaikuntadhamamover the petitioners triangular open plot admeasuring 1000 Sq yards situated at Srinidhi Nest Layout in Sy.No.574 at Ghatkesar Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. P PANDU RANGA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: SRl. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SG FOR MC The Court made the following:
(
I{()'BLE SRIJTIIJTICIi K. LAKSHNIAN
\1R I'PE ON No.64t6()F 2ll2l
ORDER:
This writ Petitionis filed to declare the actionof the Respondents in forceftlllyearrnarking the triangular open plot admeasuring 1000sq.yards inSrinidhi Nestlay out situatedin Sy.No,574 at Ghatkesar Village and Mandal,RangaReddy(for shofi,'the subject property'), as illegal and for consequentialdirection not to construct vaikuntadhamarr over the subject ProPertY.
3 FACTS OF THE CASE
i) The l'' Petitionerherein is a Cornpany registered under the Cornpanies Act andit engages in the businessofpurchasingthe landsand developing thern into Fann andHousing plots.
ii) It had purchased various extents oflands in various survey numbers including in Sy.No.574 and575 in the year 1996.
iii) It had obtained lay outpermissionfrom the Grarn Panchayatand developed it uncler the name and style of'Srinidhi Nest' at Gliatkesat during theyear 1998 and soldmost ofthe plots keeping few plots for itself
iv) The sub.ject property is on the northern side fbrrningpart of Sv.No.574
1
KL,J ll'.P.'o.6116 ol2021
c
v) In the year 2003, some unknown people had burieJ one dead in the open plot. However. the same was not removed lest it may invite unpleasant situation.
vi) Now the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have also constructed their houses and are residiug near tlte open plot in Sy.No.574.
vii) Insolar as Sy-'.No.574 is concerned, the l't Petitionerpurchased au extent of Ac.0.l4guntas ri'hichfbrntsparl of'Srinidhi Nest' and the rernaining part ol 51 .No.574 is inMarr.rthinagar lay out which is earmarked for park where a water tattk isconstrtrctedunderMission Bagiratha Schetne.
viii) The Petitioner Nos.2 and'l are owners ofplotsin Srinidhi Nest and Petitioner Nos.3 and.5 areresidentsof neighbouringMaruthiNagar Iayout.
ix) ln the nionth of July,20110, theauthorities of Ghatkesar Municipality had identifled the openplot in'Srinidhi Nest'fbr layinga fbrurdation for constnrction ofvaikuntadhamam despite the PetitioDers and other residents bringing thesarne to the: notice of the saidauthorities that the open place beingploposedis atr opett plot of 'Srinidhi Nest' and not to takegp constrlction ot'r,aik gltadh alltatn aS the satrte rvottldcause inconveniettce to thcresidentsol the colonl'.
x) On 05.01 202 l, tlre 3"rResponderltauthorities have laid a foundation stone tbrconstlLlction ol vaikuntadhalnarnclaimitlg the opeu plots as existinggt'avey al'd.
3
t
:
) KI,,J ll'.1'.No.6116 of 202I
xi) The Petitionershaveobtainedinfonnationunder RTI Act, which disclosed thatthe land in Sy.No.503 admeastring Ac.2.30guntassituated in Ghatkesar village isclassified as Govemment land and the same is covered withgraveyard.Even as per the Respondents,graveyardis situated in Sy.No503. However under the guise of thereexisting a graveyard in Sy.No.503, theRespondentauthorities ale constrrtctillg vaikuntadharnarn tn theopenplotsof the Petitioners which fbnnspart of Sy.No.574.
xii) The Respondent authorities areproceedingwitlrthe construction of vaikuntadhatnatnin the petitioners' land in Sy.No.574 which is far away fi"om thelarrdir.r Sy.No.503,withoutconsideringtheir representatiol-ls.
xiii) Therefore, thepresent writpetition.
