M.Sudhakara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3521 AP

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

                WRIT PETITION No.12572 of 2021

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in keeping

the application of the petitioners for approval of layout plan in

abeyance by virtue of orders in Rc.No.9890/2015/L5 Dt.21/05/2018

as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and to direct

the 2nd respondent to process and release the layout plan submitted

by the petitioners under application No.2015-LA 0065962702 dated

18.11.2015.

2. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned Counsel for the petitioners and of

Sri V.Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for R2 and Sri

P.Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned

Counsel Sodum Anvesha, for proposed parties/respondents.

3. As per the averments in the affidavit, the impugned orders

dated 21.5.2018, that the lay out permission submitted by the

petitioners of an extent of Ac.10.18cents in Sy.No.28/2, Kommadi

Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District is kept

in abeyance for the reasons that complaints received from one

G.Krishna Rao with the supporting copies of documents and also

interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 13.12.2016 issued in

W.P.MP.No.51669 of 2016 in W.P.No.41915 of 2016 granting of

status-quo in favour of the petitioners therein i.e. G.Srinivasa Rao,

B.Srinivasa Rao and K.Padma of the land to an extent of

Ac.3.90cents in Sy.No.28/2 of Kommadi (V), Visakhapatnam Rural

Mandal.

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

4. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the

owners and possessors of the land in an extent of Ac.10.18cents in

Sy.No.28/2, Kommadi village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District. They have purchased the said land under

registered sale deed dated 17.9.2012. Originally the said land was

assigned infavour Dakavarapu Ramulu, S/o Kannayya under freedom

fighter/political sufferer category vide patta No.346/87. After demise

of original owner, the property had been developed upon the legal

heirs of pattadar. Initially the subject property is included in the

prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

Questioning the said action one Dakavarapu Sankara Rao who is the

owner of the original assignee filed application seeking NOC from the

District Collector on 15.02.2012. After getting the report from the

concerned i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Tahsildar

concerned of Visakhapatnam and after thorough enquiry, the District

Collector has issued orders deleting the subject land from the list of

22-A of Registration Act vide proceedings dated 28.8.2012. Said

orders became final. Subsequently after obtaining NOC from the

concerned District Collector, the said lands were registered in favour

of the petitioners.

5. The petitioners after verifying all the connected records and

proceedings of the revenue officers and District Collector, they have

purchased the said lands by investing huge amount. After purchase,

the petitioners intend to convert land into residential plots by making

a lay out. Accordingly, they have made an application for conversion

of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose by paying

Rs.61,08,000/- to the competent authority i.e. Revenue Divisional

Officer, Visakhapatnam. After making an enquiry, the concerned

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

authority i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam has issued

orders in R.Dis No.13045/2015/SDT(LR)/dt.19.10.2015. Subsequent

to conversion of the land as agriculture to non-agriculture, the

petitioners have made an application on 18.11.2015 to the erstwhile

Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (hereinafter refer to as

VUDA) for approval of lay out filed an application no.2015-LA

0065962702. After receipt of the application made by the

petitioners, VUDA has insisted to get the clarification again from the

District Collector with regard to the status of the land. On the

application made by the petitioners, the District Collector,

Visakhapatnam issued proceedings dated 09.01.2015 confirming the

fact that the land was assigned to Dakavarapu Ramulu under the

category of freedom fighter and also stated that they have deleted

the land from the prohibitory list under section 22-A of the

Registration Act. The same was also submitted to VUDA. Again the

VUDA has raised an objection that the land was not in residential

zone. The same was under recreation zone as per the master plan

and accordingly, to get the classification of land usage in the master

plan for processing the lay out. Accordingly, the GVMC has

processed the application for change of classification of the land from

recreation to residential zone. Initially, the Government who is the

competent to change the classification of zone issued approved

notification amending the master plan in respect of the property of

the petitioners by calling objections from the public. For non-

receiving the objections, with regard to change of classification, the

Government has passed through G.O.Ms.No.236 MAUD Department

dated 05.10.2016 changing the land usage to residential. As directed

by the Government, the petitioners have also paid an amount of

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

Rs.52,07,540/- towards fee for land conversion. After that the VUDA

has processed the application made by the petitioners for grant of

permission and also directed the petitioners to mortgage 15% of the

plotted area of lay out land by way of a registered deed of mortgage

and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.14,37,495/- towards

balance development charges. Accordingly, the petitioners have paid

an amount of Rs.14,37,495/- and mortgaged 15% plotted area

through document no.305/2017 on 27.01.2017 and produced

indemnity bond. Despite compliance made by the petitioner, the

VUDA has not processed and released the approved lay out plan.

