RAGHAVENDRA COLONY WELFARE SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 to 6 over the representations of the petitioner society and its plot owners in permanently protecting or restoring the 30 feet wide existing common public road in between Ragavendra Colony situated in Survey No.181/P and the land in Survey Nos.182, 183/P, 184, 185, 187, 188, 189/1 and 189/2 of respondents 7 to 12 situated at Puppalaguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and in not removing the barricades and metal sheets which are illegally erected by respondents 7 to 12 in the middle of 30 feet wide existing public road, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner society was registered before the Registrar of Societies, Ranga Reddy District vide Registration No.1743 of 2014 dt.20/12/2014 for the welfare of the plots and their owners situated in Survey No.181/part. It is submitted that the said survey number admeasuring Ac.4.20 gts., situated at Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal (old), now in Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was made into 61 plots and the vendors had obtained layout approval from the then Gram Panchayat, Puppalaguda on 8/1/1992 by leaving separate road of 30 feet wide common public road on Northern side of the layout being the main approach road for the purpose of ingress and egress to all the plot owners of the petitioner society and also to the adjacent land owners. The Gram Panchayat, Puppalaguda sanctioned the layout on 8/1/1992 declaring the 30 feet wide common public road in between Ragavendrapuram Housing Colony in Survey No.181/part and the land in Survey Nos.182, 183/P, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189/1 and 189/2 of Puppalaguda Village by taking 15 feet road each from both sides of the lands for the purpose of common public use and according to the petitioner, the said road is existing from the past 30 years and both, the residents of the petitioner society, as well as, the land owners of the adjacent land owners are using the same as common road. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 had also erected electrical poles, transformers and laid drainage and water pipelines along the 30 feet wide public road on Northern side of the petitioner society layout for the purpose of providing amenities to the residents of the colony. LRS proceedings from HMDA and Manikonda Municipality were also issued confirming the existence of 30 feet wide common public road on their Northern side facing which the main road of the colony is existing. It is submitted that respondent No.12 claiming to be the Development Agreement Holder-cum-GPA Holder with respondents 7 to 11 who are the original landlords, highhandedly and illegally, interfered on 20/11/2019 into the common public road, disturbed the pipelines of the drainage and water and obstructed the thorough passage by illegally erecting the barricades with metal sheets encroaching into the entire 30 feet wide common public road covering electrical poles and transformers meant for the residents of Ragavendra colony. The petitioner society, therefore made a complaint to the police on 20/11/2019 which is registered as Crime No.796 of 2019 dt.20/11/2019 against respondent No.12 management. Thereafter, the petitioner society has made a representation to respondent No.4 on 30/11/2019 for protecting the 30 feet wide common public road. Since no action has been taken by the respondents on representations of the petitioner, this Writ Petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Bala Subramanyam, reiterated the above submissions and has drawn the attention of this Court to various representations made by the petitioner and has also drawn the attention of this Court to page No.82 of the writ papers, wherein a copy of the unapproved layout of the petitioner society is filed to show the existence of 30 feet wide road on its Northern side. He has also filed copies of photographs of erection of tin sheets by respondent No.12 in the middle of the alleged 30 feet road. He submitted that the petitioner and the owners of the land, i.e., the vendors of the petitioner as well as the vendors of respondent No.12 had agreed to leave 15 feet wide road on Northern and Southern side of each other's property to provide for 30 feet road and respondent No.12 in violation of the said agreement is trying to encroach the 30 feet road thereby causing severe inconvenience and injustice to the residents of the petitioner society.