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 framework set out under G.O.Ms.No.10 and violative of principles of natural justice.

COMMON JUDGMENT

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - Heard Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri C. B. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3.

2. As these two writ appeals arise out of two connected writ petitions and are between the same parties, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

3. The parties in the present appeals are being described as arrayed in W.P.No.9544 of 2023.

4. The petitioners in the writ petitions are owners of three plots of land admeasuring Ac.23.76 cents, 28.5 cents and Ac.0.49 cents in Sy.Nos.717/2, 727/1 and 731/P of Moolasagaram village, Nandyal municipality. The 5th respondent was the owner of certain extent of land on the northern side of these three plots and had also purchased about 9 % cents in Sy.No.727/1 from the 1st petitioner in the writ petition. The 5th respondent applied and obtained building permission dated 25.02.2021 for construction of an apartment complex by contending that the road on the western side of the property of the 5th respondent was 33 feet wide. The 5th respondent also gifted the land admeasuring Ac.9.5 cents to the Nandyal Municipality for the purpose of ensuring that the width of the road increases to 40 feet. The petitioners, being aggrieved by such permission, had filed W.P.No.7332 of 2023 seeking a direction to the Director of Town and Country Planning to revoke the building permissions. W.P.No.7276 of 2021 was also filed for a direction to the Director of Town and Country Planning to lay a road in accordance with the layout plan bearing T.P.No.20/1980. During the pendency of these writ petitions before this Court, the building permission was cancelled by an order dated 28.08.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the 5th respondent filed W.P.No.23022 of 2021. The entire controversy in these three writ petitions was on the question of the width of the road on the western side of the property of the 5th respondent. It was the contention of the 5th respondent that the said road was 40 feet wide and in any event was 40 feet wide along the entire length of the property of the 5th respondent. The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that the road was not 40 feet wide and was only about 16 feet wide at certain places and roughly 23 feet or so at other places and the requirement that the entire road should be 40 feet wide had not been complied, due to which the building permission given to the 5th respondent should be revoked.

5. This Court, with a view to resolve this dispute, had directed the Director of Town and Country Planning to depute a surveyor for measuring the width of the road at various points. Accordingly, a survey was conducted and a survey plan was produced before the Court. This survey plan showed that the road in question had a north-south alignment wherein the width of the road from the southern side up to the property of the 5th respondent was not more than 20 feet wide and the road expanded to a width of 40 feet along the property belonging to the 5th respondent. This Court, after recording the said width of the road, had set aside the cancellation order, dated 28.08.2021, with a direction to the Director of Town and Country Planning to pass fresh orders on the building permission given to the 5th respondent, after taking into account the width of the road shown in the survey plan submitted to the Court.

6. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Director of Town and Country Planning, after due consideration, directed the Kurnool Urban Development Authority, by proceedings dated 25.02.2023, to cancel the building permission given to the 5th respondent. Consequently, the Kurnool Urban Development Authority cancelled the provisional building permission granted in favour of the 5th respondent on 21.03.2023.

7. In a parallel proceeding, the Commissioner, Nandyal Muncipality, had suo moto initiated an in principle Layout pattern, expanding the width of the road to 33 feet and the same was approved by the Dir