Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Veterinary Colony Samshema & Abhivrudhi Sangam and two others – Appellants
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.40551 of 2012
Decided on : 31-01-2024
Writ Petition - Alienation of Open Space - A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Building Rules, 1972, Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 - The judgment discusses the legality of the exchange deed executed by the Corporation in favor of the 4th respondent's father, the permissibility of construction in open space reserved in a layout, and the perpetuation of illegality. It also highlights the principles of public trust doctrine, the importance of preserving open spaces, and the prohibition of using reserved land for other purposes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a registered society, sought relief against the alienation of open space in a layout for construction. The 4th respondent's father was allotted the land in exchange for a compensation in lieu of surrendering land for road widening. The petitioners challenged the exchange deed and the construction made on the open space.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the exchange deed and the construction were illegal and contrary to the principles of public trust doctrine. It held that the Corporation, as a trustee, had no jurisdiction to enter into such a transaction and set aside the exchange deed and the construction permission. The Court also allowed restoration of the open space.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the exchange deed, permissibility of construction in reserved open space, perpetuation of illegality, and the jurisdiction of the Corporation in executing the exchange deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Building Rules, 1972, and Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 to establish the illegality of the exchange deed and construction. It also emphasized the public trust doctrine, the importance of preserving open spaces, and the prohibition of using reserved land for other purposes.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, setting aside the exchange deed and the construction permission. The Court directed the restoration of the open space within a specified period.
ORDER :
The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
2. a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that 1st petitioner society is registered under the Societies Registration Act bearing registration No.77 of 2009 and society has been looking after the welfare of residents of Veterinary colony. Various layouts were developed in respect of lands situated in Gunadala area. While obtaining layout, part of the land was earmarked for open spaces, as lung space for the benefit of residents of the said locality. Recently petitioners noticed that in part of open space, construction of a building was started. Petitioners approached the person supervising the construction of building, however, petitioners could not get a proper response. Petitioners approached 3rd respondent, but they could not get proper response about the construction made in layout No.41 of 80.
b) Petitioners approached the 2nd respondent and could not get the copy of layout. Hence, an application under RTI Act was made to 2nd respondent to supply the copy of L.P.No.41 of 80. Accordingly, L.P.No.41 of 80 of Gunadala Gram Panchayat along with letter dated 09.07.2012 was issued. Petitioners found that construction is being made in open space reserved in lay out and immediately approached 3rd respondent. The office of 3rd respondent informed that land was allotted to 4th respondent’s father as compensation in lieu of surrender of affected portion of land to 3rd respondent-Corporation for the purpose of road widening by way of exchange deed. Petitioners approached the office of Sub Registrar, Gunadala and could get the exchange deed dated 12.04.2001 bearing document No.2096 of 2001. Impugning the said action writ petition is filed.
3. On 02.01.2013, while ordering notice, the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo for a period of four weeks. Seems by virtue of order of status quo the 4th respondent did not proceed further with construction of the RCC building.
4. a) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 4th respondent. It was contended, interalia, that father of 4th respondent late Srimannarayana along with Dhulipalla Chittemma, Dhulipalla Ramamohan Rao, Dhulipalla Surya Prakasa Rao, Dhulipalla Srilakshmi and Dhulipalla Naga Prasad are joint owners and possessors of land admeasuring 3011 square yards in NTS No.8 (Part), Block No.1, Revenue Ward No.11, Vijayawada abutting Karl Marx Road, which was called Eluru Road. Out of said extent, 4th respondent family is having 335 square yards. The 3rd respondent-Corporation is in dire need of land to lay the connecting road between Eluru Road and Bundar Road, as per master plan, and requested to transfer the said land to the Corporation. Accordingly, the Corporation agreed to exchange certain unused and open space available in different layouts. So far as 4th respondent’s father is concerned, his father was allotted part of unused open land available in L.P.No.41 of 80 admeasuring 335 square yards in R.S.No.398/3, 398/4 and 399/3 of Gunadala village, Krishna District. The Municipal Corporation passed resolution No.124 dated 29.10.1997. After passing resolution, 3rd respondent-Corporation forwarded the same to 1st respondent for its approval, who, in turn, issued G.O.Ms.No.258 (M.A.) dated 11.05.1998. Later, the Corporation executed a registered exchange deed dated 12.04.2001 in favour of 4th respondent’s father and 5 other family members. Possession was
The judgment establishes the principle that reserved open spaces in layouts cannot be used for any other purpose, emphasizing the public trust doctrine, the importance of preserving open spaces, and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that land reserved for public purpose in a layout cannot be used for any other purpose, and the authorities are obligated to maintain such open spa....
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 inte....
Point of law : Section 46 of Act, it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to provide certain amenities to the public and maintain them, such as construction of schools (clause iii), laying and maintenan....
The conversion of land designated for public purposes, such as parks or playgrounds, to private use is impermissible under the Town and Country Planning Act, emphasizing the local authority's duty to....
Areas reserved as open spaces, parks, or playgrounds in a sanctioned layout cannot be repurposed for commercial or other uses, as they are held in trust for the public and are essential for environme....
Public lands designated for parks cannot be repurposed for commercial use without proper authority and procedural compliance, as dictated by urban planning laws.
Modification of land reserved for public purposes requires valid legal processes, including notification and consultation with affected parties, as determined by relevant sections of the Town Plannin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
