THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 3213 of 2010 Dated: 31.08.2010 Between: Zeenath Meher Amreen, and 2 others. … Petitioners And Government of A.P., Rep., by its Commissioner, Vijayawada and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 3213 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioners, being minors represented by their guardian, claim title in respect of 600 square yards situated in the premises bearing No.40-1-139 ward No.28, Revenue Ward No.11, NTS No.147, Labbipet, Vijayawada, by virtue of an oral gift (Hiba) made by their grand-father on 09.09.2005. It is stated that the grand-father of the petitioners is the absolute owner of the above said premises bearing 40-1-139, which is known as “Mohiuddin Estate” comprising an area of 1500 square yards together with a building let out to St.John’s Public School and three improvised structures. The petitioners were gifted 600 square yards including the three improvised structures existing in the premises bearing No.40-1-139. On the basis of the said oral gift (Hiba), the necessary mutation was effected and the structures were given separate assessment numbers 575532, 575533 and 575534 (Door No.40-1-139/B, 40- 1-139C and 40-1-139 D) respectively. Thereafter, applications dated 29.06.2009 were made on behalf of the petitioners before the respondents 1 and 2 seeking permission for constructing three houses by demolishing the three improvised structures. The requisite fees was paid while submitting the plans of the proposed structures. By proceedings dated 08.07.2009 the respondents returned the plans stating that the registered ownership document was not submitted. The objection was clarified and the plans were resubmitted. Again by proceedings dated 17.08.2009 the petitioners were called upon to submit a notarised affidavit and the same was also complied with. Again another objection was taken by the 1st respondent vide three separate endorsements dated 07.09.2009 requiring the petitioners to hand over the road portion in the premises through registered gift deed in favour of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation stating that the sanction would be granted subject to fulfilment of the said condition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. It is pleaded in the writ petition that in premises bearing No.40-1-139 (Mohiuddin Estate) a passage was laid by its owner in the vacant land up to the end of South to be used by the persons in possession of the premises. It is contended that the said passage cannot be treated as a road and the impugned endorsements calling upon the petitioners/applicants to execute a registered gift deed in favour of the municipal Corporation is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it is stated that on inspection of the premises it was observed that an unauthorised sub- division was effected making building plots without obtaining the prior written permission from the competent authority under Section 388 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). It is further stated that as there is large extent of site and sheds which require road for ingress and aggress, the Corporation has to provide all amenities with future development of adjacent sites and roads leading to M.G. road at Eastern side and Western side and as per Rule 10-A of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Layout Rules), 1965 (for short ‘Layout Rules”), such road portion shown in the plan has to be handed over to the Corporation for future development. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. Section 388 of the Act provides that every person who intends to sell or lease out any land or to divide the land into building plots or to use any land for building purposes or to make out a private street shall give written notice of his intention to the Commissioner. There upon the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Lay out Rules, 1965 would be applicable and as per Rule 10-A of the Rules, all the roads and open spaces earmarked in the approved lay out shall automatically vest with the Corporation free from all encumbrances. However, the petitioners herein are claiming title only in respect of 600 square yards out of large extent in premises No.40-1-139 upon which they proposed construction of three separate houses. The premises bearing No.40-1-139 belongs to their donor and the passage in question was admittedly laid by him. Hence, the question of handing over the road portion by the petitioners/applicants by registered gift deed to the Corporation does not arise. Consequently, the impugned proceedings calling upon the petitioners to execute a registered gift deed as a condition precedent for granting the building permission are unwarranted and unjustified. It is also relevant to note that as per Section 428 of the Act, for the purpose of erection of building a notice has to be given to the Commissioner and thereupon the Commissioner may require the applicants to furnish the plans or other information as provided under Section 429 or 431 of the Act. Within 30 days after receipt of the notice under Section 428 of the Act or of the plan or other information called for under Section 429 or 431 of the Act, the Commissioner has to pass orders either approving or disapproving the proposed work. Compliance with the provisions of the Layout Rules by the applicant of a building permission has not been provided under any of the above provisions of the Act. Hence, the impugned endorsements are illegal and are liable to set aside on that ground also. Accordingly, the impugned endorsements dated 07.09.2009 are hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the building applications submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 31.08.2010 B/o KLP