COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the record.

3. It is the common case of the petitioners that they are in possession of land admeasuring 120 sq. yards each wherein they have constructed a tin shed room 20 years ago; and that the said construction made by them is also being assessed to property tax by the respondent authorities. It is the further case of the petitioners that on making the construction they had obtained electricity and water supply connections from the concerned authorities for the said property, thereby evidencing the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the said property.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that while they are in possession of the plot of land admeasuring 120 Sq.yds each, having made construction of tin shed room therein, the respondent authorities are seeking to take up landscaping by constructing basement for erecting fencing in front of the petitioner's house, thereby obstructing the access of the petitioners to their houses.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 28.03.2023 on the respondent authorities undertaking the digging work for construction of basement for doing landscaping adjacent to the road and road margin, on the petitioners objecting to the same, the respondents did not pay any heed to the request made by the petitioners, that on the other hand they have informed the petitioners that they would be covering the area in front of the petitioners houses with fencing on all the sides.

6. Petitioners contend that on the respondent authorities undertaking landscaping of the entire land, their right of ingress and egress is being affected and they would be left with no means to access their houses.

7. The petitioners thus, contend that the action of the respondent authority in undertaking construction of basement /foundation for the plot of land in front of petitioners houses on all sides and taking up the work of landscaping therein, the respondent authorities are confining the petitioners to their houses without having right of easement / right of ingress and egress, thereby infringing the Fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. Petitioners further contend that the respondent authorities cannot be allowed to continue with their activity of construction of foundation on all sides and fencing in respect of the open plot in front of petitioners’ houses, as there would be no passage to the petitioners houses which would put the petitioners to hardship.

9. Petitioner further contend that though the petitioners did not have any title to the subject property since they were in occupation of the said plot of land over 20 years, they had made an application seeking regularization of the aforesaid land in their favour under G.O.Ms. No.58 Rev. dt.30.12.2014 issued by the Government of Telangana, by filing application on 24.02.2022. It is also contended by the petitioners that as the said application filed by them seeking regularization of land in their possession is pending, the respondent authorities are to be restrained from taking further action, as any action would result in respondents achieving indirectly what they cannot achieve directly. In support of the aforesaid contentions reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil Rep. by its Executive Officer Namakkal Vs Pappayee and Ors1.

10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 would submit that the subject land wherein the respondent aut