ORDER :

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The petitioner is a firm undertaking the activity of real estate development. It had purchased lands in Sy.Nos.703, 708 to 711 and 720 of Kallur village, Kumool District. With a view to develop the same, it submitted two applications for grant of lay out to the then Gram Panchayat of Kallur village, the 4th respondent herein. On a consideration of the same, the 4th respondent accorded two permissions viz., LP.No.79 of 1982 covering an area of Ac. 14.29 cents and LP.No.576/85 covering an area of Ac.18.19 cents.

2. As per the Rules prevailing at the relevant point of time, 5% of the total area was required to be left towards open space. Accordingly, an extent of Ac.0.71 cents in respect of LP.No.79/82 and Ac.0-95 cents in respect of LP.No.596/85 was required to be left towards open space. Since the lands were held by the same agency and the layouts were abutting each other, the competent authority sanctioning the layouts, had identified both the extents of open space to be carved out, from the land covered by LP.No.576/85. Thereby an extent of Ac.1-66 cents was marked out towards open space for both the layouts.

3. The master plan for the Kallur village is covered by the master plan of the then Kumool Municipality, prepared in the year 1976. According to the master plan, Ac.3-50 cents, which is within LP.No.576/85 was earmarked for public purpose. Out of this, Ac.1-66 cents was already identified as open space for the two layouts referred to above. The balance of Ac. 1-84 cents continued to be treated as the one for public purpose. The petitioner is not permitted to put that portion of the land to any other use.

4. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 5-4-1995, narrating the facts referred to above and requested the Government to dereserve Ac. 1-84 cents of land from public purpose, so as to enable it to put the same to any other use. Correspondence ensued thereon. Respondents 1 and 2 have directed the 4th respondent, to consider the feasibility of acquiring the area, in accordance with the provisions of A.P.Town Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as The Act'). After ascertaining the views of the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent addressed letter dated 15-1-1997 to the 1st respondent. It is to the effect that the compensation is required to be paid for the excess area of Ac. 1-84 cents, and since the 4th respondent has expressed its inability to pay the compensation, the area needs to be dereserved. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent-Kallur Gram Panchayat was merged in the Kurnool Municipal Corporation, the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner complains that despite the recommendation of the 2nd respondent, no action has been taken so far and, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard.

5. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit, narrating the circumstances under which the lay outs came to be granted and as to how the 5% of the lay out area was identified towards open space. It is stated that since the petitioner was granted two separate layouts, 10% open space is required to be earmarked for open space and hardly any area remains after setting apart the 10% of the total area. Respondents 3 and 4 have taken almost the same stand.

6. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had left open space, as required under the Rules then in force, and the question of enhancing the extent from 5% to 10% does not arise. Relying on the provisions in Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to be paid compensation for the land, if the respondents want to treat the area for public purpose. It is also his contention that in case the respondents, particularly respondents 3 and 4, are not willing to pay the market value for the land, respondents 1 and 2 have to deserve the area, enabling the petitioner to put it to proper use.

7. Learned Government Pleaders for Municipal Administration and Panchayat Raj and the St