Questioning the inaction, the petitioners have filed the writ petition

no.9768 of 2018 and at the admission stage the same was disposed

of with a direction to VUDA to consider the petitioners application for

grant of lay out within a period of four (04) weeks vide orders dated

23.3.2018. Pursuant to the above said directions of the High Court,

the VUDA has passed the impugned orders on 21.5.2018 stating that

the application for approval is kept in abeyance. Though the said

orders were passed on 21.5.2018 but the same were not

communicated to the petitioners till recent past. After efforts made

by the petitioners, he could be able to secure the orders. Hence the

present writ petition.

6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has

submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the provisions of

the Act. 2nd respondent has no authority to keep the application

pending or keep the application under abeyance as per the provisions

of the Act, the authorities can only grant permission for lay out or

can reject the same. But there is no provision for keeping the

application pending for long time. Apart from that though

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

compliance is made by the petitioners, the authorities cannot keep

the application pending or abeyance for irrelevant reasons. Further

in the impugned orders the authorities have mentioned about the

writ petition no.41915 of 2016 for a extent of Ac.7.08cents in

Sy.No.28/2 & 28/3 of Kommadi (V) seeking direction not to include

their lands in the land pooling scheme. Though, initially the interim

direction of status-quo is granted but subsequently, the same was

disposed of directing not to dispossess the petitioner without

following due process of law. The interim orders were merged with

the final orders dated 03.7.2018. Hence there are no directions

against the respondents for keeping the application under abeyance.

As far as the other writ petitions are concerned filed by one G.Padma

for the following prayer:

W.P.No.11248 of 2016:

...to issue a writ or direction or order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned sale proceedings D Dis No.470/2012/E1 dt.28.8.2012 of the 1st respondent as well as Gazette Notification No.29/2016 dt.29.01.2016 Rc.No.3795/2007/D1 dt.29.01.2016 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as Sl.No.65 in Category III showing the lands of the petitioner erroneously allotted and set aside the same as contrary to law violative of the principles of natural justice contrary to Articles 14 16 21 of the Constitution of India official bias mala fide and non application of mind in the interest of justice and consequently direct the respondents to delete the wrong entries in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac.3.90cents in Sy.No.28/2 and Ac.3.18cents in Sy.No.28/3 of Kommadi village, Visakhapatnam by incorporating the name of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

W.P.No.26875 of 2009:

...issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent herein in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 18.11.2009 with reference to the deletion of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.90cents in Sy.No.28/2 of Kommadi villge Maduravada registration Sub District Visakhapatnam rural Mandal from the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.581 Revenue Registration dated 4 5 2005 published in the AP Gazette parti extraordinary no.360 dated 31 5 2005 as illegal arbitrary and further direct the 1st respondent herein to consider the said representation forthwith and delete the said entry from the aforesaid notification.

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

The said writ petitions are nothing to do with the present

subject matter. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the

bonafide purchasers and after verification of the revenue records and

subsequent to purchase, they have made an application for lay out

permission as per the provisions of the Act, and accordingly, they got

the land converted from agriculture to commercial use by paying

huge amount to the State and also as per the objections raised by

VUDA, they have made an application for change/conversion of zone

from recreation to residential by paying nearly sixty lakhs. After

producing relevant documents requested by the VUDA, finally, the

application was processed as per the provisions of the Act and

directed the petitioners to pay the amounts of Rs.14,37,495/- and

also to register the mortgage deed of 15% plotted area. The

petitioners have complied the other requirements/directions through

document no.305/2017 dated 27.01.2017.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that

the other grounds which are raised are that the subject properties

are included in the Special Investigation Team (for short SIT) for

enquiry. Hence they could not be able to process the application is

totally non-application of mind. Even according to the impugned

orders they have stated that as per the articles published in the

newspaper they came to know about the exclusion of these lands in

the SIT for enquiry. No doubt that SIT is not a statutory authority to

exercise any powers under the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region

and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to

be as Act, 2016) and hence the SIT has no role to play for

compliance of the provisions of the Act 2016 and accordingly, the

stand taken by the respondents is not at all supported by the

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

provisions of the Act for grant of lay out permission to the

petitioners.

