WRIT PETITION 38982 of 2014 on 20 October 2014

ORDER:

This Writ Petitionisfiled under Article 226 of the Constitutionof Indiaseeking the following relief;-

■Jo issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in thenature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in returning thepetitioner's Building application through an Endorsement vide proceedings B.A.No.70/2014/GI dated o 20.10.2014 is as illegal,arbitrary, high handed and contrary tothe Provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and A.P.BuildingRules, 2012 and consequently direct the3rd respondent to grant building permissionin respect of the petitioner’s site an extent of Ac. 19.044 cents in Sy.No.175/5C1 ofNirmalanandaNagar,Anantapur Town,AnantapurDistrict,by settingasidetheendorsement made by the 3rd respondent under BA.No. 70/20l'4/G1 dated 20.10.2014and also direct the respondents not to include the petitioner's land i.e., an extent ofAc.19.044 cents situated in Sy.No.175/5C1 of Nirmalananda Nagar, Anantapur Town,Anantapur District,in the proposed formation of Central park without acquiring thesame under Land Acquisition Act and pass o such other[order][ or][ orders]asthisHon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances[of the][ case]

2. The petitioneris the absolute owner of thesiteto anextentofAcs.19.044 cents out of a total extent of Acs.0.51 cents in Survey No.175/5C1which was gifted by the petitioner’s brother vide gift deed dated 29.12.2006, whoin turn had purchased the same from his lawful vendor under registered saledeeddated18.08.2001.Thepresentwritpetitionisfiledchallengingtheendorsement dated 20.10.2014 issued by therespondent[which][ states][ that]the proposed site falls in central park area without even considering the gift deeddated 29.12.2006 and as well as link document dated 18.08.2001filed by thepetitioner alongwiththebuildingapplication.After receiving the impugnedendorsement dated 20.10.2014, the petitioner has made an application datedAcs.19.044 cents out of a total extent of Acs.0.51 cents in Survey No.175/5C1which was gifted by the petitioner’s brother vide gift deed dated 29.12.2006, whoin turn had purchased the same from his lawful vendor under registered saledeeddated18.08.2001.Thepresentwritpetitionisfiledchallengingtheendorsement dated 20.10.2014 issued by therespondent[which][ states][ that]the proposed site falls in central park area without even considering the gift deeddated 29.12.2006 and as well as link document dated 18.08.2001filed by thepetitioner alongwiththebuildingapplication.After receiving the impugnedendorsement dated 20.10.2014, the petitioner has made an application dated 06.11.2014 to the 3'^^ respondent requesting to furnish the proposed layout planfor formation of central parkin Sy.No.175/5C/1; pursuanttowhich,therespondent has furnished the plan of proposed formationof centralparkinSy.No. 175/5 and the correspondence of the vendor of thepetitioner’s brothernamely Jeeviteswara Rao who is the original owner of the land in Sy.No. 175/5.

3. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner came to know that thevendor of petitioner’s brother was the absolute owner of the land to an extent ofAcs.1.03 cents in Sy.No.175 which was purchased vide registered sale deeddated 25.07.1957. In the year 1996, the 3"'^ respondent has requested the vendorof the petitioner’s brother to surrender the land to an extent of Acs.0.14 cents outof Acs.1.03 cents for formation of Central Park in Sy.No.175/8. Accordingly, videgift deed dated 19.06.1995, vendor of the petitioner’s brother has surrenderedthe land to an extent of Acs.0.14 cents as therespondent has agreed to allotequivalent site alternatively in Sy.No. 175/3. The grievance of the petitioneris thatasper the plan dated 12.11.2014 furnished by the 3respondent,it is clear thatthe proposal was made by the 3'" respondent corporation for exchange ofpetitioner's plot situated in Sy.No.175/5 for allotting equivalent alternative site inSy.No. 175/6, but the respondents without initiating any acquisition proceedingsnor obtaining consent from the petitioner for land exchange proposal, haveincluded petitioner's site in Sy.No. 175/5 for the proposed formation of centralpark. Hence, the writ petition.

4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 31.12.2014,[this][ Court]

has passed the following interim order:

“...Having regardto thefact that the impugned order[nowhere]indicatesthatthepetitioner’s property is indicated in the notified master plan of Anantapur Town as apark area and merely states that the petitioner’s property[falls][ in][ “central][ park][ area"]without mentioning on what basis the said statement[is][ made,][ there][ shall][ be][ interim]direction as prayed for...

