Dismissed

K. Parimala Reddy, v. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Telangana HC24 Mar 2022WA/2510/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judges dismiss Writ Appeal Nos. 2510, 2511, and 2512 challenging the revised EWS layout for Mutyal Rao Cooperative Housing Society. The Court holds the Single Judge was justified in dismissing the petition as the petitioner has access and useful open spaces remain untouched.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal Nos. 2510, 2511, and 2512 are dismissed. The single Judge's order is affirmed.

K. Parimala Reddy, Vs Hyderabad Urban Development… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

THURSDAY,^{THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRASHARMA} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI} WRIT APPEAL^{Nos.2510,2511 and2512 of 2005}

¶5

WRIT APP EAL NO^{: 25'10OF 2005}

¶6

WritAppealunderClausel5oftheLettersPatentAppealagainsttheorder dated 9-12-2005^{in W.P.No.21278 ot 2004, on the file of the High Court'} Between:

¶7

K. Parimala Reddv,^{W/oDushyanth Reddy, House Hold, Fl/o PlotNo 87' Defence} Colony, Sainikpuri,^{Secunderabad- 500 094.} ...AppellanUWrit^petitioner

¶8

...AppellanUWrit^petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

l.HvderabadUrbanDevelopmentAuthority,rep'byitsVice-Chairman'Paigah Pilace, BegumPet,^HYderabad.

¶11

iilC;;;tsio?rbi,^{H,4att<aigiriMunicipalitv at Malkajgiri,} .Hvderabad' 5. r,rrl, M"ivJt n-ao cobperativt^{Housinisociety Ltd.,rep.-byits President} " ii.;;i;iah, otticJ aiiasjivan NasarColonv, Malkajsiri Municipalitv and Mand'al, R.R. District.

¶12

i'. ij;;'d;;i,^{prc,t'r''ro.c-r+9, Mutyal Rao cooperativeHousing socigtlLld''} - 6tri".i'iiii'giivin r.ligir qolonv,'Malka.igiri 1Vlunicipalitv and Mandal' R R' District.

¶13

5 Cor"in.ent of^{Andhra Pradesh, Representedby its} Secretary, MuniciPal Administration Department,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad'} ...Respondents

¶14

WAMP. NO:451 50F20⁰⁵

¶15

PetitionunderSectionl5lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtodirect the4threspondentnottocarryoutanyconstructionactivityoverthePlotNo.C'149, in the 3rd respondent society, pending disposal^{of Writ Appeal'}

¶16

WAMP. NO 't921^{0F 20',1',1}

¶17

Petition under Section^{15'1CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} permitthepetitionerstofileadditionalaffidavitintheaboveWritAppealNo'2510 of 2005

¶18

¶19

WAMP. NO: 755 OF 2006

¶20

Between:

¶21

M/s Mutyal Rao Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., rep. by its President R. Anjaiah, Office at Jag.iivan Nagar Colony, Malkajgiri Municipality and lvlandal, R.R. District.

¶22

...Petitioner/3'd Respondent

¶23

AND

¶24

K. Parimala F.eddy, Wo Dushyanth Reddy, House Hold, Rl/o Plot No.87, Defence Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad - 500 094.

¶25

...RespondenUPetitioner

¶26

Hyderabad Uroan Development Authority, rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Paigah Palace, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶27

The Commissioner, Malkajgiri Municipality at Malkajgiri, Hyderabad

¶28

N. Umadevi, Plot No.C-149, Mutyal Rao Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Office at Jagjivan Nagar Colony, Malkajgiri IVlunicipality and Mandal, R.R. District.

¶29

Government 0fAndhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department' secretariat'

¶30

"0"'1?.fll.oondents/Respondents

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to vacate the interim orders of "Status Quo" dt. 21-12-2OO5 in W.A.tt/.P.No.4515 of 2005 in W.A.No.251 0/2005.

¶32

WRIT APPEAL NO: 2511 OF 200s

¶33

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the Order dated 9-12-2005 in W.P.No.21 268 ol 2004 on the file of the High Cour1. Between:

¶34

M;R. Narsing Rao, S/o. M. Rajaiah (Died) per LRs P-2 to 4

¶35

Smt M.N. Sulochana, Wo Late M.R. Narsing Rao, age 45 years, Occ: House Wife

¶36

M.N. Sunil Kumar, S/o Late M.R. Narsing Rao, aged 26 years, Occ: Business,

¶37

M.N. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Late M.R. Narsing Rao, aged 25 years, Occ: Pvt. Service

¶38

(All are F/o Plot No.10-A, Muthyala Rao, Cooperative Housing Society, J.J. Nagar, Neredmet X Roads, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.