8. To support his contention, the petitioner has relied on Section

84 (1)(2)(4), Section 114(1)(2)(3) and Section 142 (a)(b) of the Act,

2016.

84. Application for development permission -

(1) Any person or body intending to carry out any development of land for the purpose of layout or for sub-division into plots or for construction, reconstruction, addition or alteration of any building shall apply in writing to the Metropolitan Commissioner / Vice-Chairperson for Development Permission in such form and containing such particulars and accompanied by such plans, documents, ownership documents for the land or plot and on payment of fees and charges as prescribed under the Act in addition to statutory provisions made under the respective Acts of the Local Authorities; (2) On receipt of the application for Development Permission under sub-section (1), the Metropolitan Commissioner / Vice-Chairperson, after making such enquiry as consider it necessary in relation to any matter concerning the Perspective Plan or Master Plan or Infrastructure Development Plan or Area Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan or Development Scheme, Layout Regulations, Development Promotion Regulations, aesthetics, architectural and urban design control briefs, landscaping stipulations or in relation to any other matter, may issue a Development Permission Order either:-

(a) granting permission unconditionally or

(b) granting permission subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary or

(c) refuse permission citing the grounds of such refusal which shall be recorded in writing in the order.

(4) If within sixty days after the receipt of such application made under this section for Development Permission for layout or such similar land development scheme or construction of building or of any information or further information required, the Metropolitan Commissioner/Vice-Chairperson has neither granted or refused permission, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted and the applicant after intimating the Metropolitan Commissioner / Vice-Chairperson in writing, may proceed to carry out the development but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of the Act or plans or schemes or any rules or regulations made under the Act.

114. Effect of other laws -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920 (Act.No.7 of 1920) or the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, (Act. No. 6 0f 1965) or the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (Act.No.1 of 1975) or Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Act, 1979 (Act. No. 19 of 1979) or Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act,

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

1981 (Act. No. 23 of 1981) or Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994; (Act. No. 25 of 1994) the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act. No. 13 of 1994) or any other law, the provisions of the Act shall have an over-riding effect over all such laws.

(2) Any development permission, No Objection Certificate or other clearance given under the Act shall be construed as from the planned development point of view and shall in no way either confer the ownership rights or affect the ownership under the land revenue laws. The Authority shall stand absolved of any ownership disputes or discrepancies.

(3) Once development permission is given, the right to develop the land in that way can be exercised by anyone acquiring and occupying the land. It is not restricted to the person making the application unless a specific condition is incorporated in the grant of the Development Permission.

142. Repealing of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (Act No 1 of 1975) and savings -

(a) After dissolution of the former Authority under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (Act 1 of 1975) and after constitution of the new Authority under the provisions of this Act, the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (Act 1 of 1975) stands repealed.

(b) Anything done or any action taken (including any appointment, delegation, notification, order, scheme, permission, rule, byelaw, regulation or form made or granted or issued) under any provision of the aforesaid Act, shall so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force and be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of this Act unless and until it is superseded by anything done or any action taken under the said provisions.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after

submitting all the relevant documents, the authorities cannot

withhold the lay out permission. Infact as per section 114 of the Act

2016, this Act has overriding effect over all such laws. According to

the provisions of the Act, once the development permission is given

right to develop the land in that way can be exercised by any one

acquiring and occupying the land. It is not restricted to the person

making the application unless a specific condition is incorporated in

the grant of the development permission. When a permission for

development in respect of any land or building or institution of use or

change of use of any land or building has been obtained under the

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

Act, such development shall not be deemed to be unlawfully

undertaken or carried out by reasons only of the fact that permission,

approval or sanction required under such other law for such

development has not been obtained. As per section 114(2) of the Act

2016, the authorities shall stand absolved of any ownership disputes

or discrepancies.

10. Learned Counsel further submitted that the respondents have

no authority under Section 84 (1) & (2) of the Act. According to sub-

section 2 of section 84 of the Act has clarifies that the authorities can

grant permission unconditionally and grant permission subject to

certain conditions or refuse permission citing the grounds for such

refusal. There is a time limit prescribed under sub-section 4 of

section 84 of the Act 2016 that within 60 days after receipt of such

application made under the provisions of the Act has neither granted

nor refused such permission shall be deemed to have been granted.