Conclusion

5. The 3'^'^ respondent has filed a detailed counter on[behalf][ of][ all][ the]respondents herein stating that the petitioner has applied for building permissionvide B.A.NO.70/2014/G1 dated 29.09.2014 for constructing building in the land toan extent of 283.48 square meters in Sy.No.175/5C-1[near][ Nirmalananda][ nagar.]The said application was scrutinized as per A.P. Building[rules][ 2012][ and][ other]town planning regulations, subsequent to which it was[found][ that][ the][ petitioner’s]site belongs to the land earmarked to the central park[which][ was][ marked][ in][ the]master plan published vide G.O.Ms.No.1122, MA, dated[13.10.1981.][ The][ said]master plan was revised and a draft was published vide[G.O.Ms.No.733][ MA&UD]dated 25.10.2008, wherein the proposed site of the petitioner remained underpark land. As per the master plan zoning regulations[vide][ G.O.Ms.No.690,][ MA,]dated 02.12.2009, residences are not permittedin environmental/[recreational]zone, as such, endorsement dated 10.10.2014 was issuedto the petitionerstating the reasons for returning the building application,[which]is in accordancewith Section 438 of GHMC Act, 1955. It is further stated that the master plan waspreparedandrevisedforpublicpurposeafter Governmentapprovalviderespondents herein stating that the petitioner has applied for building permissionvide B.A.NO.70/2014/G1 dated 29.09.2014 for constructing building in the land toan extent of 283.48 square meters in Sy.No.175/5C-1[near][ Nirmalananda][ nagar.]The said application was scrutinized as per A.P. Building[rules][ 2012][ and][ other]town planning regulations, subsequent to which it was[found][ that][ the][ petitioner’s]site belongs to the land earmarked to the central park[which][ was][ marked][ in][ the]master plan published vide G.O.Ms.No.1122, MA, dated[13.10.1981.][ The][ said]master plan was revised and a draft was published vide[G.O.Ms.No.733][ MA&UD]dated 25.10.2008, wherein the proposed site of the petitioner remained underpark land. As per the master plan zoning regulations[vide][ G.O.Ms.No.690,][ MA,]dated 02.12.2009, residences are not permittedin environmental/[recreational]zone, as such, endorsement dated 10.10.2014 was issuedto the petitionerstating the reasons for returning the building application,[which]is in accordancewith Section 438 of GHMC Act, 1955. It is further stated that the master plan waspreparedandrevisedforpublicpurposeafter Governmentapprovalvide G.O.Ms.No.433 MA&UDdated 25.10.2008; the petitioner could have filed hisobjections when the said schemewas put up for public opinion, but he did notopt to doSO. The Director of Town and Country Planning in response to theGovernmentmemo dated 05.09.1999 hasiissued a tentative road pattern forcentral park vide letter dated 13.12.1991, whereinindicated as suitable for 3 pockets of landswere acquiring lands of central park by taking over as thereserved open spaces of layouts thatare developed elsewhere in the town. Thepetitioner's site also belongsto the land to beacquired through submissionofreserved open space by the layoutowners, but his site couldnot be acquired byany layout ownertillnow. Hencerequested to dismiss thewrit petition as thepetitioner’s claim that hehas to be grantedpermission to builda residence incentral park is not permissible.

6. Heardlearnedcounselfor thepetitioner,learned GovernmentPleader for Municipal Administrationand Urban DevelopmentandSri. A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counselfor Municipal Administration.counselfor thepetitioner,learned GovernmentPleader for Municipal Administrationand Urban DevelopmentandSri. A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counselfor Municipal Administration.

7. Today when thematter came up for hearing, learned StandingCounsel has produceda copy of instructions of theAssistant City Planner.Municipal Corporation,Ananthapuramu, dated02 01.2025, wherein thecontentsof the counter affidavitwere reiterated and specifically stated thatcurrently, themaster plan vide G.O.Ms.No.39was sanctioned and in the presentcase, thesubject landsare in central park zone and thesurvey of the central parkwasmatter came up for hearing, learned StandingCounsel has produceda copy of instructions of theAssistant City Planner.Municipal Corporation,Ananthapuramu, dated02 01.2025, wherein thecontentsof the counter affidavitwere reiterated and specifically stated thatcurrently, themaster plan vide G.O.Ms.No.39was sanctioned and in the presentcase, thesubject landsare in central park zone and thesurvey of the central parkwas taken up infront of all the applicants and the surrounding[land][ owners. Basing on]the reports submitted by the town surveyor and as per[the][ zoning][ regulations,][ the]plea of the petitioner could not be considered. Hence,[requested][ to][ dismiss][ the]petitiondulytakingintoconsiderationthesanctionedmasterplanofAnanthapuramu Municipal Corporation vide G.O.Ms.No.39,dated06.03.2024and the provisions of HMC Act, 1955 and APAT Act, 1920.

8. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute.It can be seen fromthe counter affidavit that the said application of the petitioner was scrutinized asper A.P. Building rules 2012 and other town planning[regulations,][ subsequent][ to]which it was found that the petitioner’s site belongs[to][ the][ land][ earmarked][ for][ the]central park as marked in the master plan published vide G.O.Ms.No.1122, MA,dated 13.10.1981.It can also be seen that the master plan vide G.O.Ms.No.39was sanctioned and a survey of the central park was[taken][ up][ in][ front of][ all][ the]applicants andthesurroundingland owners.Keepinginviewthereportssubmitted by the town surveyor and as per the zoning[regulations, the][ plea][ of][ the]petitioner and others could not be considered. But,[on a][ perusal][ of][ the][ impugned]endorsement dated 20.10.2014,it can be seen that nowhere[the][ O"'*][ respondent]has specified as to which part of the petitioner’s[property][ in][ Sy.No.175/5C1]isindicated in the notified master plan of Anantapur[Town][ as a][ park][ area.]the counter affidavit that the said application of the petitioner was scrutinized asper A.P. Building rules 2012 and other town planning[regulations,][ subsequent][ to]which it was found that the petitioner’s site belongs[to][ the][ land][ earmarked][ for][ the]central park as marked in the master plan published vide G.O.Ms.No.1122, MA,dated 13.10.1981.It can also be seen that the master plan vide G.O.Ms.No.39was sanctioned and a survey of the central park was[taken][ up][ in][ front of][ all][ the]applicants andthesurroundingland owners.Keepinginviewthereportssubmitted by the town surveyor and as per the zoning[regulations, the][ plea][ of][ the]petitioner and others could not be considered. But,[on a][ perusal][ of][ the][ impugned]endorsement dated 20.10.2014,it can be seen that nowhere[the][ O"'*][ respondent]has specified as to which part of the petitioner’s[property][ in][ Sy.No.175/5C1]isindicated in the notified master plan of Anantapur[Town][ as a][ park][ area.]

9. In view of the same, this Court feelsit appropriate[to][ remand][ the]matter back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration[of][ the][ application][ of][ the]matter back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration[of][ the][ application][ of][ the]

^

/

petitioner as to whether the petitioner’s property in Sy.No.175/5C1is indicated inthe master plan of Anantapur District as park area.

10. Accordingly,thewritpetitionisallowedbysettingasidetheimpugned endorsement dated 20.10.2014 by remandingthematter backtorespondentNo. 3toexamine asto whether thepetitioner’spropertyinSy.No.175/5C1 is indicated in the master plan of Anantapur Districtas park area,The said process shall be completed withina period of two months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this Order. Nocosts.isallowedbysettingasidetheimpugned endorsement dated 20.10.2014 by remandingthematter backtorespondentNo. 3toexamine asto whether thepetitioner’spropertyinSy.No.175/5C1 is indicated in the master plan of Anantapur Districtas park area,The said process shall be completed withina period of two months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this Order. Nocosts.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

To,

*%

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPHASSISTANT R^GI^RARSECTIOFFICER

^ Andhra'^Pr*^HAndhra Pradesh. Secretariat.Municipal Velagapudi. Administration Arnaravati.^Gumur Department Disirict. State of

2. The Director of Town and Country Planning, A.P.. Vijayawada An^nS'Anantapur,

4. One CC to Sri K. Sita Ram, Advocate [OPUC] [OPUC]

5. TwoCCsto GP for Municipal Admnand Urban Development, Highand Urban Development, HighCourt of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

6. One CC to Sri A.S.C. BoseSC for Municipality (OPUC)SC for Municipality (OPUC)

7. Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/01/2025

ORDER

WP.No.38982 of 2014

ALLOWING THE W.P.WITHOUT COSTS

T

CNR

X?n MAT 202!)aa.Current uuciionC9^£espatcw^® ^