IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15375 of 2008 Between: 1 Joga Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Tata, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Prasadula Maridithalli, W/o. Appalanaidu, D/o. Joga Tata, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Boddu Appalanaidu, S/o. late Tata, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Boddu Appalanaidu, S/o. late Appanna, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Boddu Krishna, S/o. late Appanna, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 6 Boddu Chinnarao, S/o. late Appanna, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 7 Uriti Ramu, S/o. Late Tata, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 8 Uriti Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Tata, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 9 Chandaka Mahalaxmi, S/o. late Maridamma, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 10 Chandaka Ramu, S/o. Late Maridamma, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 11 Chandaka Srinu, S/o. Late Maridamma, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. 12 Chandaka Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Maridamma, R/o. Chinamusidiwada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam. 2 The District Collector (Land Acquisition), Visakhapatnam. 3 G. Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Krishna Murthy, 53-32-15/A, K.R.M. Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-13. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Land Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 Naval Civil Technical and Non-Technical Employees Cooperative House Building Society, Regd.No. B-1756, Rep. by its President S. Devi Prasad, D.No. 19-47-24, Rangireeju Street, Visakhapatnam - 530 001. 6 Chinamusidiwada Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Sarpanch, Chinamusidiwada, Gram Panchayat Office, Visakhapatnam. 7 SHO, Pendurthi P.S., Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to pass order or orders or directions particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of layout, sanctioned plans in respect of Sy.No. 84 of Chinnamusidiwada Village of Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and declare the action of the 1st respondent not responding to the legal notice of the Petitioners and take action against 3rd and 6th respondents for submitting false fabricated documents as illegal, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently directing the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law while giving an opportunity to the Petitioners and Consequently restore the lands of the Petitioners to the extent which was allowed to few members of the 6th respondent, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI M.V.RAJA RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI.V.PREETI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G.P. FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: G.P. FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Counsel for the Respondent No.7: G.P. FOR HOME. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15375 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 12 in number, with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority-1st respondent in not responding to the legal notices and take action against Sri G.Hanumantha Rao-3rd respondent and Chinamusidiwada Gram Panchayat represented by its Sarpanch-6th respondent for submitting fabricated documents as illegal, contrary to law and violative of Article 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. Sri Joga Nageswara Rao has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ affidavit. The averments of the writ affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioners are the owners of the property in Sy.No.84 situated at Chinamusidiwada village, Pendurthi Mandal, Greater Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam District. They inherited the property from their ancestors. Their possession has been recognized by the Revenue authorities and their names are incorporated in the Revenue records. On coming to know that some third parties entering their property with an intention to divide it into plots under a layout plan, the petitioners questioned them and came to know that the third parties purchased the plots in Sy.No.84. Third parties also asked them to identify their plots for making constructions. On further enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the 1st respondent sanctioned Layout Plan No.35/94 in respect of 9 acres in Sy.No.84. According to the petitioners, Sri G.Hanumantha Rao- 3rd respondent, basing on forged documents, has obtained the said layout. That the very sanction of the Layout Plan No.35/94 is contrary to law and violative of the provisions of the A.P.Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. The petitioners have got issued legal notice, dated 26.07.2007, to the 1st respondent and there being no action on the part of the 1st respondent, the petitioners chose to approach this Court with a prayer stated supra. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent No.3 obtained layout plan in respect of Sy.No.84 by fabricating the documents and, therefore, the layout plan sanctioned to the 3rd respondent by the 1st respondent is required to be discarded. A further submission has been made that the 1st respondent approved the Layout Plan No.35/94 without following the due procedure contemplated under Section 14 of the A.P.Urban Areas (Development) Act. 5. I have gone through the writ affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. A bald allegation is made in the writ affidavit that the 3rd respondent fabricated certain documents and got the layout plan approved. The writ petition is silent as to which document the 3rd respondent fabricated and which documents the petitioners are disputing. The dispute between the petitioners and Sri G.Hanumantha Rao-3rd respondent is purely a title dispute in respect of land bearing Sy.No.84. The petitioners have to establish their right over the property by approaching the Civil Court. 6. In the given facts and circumstances, invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer sought for is misconceived. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 17.07.2008 v v