Dismissed

Sri Sai Balaji Township Welfare Society v. Sree Sai Balaji Developers and 2 others

Telangana HC5 Jun 2023WA/72/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge held that constructing a compound wall blocking public access roads violates DTCP/Techncal approval conditions for a non-gated layout. Society residents cannot evade statutory obligations by claiming misleading brochurepromises from the developer.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeals W.A.Nos. 65, 66, and 72 of 2023 dismissed; prayers for stay and suspension of notices rejected; pending petitions closed.

Sri Sai Balaji Township Welfare Society Vs Sree Sai… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NOS: 65 66 ANO 720F 2023

¶8

W.A.No.65 of 2023

¶9

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 1 5-1 2-2022 in the W.P. No. 41 383 of 2022 on the file of the High Court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Sri Sai Balaji Township Welfare Society, Rep by its President, L. Raghavender Reddy, S/o. L. Ram Reddy, aged 42 yearc, Occ : Business, Ryo.H.No.4-^'195/4, Srisai Balaji Township, Solipur, Shadnagar, Telangana.

¶12

...APPELLANT/

¶13

(4th Resp. & lmpleaded Petitioner l. A.No.Zl 2022in WP.41 383 ot 2b221

¶14

AND

¶15

Sai Balaji lnfra Developers, Rep by its Managing Partners M. Sidhartha and Ch. Ravinder Reddy Having its office alB- 4-'17186, Plot No. 86 Road No. 1/A, Sai Ram Nagar Clony, Karmanghat Sarbomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

...RESP.(WRtT PETTTIONER tN wP.41383 0F 2022

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary tvtunicipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Saifabad Hyderabad.

¶18

Shadnagar Municipality, Shadnagar Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Commissioner.

¶19

Sri Sai Balaji Developers, Rep by its Managing Partner K Sreenivas Reddy, having its office at H.No.14-^'t83, Sri Sai Nagar Colony, Balapur X Roads, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

.,.RESPONDENTS/ (RESPONDENTS IN WP. 41383 0F 2022

Contd....2

-2-

I.A.NO:1 OF 2l2ii

Petition Und( r Section 151 CPC praying that i-r ther circurnstances stated in the affidavit filr:d in support of the petition, the Hign Court may be pleased to grant stay on thc Or Cerr passed by the learned single jrdge tt- 15.. 12- 2022 in W . P. No. 41383/20112 ot the file of this Honorable Court, pencling disposal of the above writ a^ppeaj.

¶25

Counsel for the Appe Iant : SRI.MANOJ VISHWANATH, ADV FOtl trl/s.()M LAW FIRM

¶26

Counsel for the Res pondent No.1 : SRI.D.JAGADEESHWAFI FIAC), ADV FOR SRI.K.PRADEEP REDD'/

¶27

Counsel for the Res rondent No.2 : MS.B.LAKSHMI KANAIi!ALLl, AGP FOR MUNICIPAL ADI/IINISTRATION

¶28

Counsel for the Res )ondent No.3 : SRI.M.PHANINDRA BARG,\V

¶29

Counsel for the Res; rondent No.4 : SRI.VIVEK JAIN

¶30

W.A.NO: 66 OF 2023

¶31

Writ Appeal under ola ise 15 of the Letters Patent preferred agi)ir st the order dated 1511212022 in W P I''lo 412655 of 2022 on the file of the High Cou t.

¶32

Between:

¶33

Sri Sai Balaji Townsl ip Welfare Society, Rep by its President L. Raghavender Reddy, S/o. L. Ranr Ileddy, aged 42 years, Occ : Business, lr,) ll No.4-195/4, Srisai Balaji Township. Solipur, Shadnagar, Telangana....APPELLANT/wIII'T PETITIONER IN ' (lN w1r.42655t2022)

¶34

AND

¶35

1 Sree Sai Balali I revelopers, H No. 14-183, Sri Sai Nagar Coh>ny Near Balapur Cross;ro rds, Nadargul Village, Saroornagar Mandirl, Ranga Reddy District Rep. by i s Managing Partner, Kothakapu Srinivasa Redcly S/o. late K. Yada Reddy ;rg rd 55 years

¶36

.....RESp.(RESt,orrrDENTS No.3 lN wF.426s5t2o22)

¶37

The State of Telt nrtana, rep.by its Principal Secretary Mun cillal Administration ar d Urban Development Department Secretar at, Hyderabad.