¶39

(Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs deceased Appellant No.1 as per Court Order, dated 24.03.2022 vide LA.No.'1 of 201 1 (WAMP No.1909 of 2011) in W.A. No.251 1 of 2005.)

¶40

AppellanUWrit Petitioner

¶41

. -.:* -. -.+t--*----

¶42

¶43

AND

¶44

'1 . Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Paigah Palace, Begumpet, HYderabad.

¶45

The Commissioner, l,ialkaigiri^{Municipality, at IValkajgiri,Hyderabad.}

¶46

Ir//s. Mutval Rao Co-operaiive Housinq^{Society Ltd., Rep. by its PresidentR.} Anjaiah,^'Office at Jagjivan Nagar Colony.^{Malkajgiri Municipality and Mandal,} R.R. District.

¶47

P.H. Hvmavathi, W/o. P.H.^{Hanmanth Rao, Major, Housewife,Rl/o.H.No.26-} 72, Safilguda, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad,

¶48

Governrient of Andiira^{Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal} Administration Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶49

...Respondents

¶50

WAMP. NO: 4516 OF 2005

¶51

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto direct} the 4th respondent not to carryout^{anyconstructionactivity over the PlotNo.C-} 147, in the 3rd respondent society,^{pendingdisposal of writ appeal.}

¶52

WAMP. NO: 1€22 OF²⁰¹¹

¶53

under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court maybe pleased to} -petitlon permit the petitioners to file additional affidavit in the above^{Writ AppealNo.2511} of 2005.

¶54

WAMP. NO: 738 OF 2006

¶55

Between:

¶56

Ir,4/s. Ivlutval Rao Co-ooerative Housino Societv^{Ltd., Rep. by its PresidentR.} Aniaiah, bffice at Jagjivan Nagar^{Colony, Malkajgiri Municipality and Mandal, R.R} District.

¶57

...AppellanUWrit Petitioner

¶58

AND

¶59

M.R. Narsing Rao, S/o. M. Rajaiah^{(Died) per LRs P-2 to 4}

¶60

....ResPondents/Petitioners

¶61

2 Hyderabad Urban Development^{Authority, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman,Paigah}

¶62

Pilace, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶63

3 The Commissioner,^{tvialkajgiriMunicipality, at N/alkajgiri,Hyderabad.} - - 4 P.H. Hvmavathi, W/o. P.H.-Hanmanth^{Rab, Major' Housewife,Rl/o.H.No.26-} 72. Safilquda. Malkaiqlri, Secunderabad,

¶64

5 Governrient 6f nnO6ia^{Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal} Administration Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶65

6 Smt M.N. Sulochdna, Wo^{Late M.R. Narding Rao, age 45 years,Occ: House} Wife

¶66

7 M.N. Sunil Kumar, S/o Late^{M.R. NarsingRao,aged 26 years, Occ: Business,}

¶67

¶68

8 M.N. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Late M.R. Narsing Rao, aged 25^years, Occ:^Pvt. Service

¶69

(All are Fl/o Plot No.10-A, Muthyala Rao, Cooperative Housing Society, J.J. Nagar, Neredmet X Roads, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.

¶70

(Respondent Nos.6 to B are brought on record as LRs deceased Respondent No.1 as^per Court Order, dated 24.03.2022 vide l.A.No.1 ot 2011^(WAMP No.1909 of 2011) in W.A.No.2511 of 2005.)

¶71

... Res pondents

¶72

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^may be^{pleased to} vacate the interim orders of "Status^quo" date.21-12-2005. WAMP, NO: 073 0F 2014

¶73

Between:

¶74

P.H. Hymavathi, W/o. P.H. Hanmanth Rao, Major, Housewife, R/o. H.No.26-72,' Safilguda, Matkajgiri, Secunderabad,

¶75

...Petitioneri Respondent No.4

¶76

AND

¶77

1 M.R. Narsing Rao, S/o. M. Rajaiah, Aged about 58^years,Rl/o Plot No.10-A, J.J. Nagar, Neredmet X Roads, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.

¶78

...RespondenUAppellant

¶79

2 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Paigah Palace, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶80

3 The Commissioner, Malkajgiri Municipality, at Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. 4 M/s. Mutyal Rac, Co-opera.tive Housing Society Ltd., Rep. by its President R. Anjaiah, Office at Jagjivan'Nagar Colony, tr/alkajgiri Municipality and Mandal, R.R. District.