In view of the sub-section 4 of Section 84 of the Act 2016, that if the

authorities has not disposed of the application made for lay out

permission, if such application has not disposed of, one should have

construed that it is a deemed permission. But in the instant case,

the authorities have passed an order pursuant to the directions of

this Court keeping the application under abeyance, such power has

not been granted by the Act 2016 to the respondents. Hence the

counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders

are contrary to Section 84 of the Act 2016.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that

on combined reading of section 84(2) and (4) of the Act 2016

manifestly declares that the Commissioner after making such enquiry

has consider it necessary in relation to the matters concerning the

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

perspective plan or master plan or infrastructure development plan or

area development plan or zonal development plan or development

scheme, lay out regulations can grant permission unconditionally or

with certain conditions or refuse permission citing the grounds, that

to within 60 days of receipt of the application. In the instant case

after filing an application by the petitioners on 17.9.2012, the

Commissioner has made an enquiry and directed the petitioners to

submit NOC/clearance certificate from the concerned revenue

officials. Accordingly, they have secured and produced the Collector's

certificate on 09.01.2015. As per the queries, the petitioners had

submitted a zonal conversion certificate from the Government and

also made the payments and registered 15% developed plots to the

respondents. After compliance of the conditions of the respondents,

the respondent authorities cannot with hold the lay out permission by

putting the same under abeyance just because of the complaint

made by third parties that to without having any substance.

12. Learned Counsel has further contended that even as per

Section 114(2) of the Act 2016, the authorities have no right to

decide the ownership of the land and they cannot make any roving

enquiry. In fact the said issue was settled by the High Courts and

Apex Court in several matters. To support his contention he relied on

the latest judgment of the Division bench of Telangana High Court in

A.Shalivahana Reddy vs. Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation and Others1. In the said judgment the learned Judge

has relied on the judgment reported in K.Pavan Raj v. The

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad held as follows:

) 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1569

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

"If the applications for building permissions are rejected merely on the ground of third parties raising disputes of title, that may result in serious hardship to the owners of the properties where frivolous, speculative and vexatious claims may be made by third parties by setting up title".

13. In fact in the said matter, the Court has decided that the

Commissioner cannot decide the title dispute because that is not one

of the duties assigned to him and he is not provided with any

adjudicatory mechanism.

In Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited vs. Collector,

Hyderabad the Court held as follows:

Of course, the Commissioner has to consider the objections, if any, raised for grant of permission. But, an objection raised by a member of the Committee itself would not be enough to reject the application for grant of permission. The Commissioner is required to make pragmatic assessment of the material available on record and decide the question of prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicants. The applications for grant of permission cannot be rejected solely on the basis of TSLR entries. After all, the decision to grant permission itself would not confer any title upon the applicant, nor it would take away the rights of the objector (s), whether the Government or any individual, for asserting their right, title and interest in the land in respect of which permission has been granted and dispute the title in any manner known to law. Similarly, the Commissioner is not entitled to decide any disputed questions of title or the ownership. All that the Commissioner required to do is to find out prima facie title and lawful possession of the applicant and obviously such consideration is confined to only for the purposes of granting permission and nothing more.

In view of the above findings, it is clear that the respondents

are not entitled to make roving enquiry with regard to the title of the

petitioners.

14. In fact in the instant case, the petitioners are bonafide

purchasers and after obtaining the NOC from the District Collector as

per the revenue laws, the petitioners can be registered and made an

application for lay out permission and in fact as directed by the

respondents, the petitioners have also obtained certificate from the

District Collector in 2015 which clearly establishes that the petitioners

are absolute owners of the property and there are no allegations or

disputes against the petitioners. There is no material showing that

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

the land of the petitioners was also included in the SIT. The SIT is

not a statutory authority and special investigation is made only with

regard to certain incidents happened in a particular place of

investigation is ordered and in fact the same was even according to

the version of the respondents, the said investigation is completed

long back and report also submitted to the Government. But so far

no action has been initiated basing on the report submitted by the

SIT and there is no clear evidence that so far no enquiry has been

conducted by the SIT with regard to the subject land. The petitioners

were not enquired about the SIT at any point of time and hence the

statement made in the impugned order with regard to the pendency

of the SIT is also not a case of denial of lay out permission to the

petitioners.

