Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
V.Jayaram, S/o V.Rajaram Mohan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.9544 of 2023
Decided on : 31-01-2024
Writ Petition - In Principle Layout Pattern - G.O.Ms.No.10, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M) Department, dated 08.01.2020 - Summary of Acts and Sections: G.O.Ms.No.10, Andhra Pradesh Regularization of Unapproved Layout and Plot Rules, 2020, Section 44-A of the Andhra Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1920, Section 585 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, Section 326 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act 1965, Section 18 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 and Section 116 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 - The court discussed the violation of principles of natural justice, the exercise of suo moto jurisdiction, and the misuse of powers by the authorities in recommending and approving the In Principle Layout Pattern (IPLP) beyond the prescribed time, leading to the decision to set aside the IPLP.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 4th respondent in issuing an In Principle Layout Pattern (IPLP) as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the rules. The petitioners owned vacant land, and the 5th respondent applied for building permission, leading to a series of representations, court orders, and subsequent cancellation of building permission. The 4th respondent recommended and approved IPLP, leading to objections from the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recommendation and approval of IPLP by the 4th respondent were in violation of principles of natural justice and beyond the prescribed time, constituting a colorable exercise of power. The court also noted the failure to consider the objections objectively and set aside the IPLP.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the recommendation and approval of IPLP, compliance with the prescribed time, and the consideration of objections, leading to the violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the misuse of powers by the authorities in recommending and approving IPLP beyond the prescribed time, the violation of principles of natural justice, and the failure to consider objections objectively.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, setting aside the IPLP, and costs were imposed on the 4th respondent personally.
ORDER :
The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
2. a) Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioners are the absolute owners of vacant land of an extent of Ac.0-28½ cents in the southern part of S.No.727/1 of Moolasagaram Village, Nandyal Municipality, Nandyal Mandal, Nandyal District. The petitioners purchased property under three different sale deeds. The 5th Respondent, represented by its Managing Director filed an application before the 3rd respondent to construct a residential apartment in the name and style of “Sree Padmavathi Arcade” in land admeasuring 2322.9 square meters, in S.No.727/1P and 731/P in Nandyal Municipality. It seems 5th respondent applied for building permission by showing part of petitioners’ land i.e. 12 meters as public road in S.No.727/1 and hence, 1st petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 14.12.2020 to the 3rd respondent-Kurnool Urban Development Authority (KUDA) and the 4th respondent-Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality. Another representation dated 12.02.2021 was made to respondents 3 and 4. The 3rd respondent approved the building permission vide No.1017/0425/B/Nan/SN/2020 dated 25.02.2021.
b) On coming to know about building permission, another representation dated 01.03.2021 was made to respondents 2 to 4. W.P.No.7332 of 2021 was filed seeking revocation of building permission granted in favour of 5th respondent. The 2nd petitioner filed W.P.No.7276 of 2021 to direct the Director of Town & Country Planning to lay road on the triangular portion of the subject property gifted by Poola Rajasekhar to Nandyal Municipality in accordance with the Layout plan bearing T.P.No.20/1980. By common order dated 21.10.2022, the above writ petitions were disposed of and the building permission granted in favour of 5th respondent was suspended and the Court directed the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on the basis of sketch map filed before the Court.
c) After disposal of writ petitions, the 3rd respondent issued a draft master plan dated 03.12.2022, in which 9 meters road was proposal in S.No.727/1. Petitioners submitted objections on 21.12.2022 against draft master plan. The Draft Master Plan of Nandyal Town shows formation of roads to an extent of 12 meters minimum, except for the road that is being proposed for 9 meters near the petitioners’ property.
d) Pursuant to orders of the Court in W.P.No.7332 of 2021 and batch, the 2nd respondent by order dated 19.01.2023 cancelled the building permission granted in favour of 5th respondent. It was observed that the approach road to the building of 5th respondent is less than 9 meters, which does not meet the minimum existing approach road width required, as per the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 (for short “Rules 2017”). The 2nd respondent directed 4th respondent to conduct a detailed survey to identify the land gifted to Nandyal Municipality vide document No.1126 of 1979 dated 04.05.1979.
e) As per Andhra Pradesh Regularization of Unapproved Layout and Plot Rules, 2020 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 08.01.2020, it was mentioned that encroachment on Government land owned by either the State or the Central Government or any PSU shall not be eligible for regularization. Pursuant to the order passed by 2nd respondent, 3rd respondent issued a show
The central legal point established in the judgment is the violation of principles of natural justice and the misuse of powers by the authorities in recommending and approving the In Principle Layout....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the approval of the IPLP and the exercise of suo moto jurisdiction by the Commissioner, Nandyal municipality were found to be beyond the legal....
The right of access, even without ownership, is sufficient for the regularisation of unapproved layouts under relevant rules.
The court emphasized the necessity to prevent further development of unauthorized layouts and conversion of agricultural areas for non-agriculture use.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the new Development Control Rules (DC Rules) to the Petitioners' proposals for development and the sanction....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of land regularization can be based on public interest, and the status of the land as surplus land under the Urban Land Ceiling ....
The court ruled that jurisdictions must reflect adherence to statutory procedures, emphasizing the need for transparency and honesty by litigants in judicial proceedings.
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
