HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7416 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st petitioner purchased a plot of an extent of 361.11 square yards in survey Nos.132 and 133 of Jangan Revenue Village through Sale Deed, dated 07-08-2008, from one Mr. Anantha Reddy. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner purchased a plot of an extent of 195 square yards in the same survey numbers. The 1st petitioner has submitted an application to the respondent on 04-03-2009 to enter his name in the municipal records in place of his vendor. The respondent entered part of property in the name of the 1st petitioner and for the remaining, it rejected the request of the 1st petitioner through order, dated21-03- 2009. The 2nd petitioner also submitted application, dated 24-07- 2009, to the respondent with a request to enter his names in the municipal records in place of his vendor. The respondent rejected the request of the 2nd petitioner through memo, dated 25-11-2009. The ground mentioned in the order of rejection, dated 21-03-2009 is that the plot is not from an approved layout and in the memo, dated 25-11- 2009, it is stated that the plot is within the proposed 50’ road. The petitioners challenge the said order and memo. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3. The plots purchased by the petitioners are recorded in the municipal records in the names of the respective vendors of the petitioners. Except the change of ownership of the land, the land use or the character thereof, does not change on account of the transfer in favour of the petitioners. The entry of the name of an individual in the Property Register of the Municipality as a consequence of the transfer, has absolutely nothing to do with the land use. The validity of the layout, if any, or the nature of land use would assume significance only when the petitioners apply for permission to construct. 4. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order and memo are set aside. The respondents are directed to enter the names of the petitioners in place of their respective vendors in the Property Register of the Municipality. Such entry, however, shall not be treated as conferring any right on the petitioners to seek permission contrary to the master plan or lay out, if any. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. March 28, 2011. KTL