¶38

Shadnagar Mu'ni, :ipality, Mahaboobnagar District (now Ran3a Reddy District), at Shadnagar. Rr p. by its Commissioner.

¶39

..FIESPONDENTSi

¶40

RESPONDENT NO..t, 2 |r^tNp 42655t20221

Contd....3

|.A.NO:1 OF 2023

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to} suspend notices dated 26.02-2016 and^20.O9.2022 issued by the^3rd Respondent herein,^pending disposal^{of the abovewrit appeal.}

¶45

!.A.NO: 2 OF 2023

¶46

Petition Under Section¹⁵¹ CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the official Respondents^{No 2 and 3 herein not to demolish the compound} wall of the Petitioner's society ,^{pending disposalof the abovewrit appeal.}

¶47

l.A.NO:3 OF 2023

¶48

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Courtmay be pleasedto} grant stay on the order passed by the learned single^{judge on 15.12.2022in WP} No. 42655 ot 2022 on the^{file of the Hon'ble Court pending disposal of the above} writ appeal.

¶49

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRI.MANOJ VISHWANATH,ADV FORM/s.OMLAWFIRM}

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 : SRI.VIVEK JAIN}

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 : Ms.B.I-TAKSHMIKANAKAVALLI'} AGP FOR MUNICIPAL ADM!NISTRATION

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.3 : SRI'M.PHANINDRA BARGAV}

¶53

w.A. NO:72 OF 2O23

¶54

Writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the LettersPatent preferred against the order dated} 1511212022 in the W.P.No. 7318 ol^{2016. on the file of the High Court.}

¶55

Between:

¶56

Sri Sai Balaji Township Welfare^{Society,Rep by its President,L-} .Raghaver-der Reddy, S/o.^-L. Rdm Reddy, aged^{42 years, Occ Business,Rl/o. H No. 4- 19514'} Srisai'Balaji Township, Solipur,^{Shadnagar, Telangana.}

¶57

..,APPELLANT (4th Resp. & lmpleaded Petitioner in l.A.No.1/2022 in Y'tP.7 318120'|6

Contd....4

AND

Sree Sai Bala i Developers, H No. 14- 183, Sri Sa Naga r^()olony, Near Balapur Crosl roacs, Nadargul Village, Saroomag tr ltilartd,rl, Flanga Reddy District Rep. t y rts Managing Partner, Kothakapu^{.Srinivz s,:r} Rt:ddy, S/o. late K. Yada Redc 7. aged 55 years

¶62

....RESP.Al/RIT PETITIONER IN (WP.No.7318 of 2016)

¶63

The State of T:langana, Ilep. by its Principal Secretary llt. nic^pal Administration and Urban Development Departme.rt, Ser;rr,'tarrat, Hyderabad.

¶64

Shadnagar Mt nicipality, I/ahaboobnagar District^{(low Rarga} Reddy^District), at Shadnag;rr, Rep. by its Commissioner.

¶65

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No.1, 2 in

¶66

(W1r.7318 of 2016)

¶67

l.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶68

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circ umstances stated in the affidavit file,i ir support of the^petition, the High Cour. rray be^pleased to grant stay on the orler passed by the learned single^judge on 15. 12. 2022 in WP No.7318/2016 or the file of the Hon'ble Court^penriing d s6,ositl of the above writ appeal.

¶69

|.A.NO:2 OF 2023

¶70

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circ rmr;tances stated in the affidavit filecl ir r support of the^petition, the High Court n'ray be^pleased to direct the official Res:ondents No 2 and 3 not to demoiish the :ontpound wall of the Appellants societ'', pending disposal of the above wrrt appeal.

