'Open Area' in a government approved Layout

Save Share

This query is : Resolved

Quick Summary

A family is disputing the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation's (GHMC) claim over an 'open area' designated in their 1979 government-approved layout. While GHMC issued a tender to build a compound wall, the family argues the space was intended for parking for their adjacent shopping complex and has paid property taxes and utility bills for decades. They have secured an interim stay from the High Court and are seeking guidance on substantiating their claim for a permanent stay, focusing on historical usage and documentation.

Clarifier

Clarifier (Querist)
Follow

26 May 2020 Dear legal experts from CACLUB community

Facts:

A. We have joint family property with 1979 govt approved layout. The layout haS 2 areas earmarked as park areas and one area earmarked as open area. On the layout plan these areas are specifically marked as parks and open area respectively.

B.The purpose of the open area was to facilitate parking, loading and unloading required for the shopping complex ( also belonging to our joint family ) right next to it. This was the specific purpose for which the area was left open.

C. Recently half of the said shopping complex got half demolished due to road widening and the half demolished complex has been lying vacant awaiting repairs, The whole exercise got delayed due to corona lock down. The open space after so many decades for the first time has been lying quiet without being used.

Now suddenly out of the blue to our shocking surprise the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation ( GHMC ) issued a tender to construct a compound wall around the said open space claiming that since it is a open area inside an approved layout it belongs to GHMC.

We have 4 decades of pahani copies showing ownership, a registered partition deed dated 2014 clearly stating the shares of the shopping complex and clearly mentioning that the said open area is jointly owned land which has been set aside for future development. We also have property tax receipts of the last 30 to 40 years, electricity receipts, notices given by GHMC for acquiring half of the shopping for demolition and the compensation cheques.

Note: No notice has been served by GHMC prior to issuing the said tender.

Keeping the above facts in mind please help with your respected expert opinions on the below queries:

1. What is he actual legal position on open areas in a govt approved layout ?

2. Based on the above facts mentioned does the govt any case against us and is there any justice in trying acquire our long held land ?

3. How should we build our case when going for a stay in honourable high court ? What should be our main ground for seeking stay ?

4. Are there any relevant case laws from supreme court or high court which can come to our rescue ?

Thank you and regards.

CA R SEETHARAMAN

CA R SEETHARAMAN (Expert)
Follow

26 May 2020 It is settled principle of law that open spaces in any layout vest in the Municipality.

Clarifier

Clarifier (Querist)
Follow

04 June 2020 Thank you for your reply Seetharaman sir. I agree with your comment. But in our layout made in late 1970s Spaces have been earmarked separately for 2 parks. The open area in question apart from the park areas and is right behind and contigous to the shopping complex mentioned in the original question and it is common knowledge in the area that it was used as parking for the shopping complex for the last 40 years.

1. We have been paying property taxes for the shopping complex for the last 4o to 45 years.
2. Electricity city bills are being paid
3. Water bills paid since from 1978, 1979.
4. The sale deeds of the homes right next to the said open area show this open area as either 'Owner's land' or 'Neighbour's Land'
5. Infact the Shopping complex and the open area used as parking lot are not even supposed to be part of this layout. They were just included their by our ancestors for giving a full picture of the surroundings.

Do the above facts and documentary evidence have no value in the eyes of the honourable court ?

CA R SEETHARAMAN

CA R SEETHARAMAN (Expert)
Follow

04 June 2020 1 It was used as parking for the shopping complex for the last 40 years.
2 The purpose of the open area was to facilitate parking, loading and unloading required for the shopping complex ( also belonging to our joint family ) right next to it. This was the specific purpose for which the area was left open.
3 Infact the Shopping complex and the open area used as parking lot are not even supposed to be part of this layout. They were just included their by our ancestors for giving a full picture of the surroundings.

The above points help you in obtaining stay.

Clarifier

Clarifier (Querist)
Follow

04 June 2020 Thank you Seetharaman sir. I'm assuming you are referring to obtaining an interim stay. You are correct. We have got a interim stay from the honourable high court 2 days back Now come the below questions:

1. The stay might ( we havent seen the actual order yet ) have been given because the due process or show cause notice was not issues before releasing the said tender to build boundary wall for the open space. But will the same facts come to our rescue for obtaining a permanent stay ?

2. To obtainbe a permanent stay what should we substantiate to the court ?

3. What kind of evidence will help our cause ?

4. The fact that this area is contigous to the shopping complex ( proved via photographs and also registered partition deed mentioned in the original question ) backed by 40 to 45 years of title documentation ( property taxes paid, electricity bill payments, pahanis ) will help us clinch a permanent stay ?

Please give your valuable opinion.

CA R SEETHARAMAN

CA R SEETHARAMAN (Expert)
Follow

04 June 2020 Consult a lawyer. Post the query in lawyers club.

You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now