ORDER :-Heard Sri P. Srinivas, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, Sri P. Radha Krishna, learned Standing Counsel representing the 1st respondent Municipality, and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, representing the respondents 2 to 4.

2. Sri P. Srinivas, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the respective stands taken by the parties and would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also pointed out to an order passed by this Court in WP No.8891 of 2001 and would contend that in the light of the stand taken by the 1st respondent Municipality in the said writ petition, contrary stand cannot be taken in the present writ petition. The learned Counsel also would submit that unnecessarily the writ petitioner was driven to unconcerned authorities and because of certain orders made in this regard, the writ petitioner is landed into the present situation. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is prepared to specifically show his land on ground for the purpose of satisfying the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality or his Staff and on being satisfied, let the 1st respondent-Municipality to consider the granting of building permission to the petitioner in accordance with law.

3. Sri P. Radha Krishna, learned Standing Counsel representing the 1st respondent-Municipality would contend that in the light of the stand taken by the respondents 2, 3 and 4 in the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent-Municipality has only limited say in the matter. The learned Counsel also would contend that in the light of the facts and circumstances, if the petitioner is able to demarcate the land on ground in presence of the concerned officers of the 1st respondent-Municipality, and on being satisfied the 1st respondent Municipality has no objection to consider the application of the petitioner to accord building permission in accordance with law.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, representing the respondents 2 to 4, had taken this Court through the averments made in Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit and would submit that in the light of the same unless the impugned order is complied within letter and spirit, nothing further can be done in the matter.

5. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances declaring the orders of the 4th respondent, vide Endt. No.60/2003/WRO/W3, dated 28.1.2004, as void being arbitrary and illegal in the interest of justice, as otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury, and consequently to direct the respondents to determine the location of the plots, as per sanctioned layout in the Survey Nos.208 and 209 that are already demarcated by the Mandal Surveyor.

6. The order impugned aforesaid dated 28.1.2004 reads as hereunder:

"Government of Andhra Pradesh

Office of the Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Warangal.

ENDORSEMENT

Endt.No.60/2003/WRO/W3, Dated 28.1.2004

Sub: Warangal Region - Mancherial Municipality - W.P. No.8891/2001 of A.P. High Court - Director of Town and Country Planning, A.P., Hyderabad made respondent No.2 by Sri K. Venugopal Swamy Reddy, Mancherial - Reg.

Ref: 1. Lr.Roc.No.512/G1/2003, dated 10.8.2003 of the Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality addressed to this office and copy to you.

2. Your representation dated 26.9.2003 received on 19.1.2004.

xxxx

With reference to your letter 2nd cited, I request you to demarcate the land on ground within a week and intimate to the Municipal Commissioner, Mancherial with a copy to this office. Otherwise, the same intimation will be informed to the Honourable High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through Assistant Government Pleader for taking further action in the matter.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document