¶71

|.A.NO:3 OF 2023

¶72

Petition underr liection 151 CPC praying that in the circttrrstances stated in the affidavit filed in t upport of the^petition, the High Court rity be^pleased lo suspend notices cat )d 26. 02. 20'16 and 20. 09. 2022 ssued by the 3rd Respondent, pending Cisposal of the above writ appeal.

¶73

Counsel for the Appellz nt : SRI.MANOJ VISHWANATH, ADV FOR t\tl/s.Ol\l LAW FIRM

¶74

Counsel for the Resp rndent No.1 : SRI.VIVEK JAIN

¶75

Counsel for the Resp, rndent No.2 : Ms.B.LAKSHMI KANAKAVALLI, AGP FOR MUNICIPAL ADIVIINISTRATION

¶76

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI.M.PHANINDRA BARGAT/

¶77

The Court made the ft llowing COMMON JUDGMENT^{: -}

¶78

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE UJJAT BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJT

¶79

WRIT APPEAI Nos.65. 66 and72 of 2023

¶80

MMON UDGME : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justtce N.^'l-ukaranji)

¶81

'I'his <rrder would rcsolve the Writ Appeals 65, 66 and 12 ot 2023

¶82

Flcard Nlr. Mano j Vishwanath, learned counsel for rhe appcllants in all thc rvrit appeals; Mr. DJ agadeeshwar Rao, lcarncd counsel on behalf of Mr. I(Pradeep Reddy, learned counscl for .l " rcspondent in W.A.No.65 of 2023; Mr. Vivek Jain,^{Iearnedcounsel for 4'h respondentin W.A. No. 65 ol 2023} and for the 1., respondent in W.A"Nos.66 and72 of 2023; Ms. B Lakshmi Kanakavalli, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Admrnistration representing 2nd rcspondent and Mr. M. Phanindra l)argav, learned Standing Counsel for 3d respondent in all the appcals.

¶83

3.1.^'I'he Writ Appeal, W.A.No.65 of 2023, has been preferred by Sri Sai llataji Township Welfare Society ([or short 'the Sociery) asainst rhc ordcr of the learncd Single Judgc dated

¶84

¶85

llr-l.t\lltl .,j,.{)h,rll l(llⁱ

¶86

ir ":'

¶87

1:.12 2('21^{Ir \v'.1) \o -li-18-l,rlt r2rlhe s'rt fctrlr:)r'l} r,lls tLlc ii br Sli^{tlrrlrril Infi-l l)cvclopc:s(ftrl il'rort 'lrlfrr'' rtr':loPe ts')} u,hcrcirr^{tl-,c il'ac:tilrnr:'i ti-'c 5h'rclnagar \Irrr-tt':iPrl:trlirrrlt.rt} taliing ecrtor^{1n rctn()vilrll tllccorlll'rotttlcls a IivhLch s':ts} ,rnd it1 c()tltLrcnl i(x-I ()ithc c( )rlstrtl(:tc(l^vlthout Pc^{rnll s sl() 1I} conditiot-ts^{of the tcclrrlical satlcttotloi thc I)ir cctor o -'[''lrvn rrnd} (-ountr\ I)ietning ([or short^{'t)I('])'),a.oLrnc tl-rcla\r()ut} dcvelopecl^{br Sri Sai llalaji l)cvclopers (ft)r sh rrt'tlLr:rlc.'clopcr-)} in spitc oi^{th.: represcntations darcd[')-i 10 20]1' 1l' ( 9 2022rrnd} tlt(: terms^{r-,f ht: trndcrtaking irl intcrim orclcr} 'latctl^{(rili)l l0i(r m} \11.P.M.P.\lo^{)345/21t16 in \'.P No.7318 of 2( )1(''}

¶88

32^{'I'he \/.it Appcal. W1No 66 ol 2023' l.)1'r-113 ''ci':tvis set} against rhc^{o dcr o[ thc lcarncclSinglc} -fudgc^{rlatt:cl 1 ''. 12 2022 n} W.P.No.426! 5 of^{2022 u'hcrebvpraYcdft)r <lirt:t:tior to the} Shadnagar^{'1 unicipalignot to dcmo[shthe cornpo'rnc] rvall of} theit gatcd^{c )mmunirv withoutscn-ingnoutc;Lncl ro r;ct aside} the nottces^{Catcd22.01 2016 and 26'022('16issrLed by the}

