GULAM GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in withholding the final layout in respect of Sy. No. 150/P and 151/P to an extent of Ac.8-77.5 cents of Shiva Reddypet, Vikarabad District pursuant to the Resolution No. 95/2020, dated 30.09.2020 of Municipal Council of respondent No. 2 even after completion of all formalities pursuant to the TLP No. 108/2020/H, dated 16.05.2020 as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners states that pursuant to the application made by the petitioners, being the joint owners of the land to an extent of Ac.8-77.5 cents in Sy. No. 150/P and 151/P, situated at Shiva Reddypet, Vikarabad District, the Director of Town and Country Planning, respondent No. 3 herein, had sanctioned a technical layout pattern (TLP) No. 108/2020/H, dated 16.05.2020. Subsequently, the petitioners have complied with the conditions of TLP and also executed necessary gift deed in favour of the authorities as contemplated under the layout rules. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Municipal Council, Vikarabad Municipality, has also submitted a justification report on 01.10.2020 to the District Collector, respondent No. 4 stating that the petitioners had handed over the required land to the Municipality for the purpose of roads and open places. Thereafter, the TLP is placed before the respondent No. 2 for release of final layout, who in turn, by Resolution No. 95/2020, dated 30.09.2020, by majority of members, accepted to release the final layout. However, six out of thirty-two members of the Council of respondent No. 2 have dissented the resolution. Basing on the said dissent, the respondent No. 4 had addressed a letter dated 30.12.2020 to the respondent No. 3 with a request to issue necessary instructions for taking further action on such dissent.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that inasmuch as the DTCP has already sanctioned and released the Technical Layout, it is not proper on the part of the respondent No. 4 to address the letter dated 30.12.2020 to the respondent No. 3 to take action on the dissent of the Council of respondent No. 2. That in the letter, dated 30.12.2020, the respondent No. 4 had mainly pointed about the pendency of W.P. No. 24745 of 2019, filed by Dr. Vidyasagar and 11 others challenging the proceedings dated 20.09.2019, issued by the DTCP in favour of the petitioners. Further, the mere pendency of the said writ petition cannot come in the way of the official respondents in releasing the final layout inasmuch as the suspension petition filed therein was already dismissed by this Court with a clear observation that "any action taken shall be subject to result of the writ petition". Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks a direction to the respondents to release the final layout without further delay or on the ground of pendency of Writ Petition.