Madhuranagar Cooperative ... vs The State Of Ap
2023 Latest Caselaw 4490 AP

                          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH


MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.25129 of 2023

                       PROCEEDING SHEET

                                                                                  OFFIC
Sl.
        DATE                                   ORDER                                E
No.
                                                                                  NOTE.

01.   25.09.2023   RC,J
                                 W.P.No.25129 of 2023


                          Notice before admission.
                          Learned Government Pleader for Municipal
                   Administration takes notice for R1.
                          Learned Government Pleader for Revenue takes
                   notice for R2.
                          Sri    V.R.Reddy      Kovvuri,   learned    Standing
                   Counsel takes notice for R3 and R5.
                          Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel
                   takes notice for R4.
                          Post on 03.10.2023 in the motion list.
                                                                     ________
                                                                        RC, J
                                 I.A.N0.01/2023
                          1.      Heard.
                          2.     Smt Tara Sujatha, learned counsel for the
                   petitioner contended that, the petitioner's registered
                   Society has purchased land in S.Y.No.200/3 for the
                   purpose of providing house sites for its members and
                   accordingly      obtained   approved    layout    from   the
                   Director of the Town planning, Hyderabad and in the
                   said layout, certain portion of land was earmarked for
                   establishment of park, temple etc,. for its members,
                   but without any right or authority, the respondent

authorities are trying to erect substation highhandedly contrary to the settled principles of law. She further submitted that, time and again, the constitutional courts have categorically held that, in any layout if particular land is earmarked for park, that cannot be used for any other purpose and to protect the lungspace of the inhabitants, it should be maintained as it is and also relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Bangalore Medical Trust Vs B.S.Muddapa and others. She further submitted that, contrary to the above principle, if the said substation is erected in the lungspace, it affects the rights of the members of the society. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

On the other hand, Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing counsel sought time to get instructions.

Prima facie, a point is made out for consideration. There is some force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, if the said substation is erected in the lungspace, it affects the rights of the members of the society, as such, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:

The respondent authorities are directed not to erect any substation in the petitioners lay out L.P.No.679/1984 in Sy.No.200/3, pending further orders.

________ RC, J BRS