¶89

ShacJr.rap5ar^{lV unicipalin'basingot.r thc complrrintI-'t lgctl b1' the}

¶90

Irrtla Dcvelo^{rc rs}

¶91

! \

¶92

HCJ & N'IRJ \,A 65,66&72 2021

¶93

3.3^'l'hc \'rit Appcal, \'...No.72 oF 2023, is also filcd bv the Societv, challcnaing rhc ordcr <>l thc learncd Single Judge dated 15.12.2022 in W.l).No.7318 of 2016 filed by the Developer to declare that the noticc clated 2602.2016 issued by the Shadnagar Municipaliry for removal of thc compound wall, is illegal and ro set aside the same.

¶94

FACTUAL MATRIX.

¶95

4.L. The Developcr/Sri Sai Balaji Developers/Petitioncr in W.P.No.7318 of 2016 had proposed a layout in a land admeasuring Ac.83.0825 cents in Sy.Nos.139, 140,145, 146,147, 150 and 151 o[ Solipur village of Farooqnagar mandal, Shadnagar Municipalitv ([or short 'the layout). The DTCP accorded technical approval on 28.05.2014 arid firnal layout was sanctioned on 24.08.201,5, by the Shadnagar Murucipality.

¶96

4.2. The Infra Developers/Sai Balaji Infta Developers/ Petirioner in W.P.No41383 of 2022 also formed a residential layout within Ac.09.431 cents in Sy.Nos.523 part,524 part arrd 528 part situated at Choudammagutta Thanda, Shadnagar

¶97

¶98

ll( .l ,\ I R.l ,\ \ r .66.. I l(^ll

¶99

lralltlxl .lalilc^{'nr to the'll'ctr-rr oi rllc clcrcloptr.'Il'i: l:lir )Lrt i'[ls} 1ls,r r1'rPror^{ct I:t rhe L)'l( 'P orr 01 05 1r)ll'}

¶100

4 1.^{.'.intirt :cllrr the: tltr cl<lperas I"u ()tlt ' r\ .1()l ls pcl thc} corrditir,rrs^{of the pcrrnissl(1fl.c\cctltcd clcctls tllortr"rt trrt li" " ' 'l} the lancl^antl {lung^{the rnternal roaclsin in or'r} '^{'t- tl''Sl Lldnager} NIunicLPallrr.

¶101

,+ 1. \'hilc ,c,, thc^{-fahsildaLissr'rcda troric' darttl r1 09 2t')lr} bciotc^{this( - )Ltrt ()n thc der ckrpcr cotltcndirlg rht'ttk;ltabala} pertainilrg^{to Ilaiipally1'1ll2sc sprcad in Sr'ir't's ll()'1-10'1'+1'} 1 1 I an,-l^{1 t ), toan cxtc't of} '\c^{02 i -isr'trtrt Ihrttl L>e:et.t} encroache(l^{t v rt and dirccteclto resrtore thc satnc v tl in I5 dat.s'}

¶102

45.^{Ag3r'ic'ed thetcbvthc clevclopet[rled \ 'l) N'o'34221o|} 201 5 befc,rc^{r,his Court and this Court vitle ( rd( Idatccl} 1410.2(115,^{ret aside the notrce observingrl'ret llrc rrrp()rt r)f} Manclal^{Srtrr e1'or cannot bc thc solc basir' t"r :r'ncludethc} cncroachr^{cr tzrld t() direct evictron lf o} 'vcr-t:t^{'llbtrlrl'rvas} grzLntcd to^{th : 'fahsildar [or iniuating action url(lL]rI h :} ''l)' Land l^{,)nct-oachrre} lt^{Act,1905.Subsc<1uefltly,on 3 ll llU l rnoticc} undcr Seclio^{r 7 ,rf thc A.P. I-and Ilncroachnrcnt r\ct' 1905 u'as} \ \

¶103

HCJ & NTRJ \'A 65.(16&72 202i

¶104

issued to the devcloper lrrr s,hich x rcph. dared 22.01.2016 was submirred.