4 CONTE\TIONS o F TTIE ]RD RESPONDEN'I'
i) The 3"r Respondent-Mrrnicipality haspassed resolLrtiondated 31 .07.2020 givinll sanction to ceflain developmentallvorlisirr Chatkesar Municipality wherein at Sl.No.7 of the said resolution, itis proposedfbr the developrnertt of vaikuntadharnam in tlie openspace of Maruthi Nagar lay out, as a graveyard was already existing and agrave of one Chindam Jangaiali was built in thatplace in theyear, 2003.
ii) People are using the said place for cremation ofdead
iii) An or,elhead tank was also constructed in the saitlplace and adjacent to the above land, Muslirn and Christian graveyards exist in
I
KL..] Il .l' .'r,.6116 rl 2Dl
Sy.No.503 adrneasuringAc.2.3Oguntas of covernrnentland'irr chatkesar Village
iv) The l't Petttronerherernliad subrnitted a represelltationin the rnonth of .luly, 2020 cornplainingthatsome villagerstried to crernate the dead in the open Plot.
v) In tact, GhatkesarMunicipal Councilhad passedresolutionibr the developrnent ofvaikuntadhar.narr existingin Maruthi Nagar opeu space ard thc 3''rRespotldentMLrnicipalitylas not taken up any work in the ope, plot beirrgclairnedby the l" PetitionerContpa,ystated to be falling in their lavoLtt
vi) The 3''r Resportdentrvill not propose Llsageof any private property fbr. developurentof vaikuntadhafiram rvithoLrtfollowingdr-re process of law.
vii) With tle saidsubtnissions, the 3'd Responde,t sought to dismiss the presentWrit Petition.
NSI ERATI NOFTH U T
5'Theabovestatedf'actswotrldrevealtlrataccordirrgtotlre petitioners. the Respondent authorities are constltlctinggraveyard rn the subjectproperry which lbnns pafi of S1'No 574 of GhatkesarVillageand Mandal. Accordingto tlte 3"1 Respondent, they are developingthe exrstinggraveyard in Sir.No.503.According to the Petitioner' it is open land and therers no graveyardexrstirlgand according to the 3"r Respondent,there erists grave)ardin the subject land Accordingto the
I
5
) LI,,J ll'.1'.No.5116 of 2021
\
Petitioner, the saidland is fonning part of Srinigdhi Nest lav out and according to the3'd Respondent it is in MaruthiNagar lay ortt'
6
KI,,J fi'.1'.No.6116 of 2021
I
cannot decrde Lrnder Article 22(r of the(lonstitution of India and the sanre has to be decicled bv thc contpctent crr,,il Cour1. It rs a settled principle that this Court can go rnto disputed questions of lact as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ABL Interrrational Ltd. v. Export Credit Cuarantee Corporation of India Limitedl and the same was reiterated by a Division Bench of thrs Court, to which I arn a Mernber, in M/s. Agni Aviation Consultants v. State of Telangana2, but cefiainty not into cornplicated queslrons ol fact. As drscr.rssed supra, in the present case, tliere are cornplicated questions of fact with regard to the identification of the subject property whrch this Couft cannot decide under Article 226 of the Constitution ol [ndia
CONCLU ION
8 In r"iew of the sard drsctrssron, this WritPetition is disrnissed. However, liberry isglanted tothe Petitionersto 'vorkout theirreniedies by approaching competentcivil Cour-t.Thereis no order as to costs.
wnt petit ion shall standclosed
SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANTREGISTBAR ,TRUECOPY// li.,'/
SECTION OFFICER
YCoPies.
\ PT/ \
-)
HIGH COURT
DATED:18/10/202'1
ORDER
WP.No.6416 of 2021
.T
5 T a
{
,f ?t?1 n
c sBI
o t 1,
}.
.l{ Dit.:'iA1
Dismissing the WP Without costs.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can decide complicated questions of fact regarding identification of subject property under Article 226.
Whether the construction of graveyard on the petitioner's land is legal and arbitrary.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a declaration and direction stopping construction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
ABL International Ltd.Referred¶78
ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited
M/s. Agni Aviation ConsultantsReferred¶78
M/s. Agni Aviation Consultants v. State of Telangana
M/s. Srinidhi Homes Private Limited and others
The State of Telangana
The District Collector, Medchal Malkajigiri District
The Ghatkesar Municipality
The Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal
K. Lakshman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
