Building permissions cannot be granted for plots located in areas deleted from the final approved layout; however, such plots may be considered for regularization under applicable government schemes.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring all the acts of the First to third respondents by not sanctioning the building permission vide imp0ugned orders File No.070/ACT/TPS/NZ/GHMC/2015 dated 29.04.2015 to the plots bearing Nos.119 and 120 of M/s. Annapurna Cooperative Housing Society Limited by colluding with the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondent and trying to dispossess them from the plots 119 and 120 which were allotted and possessed by these petitioners under due process of law and booking criminal cases and pressing into service invalid and illegal gift deed is a colourable exercise of powers vested with them in law, illegal, discriminatory and arbitrary in nature, consequently direct the First to third respondents to regularize plot Nos.119 and 120 of M/s. Annapurna Cooperative Housing Society Limited belonging to these petitioners shown in deleted areas of the part final lay out and sanction the building plans submitted by these petitioners and direct the first to third respondents to take action against the fifth respondent’s office bearers and sixth respondent and all persons connected therewith for the various illegal acts committed by them by changing the plots status and physical positions and to pass such other order or orders…”

Heard Mr. C. Suman, learned counsel representing Ms. G. Sudha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Home, for respondent No.4. Perused the record.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.5 is a Society registered in the year 1981 under the Society Registration Act, 1860 vide Registration No.TB/255/81 in the name and style of “M/s. Annapurna Cooperative Housing Society Limited,” formed for the purpose of purchasing land, developing it into plots, and allotting them to its members. The Society identified Ac.8.00 guntas in Survey No.844/16 of Malkajgiri Village, Vallabhanagar Taluk, Rangareddy District, which originally formed part of the land belonging to Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, North Lallaguda, Secunderabad. The temple authorities, having obtained necessary exemptions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and permission from the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 15.01.1982, sold the said land to the Society under a registered sale deed bearing No.3927 of 1982 and possession was delivered.

Subsequently, the Society developed a layout consisting of 108 plots and submitted the same to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA, which however, approved only 80 plots vide proceedings dated 16.08.1991, while deleting certain areas described as rocky or unsuitable.

It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter, additional plots including Plot Nos.119 and 120 came into existence, and the petitioners purchased the said plots under registered sale deeds dated 03.09.2011. Basing on the said title and possession, they applied for building permission before respondent Nos.1 to 3, which were rejected by proceedings dated 29.04.2015 on the ground that the subject land is disputed as it involves overlapping claims with another society, and that the plots in question do not form part of the approved layout. Challenging the same, instant writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the subject plots are part of the layout developed by respondent No.5-Society and that there is no actual dispute with any other society. It is further contended that when similarly situated plots have been granted building permission, rejection of petitioners’ case is arbitrary.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC submits that though the Society initially proposed 108 plots, only 80 plots were approved by