THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 837 OF 2007 Dt: 10-02-2011 Between: Krosuri Srinivasa Rao & Others …..Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer, R.R. District, Office at Nampally, Hyderabad & Others …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 837 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioners purchased an extent of Acs.11.28 gts. of land in Palmakula Village of Shamshabad Mandal in Ranga Reddy District from different vendors under various sale deeds. They constituted a Partnership Firm and submitted an application to the Gram Panchayat i.e. 4th respondent herein to sanction layout. The 4th respondent submitted the same for approval by the Director of Town and Country Planning i.e., 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent returned the proposal stating that the village is within the catchments area of Himayat Sagar Lake and sanction of layout is not permissible and such area is prohibited under G.O.Ms.No.111, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (II) Department, dated 8-3-1996. The petitioners filed W.P.No.16822 of 2002, challenging the order of rejection passed by the 2nd respondent. The writ petition was disposed of on 4.9.2002 directing the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on the application submitted by the petitioners within three months. The 2nd respondent passed orders, dated 17.12.2005, sanctioning layout with 40% of residential area and 60% of roads and open space. The 2nd respondent submitted the same for approval to the Government in Municipal Administration and Urban Development (II) Department, the 3rd respondent herein. Through memo, dated 8.11.2006, the 3rd respondent directed the 2nd respondent to cancel the layout on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 8.3.1996. As a result, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 29.11.2006 to the District Panchayat Officer, R.R.District i.e., the 1st respondent herein, to cancel the layout. Further action, ensued. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the memo, dated 8.11.2006, issued by the 3rd respondent. The principal ground urged by them is that the 3rd respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioners before a direction was issued to cancel the layout. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The application for sanction of layout submitted by the petitioner was initially rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the proposal does not accord with G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 8-3-1996. Writ Petition No.16822 of 2002 was filed before this Court challenging the order of rejection. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents therein to take necessary steps on the application and to pass appropriate orders within three months. In the name of complying with the directions issued by this Court, the 2nd respondent passed orders, dated 17.12.2005, approving the layout. The 3rd respondent took the view that this Court never issued any directions to the 2nd respondent to ignore mandatory provisions and other conditions and since the layout sanctioned in favour of the petitioners, is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 8-3-1996, it deserves to be cancelled. Assuming that the layout sanctioned by the 2nd respondent suffers from any legal or factual infirmity, the 3rd respondent ought to have issued notice to the petitioners before forming such opinion and ordering cancellation of the layout. Hence the impugned order is violate of principles of natural justice. Though the 3rd respondent by itself did not accord any sanction in favour of the petitioners, an order passed by it directing cancellation, would not leave any alternative for the authorities down in the hierarchy, except to cancel the layout. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings, dated 8.11.2006, issued by the 3rd respondent and other consequential proceedings are set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders, after issuing notice to the petitioners. It is also directed that the petitioners shall not undertake any construction over the land in question till the appropriate orders are passed by the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 10.02.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO. 837 OF 2007 DATE: 10.02.2011