The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Gram Panchayat could not claim right, title, or interest over the subject property solely based on the resolution and allotment, as there was no evidence to show that the petitioner had applied for the layout.

ORDER :

1. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is interrelated with each other, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P. No. 6520 of 2018 is filed by K. Panduranga Reddy represented by his GPA M/s. Empire Meadows Pvt. Ltd. seeking to declare the high handed action of respondents in encroaching the property of the petitioner situated in Survey No. 166 admeasuring Acs. 7-20 guntas situated at Ameenpur Village and Gram Panchayat, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. W.P. No. 11925 of 2019 is filed by M/s. Empire Meadows Pvt. Ltd. and Sri. K. Panduranga Reddy, seeking to declare the action of respondent No. 2 in passing resolution dated 05.07.2017 allotting land admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards in Survey No. 166 situated at Ameenpur Village and Gram Panchayat, Sangareddy District, for construction of overhead water tank and consequent allotment letters dated 05.07.2017, 10.11.2017 issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as illegal and arbitrary.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 11925 of 2019.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 Sri. K. Panduranga Reddy was the pattadar and enjoyer of Survey No. 166 totally admeasuring Acs. 7-20 guntas having purchased the same through registered sale-deed No. 390/1963. Thereafter, a rectification deed was executed by the parties and the extent of land was reduced from Acs. 7-20 gunts to Acs. 7-14 guntas. Subsequently, petitioner No. 2 entered into a Development Agreement with the petitioner No. 1-M/s. Empire Meadows Pvt. Ltd. for developing the property. When the authorities of respondent No. 3-Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) tried to demolish the compound wall, which was constructed by the petitioners, and tried to encroach an area of 200 Sq. Yards, W.P. No. 6520 of 2018 was filed seeking to restrain the respondent No. 3 from interfering with the possession of the petitioners.

6. This Court on 06.03.2018 while admitting the Writ Petition No. 6520 of 2018 has directed the parties to maintain status quo, obtaining as on that date. However, liberty was granted to the respondent authorities to issue notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

7. Along with vacate stay petition, a counter has been filed by respondent-HMWSSB denying the title of the petitioners and stating that the Gram Panchayat vide Resolution dated 05.07.2017 has allotted an area of 200 Sq. Yards for the purpose of construction of a overhead tank.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the petitioners are not the owners and possessors of the said land and that it is a temple land, which has been earmarked for the purpose of constructing Lord Shiva Temple. Learned Standing Counsel has also stated that by virtue of the approval of the layout granted by the Gram Panchayat in respect of survey Nos. 165 and 166, the subject land is left open for Lord Shiva Temple, and the same is vested with the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners have absolutely no right, title, interest or possession over the same. Learned Standing Counsel has also stated that on the earlier occasion, petitioner No. 1 has approached the Civil Court for Injunction against some third parties vide O.S. No. 62 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The lower Court after due trial has dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 03.01.2018 holding that the petitioner No. 1 is not the owner and possessor of the land. Learned Standing Counsel has also stated that as long as the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 05.07.2017 and also the consequential letter of allotment are not cancelled, W.P. No. 6520 of 2018 filed by the petitioner No. 2 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. After filing of the counter in W.P. No. 6520 of 2018, the writ petitioners have filed W.P. No. 11925 of 2019 questioning the Resolution of th