1. This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed in W.P.No.8767 of 2021 dt.17-01-2022 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court had
dismissed the said Writ Petition.
2. Heard Dr. Venkat Reddy Dontireddy, Counsel for the appellant, Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development,
appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri N.Praveen Kumar, Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri V.Narsimha Goud, Standing Counsel for the 3rd
respondent and Sri Srinivasa Rao Velivella, Counsel for 6th respondent.
3. It has been contended by the appellant that the appellant is a Sanskruthi Township represented by its Secretary and the grievance of the appellant is
that the 2nd respondent had issued notice on 01-04-2021 directing the appellants to remove the walls and gates of the appellant township within three
days by giving access to internal roads of the closed township. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the 2nd respondent has issued
impugned notice under Section 185 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 treating the compound wall and gates erected around the township of
the appellant as encroachments.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the appellant township was developed by the 4th respondent and at the time of
allotment of the dwelling units as developed by the 4th respondent, it was clearly demarcated as a gated community and the 4th respondent had
constructed a compound wall all around the appellant township and installed gates in order to regulate the ingress and outgress of the appellant
township.
5. Challenging the impugned notice, the appellant had filed the Writ Petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge had dismissed the said Writ
Petition vide orders dt.17-01-2022. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that all through the appellant township was treated as a gated community and the 2nd respondent
in order to favour the unofficial respondents had issued the impugned notice and directing the appellant township to provide ingress and outgress to the
neighbouring layouts. Therefore, learned counsel had contended that appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal declaring the impugned notice
issued by the 2nd respondent on 01-04-2021 as bad in law and accordingly set aside the same restraining the unofficial respondents from demolishing
the compound wall and removing the gates of the appellant township.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri N.Praveen Kumar,
learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, had contended that the 4th
respondent has requested the 3rd respondent to permit the 4th respondent to make the appellant township as a gated community but the request of the
4th respondent was rejected by the 3rd respondent by proceedings dt.25-04-2011 and the said rejection orders have become final and the 4th
respondent nor the appellant has not challenged the said proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent and in the absence of any proceedings by the
official respondents declaring the appellant township be treated as a gated community, the appellant cannot treat the appellant township as a gated
community and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ
Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 had further contended that as per Rule 23-D of the Telangana Gram Panchayat Land Development
(Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, which deals with Gated Community Development, and sub clause (t) of the said Rules makes it very clear that the
local body retains the right to declare any road as public road in the interest of overall connectivity and network in future. In exercise of its power, the
respondents are taking steps to provide ingress and outgress to the neighbouring layouts approved by the 3rd respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the official respondents had further contended that after developing the appellant township by the 4th respondent, the 4th
respondent had handed over all the roads and public utility places including sub roads to the then Gram Panchayat on 08-12-2010 and all the roads in
the appellant township and public utility places are under the control of Gram Panchayat and appellant township was never treated as a gated
community and in the absence of any proceedings declaring the appellant township as a gated community, the appellant cannot prevent ingress and
outgress to the layouts which are abutting to the appellant township. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent had further contended that the issue raised in the present Writ Appeal is squarely covered by the judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case related to Koganti Venkata Suryanarayana v.State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2018 (3)
ALD 72 (DB), wherein a Division Bench of this Court has finally held as under:
“20. As public roads and open spaces, in sanctioned lay outs belong to the Gram Panchayat under Section 53(1) of the 1994 Act, and as
the 7th respondent, in compliance with the law, has gifted the public roads and open spaces to the 5th respondent-Gram Panchayat, their
action, in constructing compound walls and erecting gates, over these roads in the sanctioned lay out is evidently illegal. The justification
put forth by Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, is that the 7th respondent has been paying huge amounts as house-tax and
profession tax; and the only gate on the southern side, and one of the two gates on the northern side, were erected, as per the advice of the
Police, as a measure of security.
28. The 7th respondent shall, within four weeks from today, remove the encroachments on the public roads and the open spaces in the
sanctioned lay out, which they had earlier gifted in favour of the 5th respondent gram panchayat. In case the 7th respondent fails to do so,
both the 5th respondent Gram Panchayat and the 4th respondent shall have the compound walls raised and the gates erected, over these
public roads in the sanctioned layout removed, and the construction raised in open spaces demolished, within four weeks thereafter.â€
11. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that the official respondents have not issued any
proceedings or order in favour of the appellant declaring the appellant township as a gated community and in the absence of any proceedings or orders
declaring the appellant township as a gated community, the appellant cannot contend that the appellant township will be treated as gated community
and the appellant should be permitted to retain the compound wall along with gates. On the other hand, the request made by the 4th respondent to treat
the appellant township as a gated community was rejected by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dt.25-04-2011 and the said proceedings had
attained finality. The appellant nor the 4th respondent had never questioned the rejection orders dt.25-04-2011 and more over all the roads and public
utility places were handed to the Gram Panchayat and the said Gram Panchayat was upgraded to that of 2nd respondent Municipality. So all the roads
and public utility places of the appellant township are under the control of 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has rightly issued impugned notice
directing the respondents to remove the compound wall and the gates and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by
the appellant township with a specific finding that there is no proceedings or orders in favour of the appellant whereby the appellant township was
treated as a gated community. In the absence of any proceedings in favour of the appellant treating it as a gated community, no direction can be
issued to the respondents to permit the appellant to retain the compound wall and the gates.
12. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