15. After notice the 2nd respondent has filed counter and they have

been reiterated the contents in the impugned order. Apart from that

they have further submitted that the jurisdiction for granting lay out

within the city of Visakhapatnam is vested with the Greater

Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (for short GVMC). By virtue of

G.O.Ms.No.443 MAUD Department dated 18.12.2017, the GVMC is

competent authority for approval of layout. Hence, the petitioners

are duty bound to apply for lay out approval online to the GVMC and

as per section 24 of the Act 2016 if there is a disputed claim to the

ownership of any piece of land included in the development scheme

area in respect of which a declaration of intention to make a

development scheme has been made and any entry in the record of

rights or mutation relevant to such disputed claim is inaccurate or

inconclusive, an enquiry may be held by an Officer appointed by the

Government in case of any development scheme in the manner as

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

prescribed or the Planning Officer in case of a Town Planning

Scheme, at any time before the final allotment of the reconstituted

plot/land for the purposes of deciding as to who shall be deemed to

be the owner for the purposes of the Act and pass orders under his

seal and signature and such decision shall not be subject to appeal

but it shall not operate as a bar to a regular suit in a Court of

competent jurisdiction. In view of the same, the dispute of

ownership is existing, the authorities cannot pass orders or cannot

grant permission for lay out. In view of the same, in the instant

case, if the petitioners, by virtue of the delegation of powers as per

G.O.Ms.No.443 dated 18.12.2017, at the best the petitioners can

approach the GVMC for grant of permissions.

16. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy appeared on behalf

of the proposed respondent. According to the averments made in the

affidavit filed along with implead petition that an extent of

Ac.3.18cents in Sy.No.28/3 of Kommadi Village of Visakhapatnam

District belongs to one G.Srinivasarao, S/o Suryanarayana. Similarly

the abutting land to the above said land admeasuring Ac.3.90cents in

Sy.No.28/2 of same village belongs to B.Srinivasarao, S/o

Gurumurthy. On account of their personal and family necessities in

the year 1998, both the owners obtained loan from the father of the

proposed respondent no.3 and created mortgage over the entire land

by delivery of possession. The proposed respondent no.3 succeeded

to the property after the death of her father on 13.5.2004 being the

one surviving legal heir. Both the land owners by an affidavit dated

26.8.2009 and 11.9.2009 reiterated and acknowledged the debt

under mortgage and expressed their ready and willingness to execute

a regular registered sale deed in favour of the proposed respondent

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

no.3. In view of the same, the proposed respondent is in continuous

possession and enjoyment of the same.

17. He further submitted that the proposed respondent no.3 has

filed W.P.No.26875 of 2009 before the High Court questioning the in

action of the revenue authorities representation dated 18.11.2009

with a reference to the deletion of land measuring in Sy.No.28/2 from

notification under G.O.Ms.No.581 Revenue Registration dated

14.5.2005 published in A.P.Gazette Part I Extraordinary No.360

dated 31.5.2005 and the said writ petition is still pending. Further

submitted that when such writ petition is pending, it came to the

knowledge of the petitioners vide District Collector's proceedings

dated 28.8.2012 that as observed that the land in Sy.No.28/2 in an

extent of Ac.10.18cents was assigned to the freedom fighter by name

Dakavarapu Ramulu and his son Dakavarapu Sankara Rao is free to

sell away the assigned land as there is no restriction of non-

alienation on the land assigned to freedom fighter, ordered for

deletion of the said land from the list of prohibitory lands for

registration under Registration Act. Questioning the said

proceedings, the proposed respondents have filed W.P.No.11248 of

2016 and the same is pending for adjudication before this Court.

Subsequently, she also made an application for inclusion of her name

in revenue records in respect of the lands in an extent of

Ac.3.90cents in Sy.No.28/2 and Ac.3.18cents in Sy.No.28/3 of

Kommadi village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and District and the

same was rejected by an endorsement number RMU011801398733

and the same was challenged in W.P.No.46947 of 2018 before this

Court and the same is pending adjudication. In view of the pending

litigation, with regard to title, he made a petition before the

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

respondent authorities for not to grant any permission to the

petitioners. Hence he is the rightful owner of the subject property.

Hence he requested to dismiss the writ petition till finalization of the

litigation pending before this Court and requested to post this matter

along with the pending writ petition.

