COMMON ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for 5th respondent, and perused the record.

2. These Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioners assailing the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property alleging that the said property is earmarked for park, without showing any relevant documents and also without issuing any notice to the petitioners.

3. On 13-03-2017, this Court while admitting W.P.No.8635 of 2017, passed interim order vide W.P.M.P.No.10701 of 2017 directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and possession of the petitioners of the subject property.

4. To vacate the said order, the unofficial respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2023.

5. Similarly, this Court on 07-07-2017, while admitting W.P.No.22509 of 2017, granted interim order vide W.P.M.P.No.27698 of 2017 directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and possession of the petitioners of the subject property.

6. To vacate the said order, the unofficial respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2023.

7. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is filed.

8. By the counter-affidavit filed, the respondents contend that there are no plot Nos.103 & 104 admeasuring 500 sq. yards as claimed by the petitioners in W.P.No.8635 of 2017 and plot Nos.105 & 106 admeasuring 707.77 sq. yards as claimed by the petitioner in W.P.No.22509 of 2017 (for short “plot Nos.103 & 104 and 105 & 106) in Sy.No.105; and that the land in Sy.No.105 to an extent of Ac.8.00 gts belongs to one Smt.Hussain Bee; and that she converted the said land into residential plots by obtaining layout permission from Gram Panchayat, Bahadurpally vide permission dated 27-06-1978.

9. By the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that as per the layout approved by the Gram Panchayat, the entire extent of land of Smt.Hussain Bee was divided into 102 plots and an extent of 1080 sq. yards was earmarked for park by mentioning the boundaries as North : Road, South : Road, West : 12 feet road and East : 30 feet road.

10. By the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that the said park land earmarked in the layout is treated as common amenities for recreation purpose and is being used by the plot owners, who have formed themselves into an Association by name Siddi Vinayaka Nagar Owners Association (5th respondent herein).

11. By the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that since the subject property is earmarked for park and meant for public purposes, the petitioners herein are trying to grab the park land by mentioning the same as plot Nos.103 & 104 and 105 & 106 without there being any such plots in the said layout.

12. The 5th respondent also filed counter-affidavit.

13. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the land of Smt.Hussain Bee was converted into layout by herself, which showed the existence of only 102 plots and the petitioners in W.P.No.8635 of 2017 have purchased plot Nos.103 & 104 from Mrs.Mariamma, who in turn had purchased the said plot of land from Smt.Hussain Bee under registered sale deed dated 03-11-1978 and the petitioners in W.P.No.22509 of 2017 have purchased plot Nos.105 & 106 by from the legal heirs of Smt.Hussain Bee, without the said plot numbers being in existence, and the petitioners claiming to have purchased the non-existing plots, are trying to encroach on to the land which is earmarked as park and open land.

14. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that even as per G.O.Ms.No.131, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Plg.III) Department dated 31-08-2020 whereby regularization of plots in unapproved and illegal Layouts was permitted, the layout pattern was required to be mainta