E. PHANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.20294 of 2018, dtd. 20/9/2018.

(2.) Heard Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the 1st respondent, learned Advocate General for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, Sri Pasam Krishna Reddy learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.7 and Sri Kowturu Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 30 and 32 to 43.

(3.) It has been contended by the appellants that the land admeasuring Ac.1-26 guntas in Kavadiguda bearing Municipal No.1-3-3 was originally owned by Y.Govindu and he has obtained layout No.66/60 from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad vide File No.246/BPS/2/60 and divided the land into 52 plots and an area admeasuring 140' x 65' was shown as a park in the midst of the layout, opposite to plot Nos.30, 31, 32 and 33 on the Western side. It has been further contended by the appellants that as per sanctioned layout, an area of 140' x 65' has been earmarked for park and it has been encroached by the unofficial respondents and the official respondents, instead of removing encroachments, are trying to regularize the encroachments by constructing two bed room houses under 2BHK Scheme in the said park area, which is not permissible. The learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that as per the sanctioned layout, the said area was meant for public park but the encroachers have surrendered the land to the official respondents for constructing two bed room houses and the official respondents cannot be allowed to convert the park area into a concrete jungle. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the park area is only the lung space available for the residents of the approved layout and the Municipal Corporation is the custodian of park area and it did not show any interest in maintaining the same and allowed the encroachers to encroach upon the said park area despite various efforts being made by the appellants. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants had contended that appropriate orders in the Writ Appeal may be passed by setting aside the orders of learned Single Judge and further to direct the official respondents to ensure that the park area, is not encroached by unofficial respondents.