IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA SECOND APPEAL NO.1452 of 2017

26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 Between:

S. Santosh Kumar …Appellant/appellant/plaintiff and Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation …Respondent/respondent/defendant

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant/ appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.2015 in A.S.No.372 of 2010 passed by the learned XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’) confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2010 in O.S.No.2487 of 2005 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein, the said suit filed seeking perpetual injunction has been dismissed i.e. the First Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 3. The background facts of the case are that the appellant herein filed the original suit claiming to be owner and possessor of land admeasuring 1422 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.66/11, Plot Nos.566, 567, 568, 575, 576 and 577 situated at Mansoorabad village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. The appellant allegedly purchased said plots under registered sale deeds bearing document No.4336 of 1985 dated 27.06.1985 (Ex.A1) from one K. Chandrashekar Rao and others. The appellant was in possession of the plots from the date of purchase. He sold plot Nos.567 and 568 to K. Padmajasoni in the year 2000 and the remaining plots i.e. Plot Nos.566, 575, 576 and 577 are in his possession. In August, 2005, the respondent i.e. GHMC tried to occupy appellant’s Plot Nos.566, 575, 576 and 577 (for short ‘the suit schedule property’). The respondent again on 01.09.2005 tried to interfere with the suit schedule property and therefore, suit for perpetual injunction has been filed.

4. The respondent-GHMC opposed the suit claim alleging that the suit schedule property is not private land and it was unauthorizedly sub-divided. The original layout consists of only 565 plots and 9 plots of open space was left for public purpose. The land owners created a forged layout dividing 9 plots of open space into 33 plots by assigning plot Nos.566 to 598. Whenever a layout is sanctioned, 5% of the total space has to be left for public purpose. In open space, the new plots were created by the land owners. Therefore, the respondent erected caution boards to open spaces. Further, complaints were received from people about the creation of plots in open spaces and a complaint was given to the Police, L.B.Nagar to conduct enquiry.

5. The Trial Court considered whether the appellant is entitled to perpetual injunction and whether the suit plots were left for public places in the approved layout.

6. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the appellant and respondent, the Trial Court came to conclusion that the original layout consisted of only 565 plots, more particularly, reference is made to Ex.A6 which is report of the Additional Director, M.A. & U.D.Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad showing 565 plots in the layout. The respondent constructed a compound wall around the suit schedule property which is an open place and the appellant did not take any action. The Trial court held that the respondent did not act unlawfully. Further, it is held that the suit is filed without issuing notice under Section 685 of GHMC Act and therefore, the suit is bad for not giving prior notice to GHMC. It is held that the appellant is claiming injunction over plots which are not shown in the original layout, that the appellant did not approach the court with clean hands and therefore, not entitled to the equitable relief of perpetual injunction. As such, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the