THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“…..To declare the action of the respondent in not granting permission for construction of house in open Plot in L.P.No.12/94 in Survey Nos.412, 413 and 414 situated at Mahalakshmi Colony, Armoor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 06.11.2013 vide Lr. No.G1/881/2013 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of fundamental rights of petitioner under Articles 21, 300 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent to grant proper permission to the petitioner with respect land in L.P.No.12/94 of Armoor Municipality”.

2. Heard Sri Govardhan Venu, learned counsel representing M/s. Nomos Vistas, the Lawyers, appearing for the petitioners on record and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that originally, one Peddolla Sudharshan and Bachewal Shankar are the owners of plot Nos.11 and 4 in Survey No.417 LP/287/82 of Armoor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District respectively having acquired the same under the registered sale deeds. The Executive Officer, Gram Panchayath, Armoor, Director of Town Planning and District Collector, Nizamabad have decided to lay the road to link up existing road from housing board colony to old DSP office through plot Nos.11 and 4 for usage and convenience the general public and the road was also laid. The Gram Panchayath passed a resolution dated 15.10.2013 allotting alternative land admeasuring 266 square yards each, out of open space of L.P.No.12/94 in survey Nos.412, 413 and 414, Mahalaxmi Colony, Armoor (Village and Mandal) Nizamabad District, to the said Peddolla Sudharshan and Bachewal Shanker. Bachewal Shankar had obtained permission for construction from Gram Panchayath, Armoor vide proceedings dated 25.11.2002 and constructed a house. Peddolla Sudharshan constructed compound wall by duly obtaining permission from Gram Panchayath on 20.06.2001 and sold the said plot to the petitioners herein under registered sale deed bearing document No.1208/2003 dated 29.09.2003; that an application dated 15.10.2013 seeking permission for construction was submitted by the petitioners, however, the said application was rejected by the respondent vide intimation dated 06.11.2013.

Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application submitted by the petitioners for construction was principally rejected by referring to G.O.Ms.No.72, MA & UD dated

20.02.2002, as per which, the Government has no jurisdiction to convert the site reserved for park, play ground, community structure etc., for some other purpose and shall not utilize the reserved open space of a layout for the purpose other than the intended original use. He would further submit that Bachewal Shankar has obtained permission for construction of house from the Gram Panchayath and raised building on the land allotted to him in lieu of plot No.4. However, application submitted by the petitioners for construction was rejected which amounts to colourable exercise of power and discrimination since permission was already granted to similarly placed person i.e., Bachewal Shankar, therefore, the rejection order is improper, illegal and the same is liable to be set aside and petitioner is entitled for permission even on the ground of parity.

5. Learned counsel would further submit that G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 20.02.2002 basing on which the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner seeking permission for construction was issued subsequent to allotment of land in favour of the vendor of petitioners, therefore, the same can neither be applied nor can be the basis for rejection of application of petitioners. He would further submit that the said G.O is applicable prospectively and therefore, ought not to have been applied to the petitioner’s application which was allotted