The main legal point established is that the reservation and preservation of open spaces for public parks and playgrounds is of great public concern and must be protected, as per the legislative intent and statutory requirements.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief:

“to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in seeking to construct Grama Sachivalayam/Secretariat Rythu Bharosa Center Wellness Center in the open space in an extent of 1273.61 square yards earmarked on the south of and abutting plot no.52 in approved layout L.P.No. 37/2006/VJA of VGTM (Vijyawada, Guntur, Tenali and Mangalaglri) Urban Development Authority in R.S. No.179/1 (P), 3 (P), 180/3( P), 4, 181/1 (P) 2, 3, 4 (P) of Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District of petitioner’s layout as arbitrary illegal and without Jurisdiction besides violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being contrary to the Judgment in W.P. No. 1093/2020 dt. 01.05.2020 and another Judgment reported in 1997 (6) ALD P277 of the Hontle High Court of Andhra Pradesh and consequently to direct the respondents not to construct any structures including Grama Sachivalayam/Viliage Secretariat in open space mentioned above and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and others are the absolute owners and possessors of land in an extent of Acs.6.19 cents in Sy.Nos.179/1 (P), 3 (P), 180/3( P), 4, 181/1 (P) 2, 3, 4 (P) of Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District, for which they got a lay out approved for house sites vide L.P.No.37/2006/VJA dated 25.09.2006 by the VGTM (Vijyawada, Guntur, Tenali and Mangalaglri) Urban Development Authority under Section 13 of the A.P.Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. Pursuant to the layout approval conditions, the subject ladout land was demarcated, roads were formed as per norms and left an open space meant for park and children play ground were provided in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Development Authorities Act. While so, the respondent authorities are proposing to construct Grama Sachivalayam, Rytu Bharosa and Wellness center at the subject earmarked open space meant for park, children play ground, etc., without any authority and contrary to law.

i) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per the terms of layout approval, the open space of an extent of 1273.61 square yards in R.S.No.181/3 and 4 of Enikepadu village, which is abutting plot No.52, was alienated in favour of the Gram Panchayat through a registered gift deed along with all the layout roads, as such, the open space as well as the roads in the sanctioned layout are vested with the Gram Panchayat.

ii) It is contended that according to Rule 11(7) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002 and amended G.O.Ms.No.274 dated 12.06.2007, prior to the technical approval from Director of Town and Country Planning, it is mandatory that certain permissions shall be obtained, wherein procedure is enumerated for granting layout approvals in gram panchayats. It is further contended that Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Development (Layout and Sub-Division) Rules, 2017 (for short ‘Rules, 2017) issued vide G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 18.07.2017 made it clear that the lands so transferred to local bodies and panchayats shall not be utilized other than the purpose for which it is earmarked for. In view of the above statutory rules, the respondents – authorities shall not be permitted to convert the layout open space into any other purpose, other than for which it was earmarked. It is contended that as of now, the respondents are proposing to construct Grama Sachivalayam, Rytu Bharosa Kendram and Wellness Centre in the subject open space provided in the sanctioned layout, which is contrary to Rule 13(1) of the Rules, 2017, as well as the law laid down by the Hon’