18. Considering the submissions made by all the counsel and on

perusal of the record, the respondent no.2 has passed the impugned

order on the ground that the complaint made by one G.Krishna Rao

on 01.02.2017 to the District Collector and Vice-Chairman, VUDA

alleging land in an extent of Ac.10.18cents in Sy.No.28/2 of Kommadi

Village, Visakhapatnam Rural was Government land and the lay out

developers played fraud by creating fake documents as if the said

Government land as originally assigned to Dakavarapu Ramulu under

freedom fighter category and with the connivance of the revenue

authorities, the said land was thereafter de-notified under section 22-

A of the Registration Act and got transferred and also on the other

ground that when there is an interim direction of maintaining status-

quo in W.P.No.41915 of 2016 filed by one G.Srinivasarao,

B.Srinivasarao and K.Padma. It is not in dispute that the petitioners

are purchasers through a registered sale deed by paying huge

amount. Even before the registration of the land in favour of the

petitioners, the vendor assignee has obtained no objection certificate

from the District Collector and the subject land was deleted from the

prohibitory list under section 22-A of the Registration Act.

Subsequent to purchase, they made an application for grant of

permission for lay out approval and consequently, the respondent

authorities have directed the petitioners to get the clearance

certificate from the revenue authorities and also certificate of

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

conversion of land from the competent authorities. Accordingly, by

investing huge amount, he got converted the land from agriculture to

commercial and also he has obtained clearance certificate from the

District Collector on 18.11.2015. Subsequently on the directions of

the respondents, the petitioners have also made an application for

change of zone from recreation to residential by paying fifty two

lakhs and after thorough enquiry, the Government has issued

G.O.Ms.No.236 MAUD Department dated 05.10.2016 changing the

land from recreation to residential. Even after getting zonal

conversion, the respondents have directed the petitioners for

payment of balance developmental charges and accordingly, they

have paid Rs.14,37,495/- and also mortgaged 15% plotted area

through document no.305/2017 dated 27.01.2017 and produced

indemnity bonds to the respondents.

19. But surprisingly on perusal of the impugned orders, it clearly

establishes that the authorities have not made any enquiry with

regard to the complaint made by one G.Krishna Rao. Just basing on

the assertions made in the complaint and also basing on the order of

status-quo granted by this Court with regard to subject land they

have passed the impugned orders. When the petitioners have

submitted all the relevant documents and made all compliances as

directed by the respondents, when any complaint is received with

regard to subject land, the authorities ought to have made a

preliminary enquiry before getting the application pending or kept in

abeyance. On reading of section 84(2) of the Act, 2016, the

authorities cannot or could not kept the application pending for a long

time and they should have decide the application within 60 days from

the date of receipt of the application. If the authorities have not

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

passed any order under section 84(2) of the Act, 2016, it presumed

that it is a deemed permission under section 84(4) of the Act, 2016.

20. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the

order of status-quo is passed in W.P.No.41915 of 2016 has merged

into the final orders and in view of the same, there is no status-quo

orders with regard to the land in Sy.No.228/2 of Kommadi Village.

21. As per the observations made in the petition filed by the 3rd

respondent shows that there is no valid document or title in favour of

them. In fact they themselves have stated that they have filed an

application before the revenue authorities for inclusion of their names

in the revenue records and the same has been rejected by the

revenue authorities. This itself shows that the private parties have

not established their right over the properties, except saying that

they have filed multiple writ petitions and the same were pending

before this Court. Just because pendency of the writ petitions filed

by the proposed respondents, the authorities cannot be debarred for

granting of lay out permission and in fact as per the provisions of the

Act and also the decision relied on by the petitioner, it clearly

establishes that the respondent authorities are not entitled to make

any roving enquiry with regard to the ownership or title of the

properties. In fact the very dispute in this writ petition is with regard

to granting of lay out permission not for deciding the title in favour of

the petitioners. If at all the respondents more specifically the

proposed respondents have any disputes with regard to the title, they

are entitled to approach before the competent civil court.

22. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated

21.5.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent is contrary to the provisions

of the Act,2016 more specifically section 114(2) and section 84(2) of

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

the Act 2016. Accordingly, the same is set aside and directed the

respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the

application made by the petitioners for grant of lay out permission as

per section 84(2)(4) of Act 2016 within a period of 60 days. As

contended by the 2nd respondent that powers are delegated to the

GVMC, the 2nd respondent cannot direct the petitioners to approach

the GVMC as per G.O.Ms.No.433. When they have made an

application for change of classification of the land and the same was

processed by the 2nd respondent in the place of VUDA, now they

cannot delegate the same to the other authority.

23. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no

order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Date: 15.9.2021 RD

DR,J W.P.No.12572 of 2021

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.12572 of 2021

Dated .9.2021

RD