¶81

5 Government of ,\ndhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶82

...Respondents Petition under S;ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of the above W.A.No.251 112005 by fixing an early date of hearing on top priority basis.

¶83

WRIT APPEAL NO: 2512 OF 2005

¶84

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal filed against order daled 0911212005 in W.P.No.21265 of 2004 on the file of the High Court.

¶85

)

¶86

Between:

¶87

J.K.-Rameih,^{S/o late Sri J.R.Kataiah,Ag,ed about 37 years, Occ: Government} ErprbG,i, |.1" n.No.s1-7+lpl1 ,^{J.J.Nagjartolony'Neredhet X Road'Malkajgiri,} R R'District'

¶88

...Appellanuwrit Petitioner

¶89

AND

¶90

Hvderabad Urban^{Development Authority, represented by its Vice-chairman,} P;ioah Palace. Beoumpet, Hvderabad.

¶91

z. TndCommissi6nerl^{Ma'lkajgiriMunicipality' at Malkajgiri, Hyderabad} . 3. t//s.Mutval Rao Cooperative^{Housing Society Limited' representeoDy lts} ..

¶92

piesident R.Aniaiah, Office at Jagjivan Nagar Colony, tr/alkajgiri 1vlunicipality and Mandal, R.R.District.

¶93

R.Sataiah, S/o R.Yellaiah,^{lnsurance Agent,r/o Brahminpally Village,} B.B.nagar, Nalgonda^District.

¶94

S. Coveinineint of"Andhra^{Pradesh, represented by its, Secretary, Municipal} Administration Department,^{Secretariat' Hyderabad.}

¶95

...ResPondents

¶96

WA MP. NO: 4517 OF²⁰⁰⁵

¶97

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit fited in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the 4th respondent not^{to carryout anyconstructionactivity over the PIotNo.C-} 146, in the 3rd respondent^{society, pending disposal of writ appeal'}

¶98

WAMP. NO : 1933 OF²⁰¹¹

¶99

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to} permit the petitioners to file additional^{affidavit in the above writ Appeal No.2512} of 2005

¶100

WAMP NO: 739 OF 2006 Between:

¶101

R.Sataiah, S/o R.Yellaiah,^{lnsurance Agent,r/o Brahminpally Village,B'B'nagar,} Nalgonda District.

¶102

...Petitioner/4th ResPondent

¶103

AND

¶104

1 J.K. Ramesh, S/o late Sri^J.R.Kataiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Government Employee,^{r/o H.No.37-74lfu1,} J.J .Nagar Colony, Neredmet X Road, Malkajgiri,^R.R.District ...RespondenUPetitioner

¶105

Hvderabad Urban^{DevelopmentAuthority, representedby its Vice-chairman,} Piioah Palace. Bequmpet, Hvderabad.

¶106

s. f[;Commissi6ner]^{tt/a'tt<ajgiriMunicipality, at tvlalkajgiri,Hyderabad'}

¶107

It/l/s.tvlutval Rao Cooperative^{Housing Society Limited'rep!'ese.nJ99oy lts} ... President R.Anjaiah,^{office at Jagjivan Nagar Colony, MalkaigiriMunlclpalrty} and Mandal, R.R.District.

¶108

6;r;;;;;;i oiAnatrii^{Pradesh' representedbv its, Secretary, Municipal} Administration Department,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶109

¶110

...Res^pon de nts/Res^po nde nts

¶111

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmay be pleasedto} vacate in the interim orders of^{"Status quo"} daled 21-12-2005^{in W.P.NI.P.No.4517} of 2005 in W.A.No.2512 of 2005.

¶112

WAMP. NO:20 70 0F 2014

¶113

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmay be pleased to} expedite the hearing of the above W.A.No.251212005^{by fixing an early dateof} hearing on top^priority basis.

¶114

Counsel for the Appellant in all W.As.:^{SRl.B. CHANDRASEN REDDY}

¶115

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 in all^{W.As.: SRIT. NIRANJANREDDY,} SC FOR HUDA

¶116

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in all^{W.As.:SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR} (sc FoR MUNICIPALITIES)

¶117

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in all^{W.As.: SRI T.A. KUMAR}

¶118

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 in all W.As.:

¶119

GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶120

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶121

THE HON'BLE THD CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CIIANDRA SHARMA AND

¶122

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶123

WRIT APPEAL Nos.2510 2511 and 25L2 of2OOS

¶124

COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Challdo Sharma)

¶125

Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy were involved in the present cases, the writ appeals analogously heard and by a common judgment, they are being disposed of by this Court.