¶105

4.6. Afterwards, the^{(.omrnrssioncr,} Shadnagar Municipaliry vide letter No.()/1762/2013 clarcd 26.02.2016 issued norice staung that the developcr had encroached^,naksha bata' and erected advertisemcnt projccrine thc layout as gatcd community and upon inspecuon,, found that a compound wall constructed around the layout and closed thc roads against the conditions of the approvals, thereby causing obsrrucrion to the vehicles and general public, which is impcrmissiblc.^{'l'hercftlre,} speci$,ing that the layout is not as a gated communiry, directed to replace the advertisement boards and to remove the boundary wall constructed across the roads within 7 days.

¶106

4.7. This notice came ro be challenged by the devcloper in Writ Petition No.7318 of 2016 be[ore this Court wherein this Court on 08.03.2016 in WPMP No.9345 of 2016 ordered an interim suspension of the notice by recording the undertaking of the developer that the compound wall was construcred only for the purpose of protection and security o[ the layout and that the

¶107

tl*.!.-

¶108

(, '. itl,,. \itt^{,.,, -'ll)lr}

¶109

¶110

iltternll r()11(iS \.Ltlti11^{f]lc I:rr,} 'Llr^{\'Cl'c Il()t} Pt^{t\l\ll !l();I(lSilll(l} r lrcr t t'rr: I't d a: 1tcr tht^{lar or.rf plan,hos'cr',r. af ltc( llrl)lcti()rl} o1'thc lru'o,.r , tht' cxtcrnal^{granl pxflcha'ltr() r(l: t.t r ltl lrt loLrtctl} to tltr: l,t\ orrl rrtarlS

¶111

-1.8. 'lhc Ir ira l)cveloPers / I)cutioncr in \'.i).\o 1 l.]E I oi'^r( )ll

¶112

xfrpr()achc(1 hrs^{(.ourt contcndlng that rhouqlr rllc tl} ''^{e ()l)cr Ilall} c()rnplcte( r Ie layout,^{the cotnpclund rvlllrvlLs ,l()l t 'tll} "^{ccl etlel} the approai: r r()ed to^{t l-reir la1'out is blockc' I L'r lt rt lr"ttuclart} ()n ().[ ().1]021 and \,xll.'l hcr:clrrc, submitted^{representalions} 110, 2ll2:l t() the Murricipal Comm-tssront'.^5h;rilnagtl N{unrciPaltv t(- rcmovc the^{compound wall ft'r c()rlrL cti rt\ frr} 'lr1 thc layout^of the der-eloper^{to enhancethe pulrlit: u ll rv}

¶113

,1.9. Purs,lu nl to the rcPresentaflons. th ' )lLrrlicrpal

¶114

(.onrrrrisst, rn :r vide letter No.G 1 /LP / 1252l'l-t)S^zS l))r It/2022 dated 20.09.1 0lZ2 duected^{thc developerto sulrn'rit ( \l)lar)at1()11b referring thc undcrtakrng^{giren in \X1 l) No 7 i l8 o - 1015'srthirr} 7 dals as to whl thc unauthoriscd^{compoul'd.'r',rll ;hall not bc} demolishc,-1, i{ r-rot to initiatc action as I)cr^{tlrt' 'l cltngana} i{unrcipalitic r .\ct, 192()}

¶115

I]CJ & N I'RJ u',\ 6-i,66&71 202i

¶116

¶117

,/P

¶118

4.10. The rcsidents o[ the layout of thc der.eloper Fcrrmed the Socictv and filcd Writ Petition No.4265.5 ol 2022 by pleading that the dcveloper had releascd brochure projccting thc layout to be a gated communiry; thereforc ttrcy havc purchascd the plots. However, the Shadnagar Municipality had issued notice bascd on the complaint of the Infra Devclopers.^'I'hough there is another approach road to thc layout o[ rhc ]n[ra Do.elopers, the Shadnagar Municipality had taken up procceding without putting the society on notice. Thus sought for sctting asidc the notices issued by^ghe Shadnagar Muoicipaliry

