THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.18267/2002 & 21629/2007 COMMON ORDER: The subject-matter of both the writ petitions is inter-related. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. An application for sanction of lay-out, in respect of Ac.6.50 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.51 of Malreddipally Village, and 5/P of Saipur Village, within the limits of the Tandur Municipality, was submitted by one Mr.S.A.Rahman to the Commissioner, Municipal Council, the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioners state that they have purchased plot Nos.10 and 11 of the lay-out, under different sale deeds, in the year 1997. Permission is said to have been accorded for construction of house on part of plot No.10, on 30-12-1997. The petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent, as well as the Director of Town and Country Planning, started claiming that Plot Nos.10 and 11 of the lay-out do not exist, and that the land covered by the said plots is earmarked for public purpose. Challenging such action on the part of the respondents, the petitioners filed W.P.No.18267 of 2002. The 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 05-06-2007, requiring the petitioners to stop the construction undertaken by them, stating that there do not exist plot Nos.10 and 11 in the lay-out, and that the permission was obtained by them, by concealing and suppressing the revised lay-out. W.P.No.21629 of 2007 is filed challenging the said notice. The petitioners contend that the respondents have initially sanctioned a lay-out through L.P.No.107/90, showing the site on the north-western corner of the lay-out as space reserved for public purpose, and that the same has been revised through L.P.No.132/90, whereunder equivalent open space was shifted to a different place, and that was converted into plot Nos.10 and 11. It is also their case that when an application is filed in the year 1997, seeking permission, the 2nd respondent granted the same in respect of part of Plot No.10, and that the construction being made on the basis of it was stopped by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners further contend that 10% of open space was left on different places of the lay-out, by mortgaging plot Nos.55, 56, and 65 in the revised lay-out. On behalf of respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that, after the lay-out is sanctioned through LP.No.107/90, the owner of the land submitted a representation stating that the numbering of the plots, starting from north to south, is opposed to Vasthu and it is not at all auspicious to have plot Nos.10 and 11 in the lay-out, and that acceding to the said request, a revised lay-out was sanctioned through LP.No.132/90, just changing the numbering of the plots. According to them, there was no change whatever, in the original lay-out and revised lay-out plan, except for the pattern of numbering of the plots and that the open space in the north-western corner remained intact. It is also their case that the petitioners obtained construction permission for plot No.10 by enclosing a copy of the first lay-out plan, i.e. L.P.No.107/90, which was superceded by L.P.No.132/90. Heard Sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. The petitioners are not the persons, who submitted applications for lay-out. The lay-out was sanctioned way back in the year 1990, on an application submitted by one, Sri S.A. Rahman. A perusal of the LP.No.107/90 discloses that open space was left on three corners of the land, except on the south-western corner. To the open space in the north-western corner is with the dimensions of 133 feet (north); 130 feet (south); 122 feet (east); and 70 feet (west) exist, and there was a well, within that. Abutting that open space, 6 plots were carved out, and the same line continued, after the 40 feet road, and in all, 18 plots were made in that line. The total number of plots in the lay-out were 71. Plot Nos.49, 58 and 59 on the eastern side were mortgaged for ensuring proper compliance with the lay-out. The owner of the land submitted a representation stating that the numbering of the plots be changed and that it must start from south, instead of north. Another request was that, plot Nos.10 and 11 be not shown, at all. The sizes of the plots was also proposed to be changed. Acceding to this request, the respondents sanctioned a revised lay-out, through LP.No.132/90. Except that the numbering changed, plot Nos.10 and 11 were omitted, and that total number of plots was revised to 68, there was no change as to open places, pattern of roads, etc. The petitioners are not the persons, who obtained the lay-out. However, the sales in their favour were made in the year 1997, on the basis of the original lay-out. In fact, the permission was also obtained. Once it is evident that there did not exist any plot Nos.10 and 11, and that the open land in the north-western corner was shown as the open area in both the lay-outs, the question of the petitioners claiming rights over such land does not arise. In the original lay-out, plot Nos. 1 and 4, abutted the open area on the north-western corner. In the revised lay-out, it abuts plot Nos.9 and 12. The petitioners, or their vendors were smart enough to treat the open space as plot Nos.10 and 11 for obtaining permission. They have shown the original lay-out, which has shown as plot Nos.10 and 11. The mischief played by the petitioners was noticed by the respondents before any construction was made. No exception can be taken to the impugned notice, nor can the petitioners insist that there exist Plot Nos.10 and 11 in the revised lay- out. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.24-03-2010. KO