¶126

The facts of the W.A.No.2510 of 2005 are as follows:The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 09.12.2OO5 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21278 of 2OO4.

¶127

The facts of the case revea.l that the writ petition was preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the legality and validity ol the revised / modified sanctioned layout under EWS Scheme of the year 1999 issued by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The appellant's/writ petitioner's grievalce was that in the modified layout the roads shown in the original layout plan ^.,

¶128

have been^{convertedinto houseplots and the revised} layout is^{illegal and arbitrary'}

¶129

The present^{case is certainlynot an isolated case} challenging^{the revised layout whichis subjectmatter of} the present^{writ appeal. Largenumber of writ petitions} were^{preferredby other plot ownersand some of the writ} petitions registered^{as W.P'Nos'29937of 1998 and 688 of} 2OOO were dismissed^{by this Court onl2'O4'2OOO'} Thereafter, the^{personsaggrieved in the matter of revised} layout raised^{disputes before the CooperativeSub-} Registrar/Arbitrator^{under Section62$l of the Andhra} Pradesh Cooperative^{Societies Acl, 1964' An awardwas} passed in the matter^{and while delivering the award' it was} held that the^{rerlised layout does not warrant any} interference.^{Meaningthereby, it is an admittedfact that} identically^{placed persons have earlierquestioned the} revised layout^{before thisCourt and a-fter being} unsuccessful^{before this Court, they took shelter of the} mechanism^{provided under theAndhra Pradesh} Cooperative^{SocietiesAct, 1964, and again sufferedan} award.

I I

In spite ol the aforesaid action, the writ petition has been preferred and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

¶134

The record of the case reveals that the appellant/writ petitioner is the owner of plot in M/s. Mutyal Rao Cooperative Housing Society Limited and in respect of the said Society, the Gram Panchayat has sanctioned a layout plan on 24.O6.L968. The same was forwarded to the Commissioner, Malkajgiri Municipality, and the Commissioner has also approved the layout. The appellant/writ petitioner is not the original allottee. She has purchased the plot from the members of M/s. Mutyal Rao Cooperative Housing Society Limited and the members, when thd plots were allotted to them, did not challenge the layout at any point of time. The facts further reveal that though the layout was modilied to accommodate more people under the EWS Housing Scheme, the area intended for proposed school, community hall, temple, septic tank and other open areas was left untouched in the revised layout.

¶135

¶136

In considered opinion of this^{Court, the learned}

¶137

Single Judge was^justified in dismissing^{the writ petition'} It is not a case where the^{park or playgroundor a plot} meant for schooi has been^{converted into residential} locality. The appeltant/writ^{petitioneris alreadyhaving} access to her house, there^{is a road for her house and} therefore, this Court does not find^{any reason to interfere} with the order passed by the^{learned Single Judge.}

¶138

W.e.No.ZStO of 2OO5 is accordingly^dismissed.

¶139

The other two writ appeals i.e.,^{W.A.Nos'2511and}

¶140

2512 of 2005 are a.lso dismissed.

¶141

The miscellaneous applications^{pending,if any, sha-1l}

¶142

stand closed. There sha1l be^{no order as to costs.}

¶143

¶144

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOrNtr EEGTSTRAR ,TRUE COPY// L)t',' SECTION OFFICER

¶145

To,

¶146

One CC to Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶147

Two CCs to GP lbr Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court for the Stat-'of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] a One CC to Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, SC FOR HUDA [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri N. Praveen Kumar, SC for Municipalities [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri T.A. Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri D.r/. Bhadram, Advocate IOPUCI 7. One CC to Sri M.S.N. Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] B. Two CD Copies 9. One Spare Copy CHR

HIGH COURT

(

DATED:2410312022

COMMON JUDGMENT

i STAI.
1r<br>o
q
o 1E JUt'l 2ii2l
L/' C)
.5
,+
c65P1-9':'"{1rz'

¶155

W.A.Nos.2510,2511 and 2512 of 2005

¶156

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS

K. Parimala Reddy, v. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Parimala Reddy, v. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Sudheer Kumar Vs Deveineni Arun Kumar

Sri Shiridi Sai Samaj a Registered Society Vs the Govt of A.P and 4 Others

Smt.B.Laxmi, Vs The Joint Collector-Ii, Ranga Reddy District

V.Ravi Sankar, Vs The Industrial Tribunal-Ii

R.S Traders Vs The State of Telangana

P. Subhashini, Ranga Reddy District Vs P. Balakrishna, Hyderabad and 4 Oth