¶119

@NCLIIJIONJ IN THE IY/NT PETITIONS:

¶120

5.1. The learned Single Judge in the writ petition hled by the developer vide W.P.No.7313/2016 observed that admittedly the layout is not a gated communiq,, thercfore, construction o[ compound wall around the layout without permission from the municipaliry would amount to unauthorised construction, therefore it should be removed. I urthcr, thc representation of the developer in brochure cann()t legalise the unauthorised construcdon nor it can be a gtound for defcrment. Even then, i[

¶121

l( a, t(.1^{.,r -l} ,t^. .l( Ilt.I^l

¶122

tltc rcsrr.le nt ; of^f ltc^{lrtr, rut} ( )f thc socicrl hlcl ltr r trlc\ lrla(

¶123

r.cryuclinq rl- -' cot.trpc.rttt.t^{cl rvall proicctcd 1n thc l'l lrclrttrc,IIIS} opcn i,,r thr n: tr I t.ake allpropriate^{acrion ag,rinsth : tlt vclr} 'Pcr. irs per 1,tt'.^lJut, it^{canrtot bct e gr.lurrd to l;tall tlltr rt'tlror al oi} rrnau th( )risiC'(^t:otls truclitl^lt oI compound r,"llJ.^I I ru^.'r'ct .^lhc nrunrctpalifi was directc(l to^{scrvenodce or thc l rcic v bcfottl} procccrlinll f rrthcr and to^{complete the entjr-.} Pro(r(lris^r,lthiltstr vccks

¶124

5.:l I n \ric\ ,r ,r[ the abovc conclusion, the u'rit^{pc tirror r hlec] br'}

¶125

thi: Ir'rfr.l l)c,,ckrpcr^{i.e. \X/.P.No.41383 of 2022 tt't s JisPsc.ir'f} in rhc sltnt,: t rrrls.

¶126

5.3.^'lhe rv it petrtion^{filcd bv the society i.t. V-l .l'Jo 12(r-5i ol}

¶127

20?2 rvrrs^,Jtr 1-l<>sed of by obscrving^{that no ltrrhr:r rrtlcrs u"'crtl} rc<luirctl

¶128

J'LrBM/t-rip ,1 ]N ,,1PPE 4L:

¶129

N1 r. \lr n,rj Vishrvlnath, the learncd counsc:l^{f rr th,r Soctctt}

¶130

1r1 the appcrL s w,ruld strbmit that thc devclopcl^{str;,prcsscdthc} rrceipt rf nc tir:es clated 21.09.20L5, 31.04.2015 and rc1-'lv^clatcd

¶131

¶132

IICJ & N]'RJ \t'A 65.66&71 202',]

¶133

¶134

22.01.2016. The statements of thc devclopcr in thc u,rit pcurion is cxplicating that there is no encroachmcnr of anv roaci. I)cspitc tl.rc [act, thc der.eloper or the Shadnagar Nlunicipllin, had nor Served any notice on the sociery. Further Frling of \,,p.No.731g of 2016 by the developer and grving an undertaking without the society's knowlcdge is unrenablc and would nor bind rhcm. Converscly, thcre is no documentary evidencc to show that thcrc was any encroachment by the developer.^'|hat apart, in spite of g fting of internal roads by the dcvelopcr, rhc Court ruling that the compound wall is an illegal construction is unjusr. In any case, tlre Infta Developers has no locut $andi zrrd the action o[ the developer and its sister concern i.e. the Infra Developers is hand in glove. Furthermore, failure of .official respondents to frle vacate petition against the interim order passed in W.p. No.7318 of 20'1,6 coupled with the non-acrron by thc Tahsildar for 7 long yeats alter issuance of notice itself is estabtishing that there is no encroachment. Above-all, the rcmoval of boundary wall will affect the safety and securiry of thc people in the layout, hence prayed for setring aside the impugned order passed by the

