Point of Law: The land earmarked in a lay out for a public purpose ie. for open/lung spaces and amenities are distinct and the land earmarked for amenities does not belong to/vest with the local authorities and the owner of the land in an approved lay out is not divested with the title and ownership over the property.

ORDER :

1. Challenging the action of the respondents and their men in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over plot area of 2400 square yards, Sector-B in Survey Nos. 255, 261, 262 Part, 263 Part, 264 Part in the lay out plan of Laxminagar Colony situated in Aushapur Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, this Writ Petition is filed.

2. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, with Registration No. 511/2016, with the object of running educational institutions. It purchased the subject land in the lay out in the name and style - Lakshmi Nagar Colony approved by the gram panchayat on 06.06.1979 with modifications approved on 06.09.1993, from M/s Amal Ceramics Limited through its Registered General Power of Attorney Holder Sri K. Linga Reddy through the registered sale deed No. 2912 of 2016, dated 16.05.2016. The property is bounded with North: 30’ wide road; South -25’ wide road; East - Plot Nos. 104 and 105, and West-30’ wide road. Though the property was converted into nonagricultural land, much prior to the enactment of the Telangana Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, to avoid future controversy, the petitioner approached the competent authority to convert the subject land into nonagricultural purposes by paying requisite fee and the same was granted vide proceedings No. B2/1754/2017, dated 05.02.2018. While things stood thus, the officers of Respondents 2 and 3 started harassing the petitioner to hand over physical possession of the land, else threatened to initiate proceedings against them. Though, initially, the petitioner ignored the same, on account of constant pestering of the authorities for extraneous reasons, it was constrained to approach this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. A counter-affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent denying the allegation of any of his officials interfering with the petitioner’s property. The assertion of the petitioner that total extent of Acs.65.14 guntas of the land in subject survey numbers was converted into residential plots and a lay out came to be approved in 1979 by the gram panchayat which was subsequently modified on 06.09.1993 is denied as no such Resolutions are available with the gram panchayat. It is stated that even as per the petitioner, the subject land was earmarked for construction of a school and playground which is a public purpose, however, the open spaces left in a lay out, for whatever purpose it is, automatically vest with the gram panchayat and the land owner has no manner of right to deal with the same and thus, the ownership claimed by the petitioner is not tenable. It is also stated that the entire area analysis shown in the lay out filed by the petitioner would show the extent of plotted area, roads area and public purpose area except those no other area was shown as private area to claim by the owner who made the lay out and that the open spaces shown in the lay out other than plotted area and roads area would fall under the public purpose area and thus, the claim of the petitioner that the area is a private area is not correct. According to the counter, the petitioner had failed to file any other proof with respect to their possession except the sale deed, that as per the lay out copy available with the gram panchayat records, the area is shown as park and there is every reason to believe that the lay outs are fabricated. It is further stated that the competent authority to regularize the unauthorized lay outs being HMDA, the petitioner ought to have made HMDA as party respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner is only trying to grab the land which is vested with the gram panchayat, hence, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 3 of 2019 to place on record certain documents annexed thereto. Since unopposed, the Application is allowed and the do