¶135

l(r

¶136

l(i&\l| ' \ 65.,rr,,lll l(Jl l

¶137

¶138

Itru'ncrl 5in ilt -f uclrc ln(l t() all(\lr, thc rvrit l)cliti()n hlctl bv thc s( )clcrl\

¶139

l. \lr-. "ilck .f rirr. thc learned counscl lrrr tl c llcvclopcr claitnct l thrt hct, are bound b1, the unclcr rakinl, li',1 in rhc rntclilr pt-r>r ct'clings in \' P.No.73i8 of 2016 rlnd :l)c ,-lcvclopcr rvill abrr]c br t lrc or-clcrs

¶140

lJ. i\lr. I) lrgaclct:shrvar Rao, the lcarnecl c ounsr'l lor lhc lnfrr I)cr clopcts rlr:acled rl-rat in thc absence o[ any appr<,val oi gatccl cornrnunitr., c.)nstnrctlofl o[ compound walj arourtr] titc laYout b[, rckrnll t.-rc r', raris rvould be rn contravention oi ( la.usc 8 of thc 1\nnexrrre of tlrc D'l'CP tcchnrcal sanction uzlrich [,r,::scribcs that all roatls () the layout shall be open rbr A:CCSS to thc ncighbr,urin; SITES '[ hcrcfore, thc layout orvncr /d .: r'elrpcl shall n( )t constr_rc 1rnv c()lrrpound s,all or fencing ar,)un(l thc la_r,our Rv thrs ru c, as the compound u-all is affecring t]re acccss rhc dcvelopcr sh .ll remove thc compound wall uhich s. obr;rrucrne thc roarls ar-l cven as pcr thc undertaking giverr betorc this (-ourt.^'l'ht: e^-(,.ancc of the rcsidents of the layour rl thr: societl agalnst rhe d:i'elopcr shall not be a reason to ctrcr.rmr.cnt thc

¶141

\ \

¶142

¶143

I{CJ & h"TRJ wA 65,66&71 l02l

¶144

co dirions of rhe permission.^.Ihus pleaded rhar thc Shadnagar

¶145

N'Iunicipalitl sha acr and removc the compound wall_

¶146

Learned Assistant Covernment pleader and thc Sranding Ccrunsel [or the Shadnagar Municipal,iry submimed thar the munrcipal authoriry had initiated action as per the conditions of the layout approval and the statute and the furthcr procecdings wouid be as per the directions passed in these appeals.

¶147

vflr AND COA/CL USIO4,r..

¶148

We have given our thoughtfui consideration and to rhc

¶149

pleadings and the materials placed on record.

¶150

Undisputedly, the developer as layout owner had obrained sanctions from the authorities i.e., DTCp and Shadnagar Municipality on certain condirions.

¶151

1,2. The Shadnagar Municipality in its notices datecl 26.02.2016 and 28.09.2022 specified thar the approval o[ the layout is not for gated community. Neither the developer nor the sociery, had

¶152

placed any document evidencing that the layout had been

¶153

approved as a gared communiry.

¶154

¶155

llt., & \ rR.l .,\ ,\ 55.66&rl l013

¶156

11.^'. hc inil-a i)cvclopcr-.^pc-,intcd to^{Cleusc).,o. 8 of rhe} ilnnc\Lrrc ir the l)'1^(.P apPror-al that the^{tc:Frnical lar-out} app r:ov rl \'1 S s,ith thc c,.,rcliflon that all rorrds slLa]l be opened Itlr ecccsi;11 ilil to thc neighbotrring sltes^mcl trat thc^lavout ournels,/ 11cr, :krpcts shall nor consLt!rcI_a'11-. c,rmpouncl rvall/ ic ncjq around the sire 'lhis conditiorr is nrt dri;puted b1 the der clr,p, ,r or the si-rcict1, and there^{is not everL1} l)le,tding^thal thc corrpro Lnd rvall lround the lavout !,.4s crr structecl bv obtainiog r c(icssarl pcrmissrons.^{-l'his positic,r L has been} substanuate,^j bv the undcrtaking of thc^{de,,e:[oper rvhilc} considcnr,g tl'c interim application in W.P. No.^'7.)18 oi²⁰¹⁶ rhat thc ccr rpound well would be removed afte:: c<,mpletron of rhe lavout.^'fhese factual aspects are estatrhshi rg that^the compor:n,1 u,a1l was constructed by the develo rer^without permissior'r, rr,runcl thc layout by blocking th<: roads.

¶157

Iir:rih, :r, the layout proposal and approval rv,rs be,rveen the clevelopcr al LLl,out ou.ner and the authoriw.^'Ihe r:lbr<r, we^Ftnd that n-rak-in 3 thc der.eloper/layout owIlcf re;nonr;ible for

¶158

¶159

¶160

HCJ & N I'R] wA 65.66&72 l02 t

¶161

compliance oF thc conciirrons of the approval 1S perlccrll lcqr tr matc

¶162

_^{15.T'hc salc of plors in the layoutis a contracr berwcenthe} dcr.clopcr as layout owner and the vendees i.e., residents o[ thc lavout. Thc rcsidents of the layout bcing actual uscrs, at the bcst, collectivelv can srand in the posirion of the layout owner to fulfil thc condiuons/starutory obligarions imposed while granung pcrmission to the layout. But at any rate, the society caflflot take advantage on the ground that their vendor/layout owner had promised or presenrcd the particulars of the layout in a certain wav to circumveflt the conditions o[ rhe layout permission. Thc arrangement and agreement between the vendor and the vendec o[ the layout plots would be interre between them and it would not bind the authonty, whilc implemendng the conditions set our in the layout permissions. In this position, if the residents o[ rhe layout or the society got any grievance in tegard to the featurcs projected by the promoter in the layout, they may avarl remedies undcr the law to redress their grievance, but they cannot seck I /

¶163

¶164

lc.l &^\TR.l $ \ 65.,16&rl 20? l

¶165

CXCLIST io ir rplcrncnting thc colrditions lmposc(i bi' hc aurhoritr,, u,h1lc ljlxrtu tg thc LaVoLtt PCrl- ssi()n

¶166

I6. Itor- rl- c-sc rc.Lsons, rhc soclcn"s C( )rllci llon es t()

¶167

suppr( ssrlr r,f tn lormation br rhc dcvclop,:r about the nonces and filing o^I r,.,rit pe tition and thc undertahurg Eiyet: or the delay in the^'fahs lclxr taLing action Lur(lcr the Lanri [,ncr:rachment Act ot the lailLre oi thc nrunicipal authorir.v to sen c l otlce on the societ\ d.)ci not rrrakc out a tcnablc gtouncl IC :listegard the procecdtr,u: inrtiatcd b1' the authority fol imp lt:mcnung the layout cr.,nr iitLons. Nr,ncthclcss, considering thr Principle:s of naturai^jusr:e, the l,earncd Single )udge had indulgtndy directcd the Shadnal ar Nlumcipahrv to serve notice r,n tbe ;,rci,:N before takrng up lu rther proceedings

¶168

17 . .\fr,rc iaid aspects ate making out tha-. ther sr,ciefi-, excepr contendrrLg that removal of the boundary wall u<,u d^jeopardize their intcrcs ,s. lailed to put up any tenable ll:raterlal^,:lepictrng any infringcmcr r of lcgal nght exjstin.g in its [av,rur:. I'i'rat being the posiuon, c( rrstructlon of boundary wall c-rtrstrucu1.g thc roads at'ound tlrc lavr-rut wlthout nccessall' saflcEon a rcl ar5ainst the 1

¶169

¶170

HCJ & NTRJ wA 65,66&72 2A2i

¶171

¶172

¶173

c()nditions oF the larr_rut approvals is leadrng us to conclude that

¶174

there is no justrficarion in the prayer of the socicry scekirig the rvrit direcuon to rcsrrain thc authority in implementing the layout condition against rhc developer/owner of the lavour.

¶175

Resulrantly, lve see no inhrmity or illegality in the rmpugncd orders passed by the learned Singlc Judge, hence rhey descrve to be afFumed. In effect, the appeals filed by the society [arls on merit

¶176