*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY +WRIT PETITION No.4424 of 2005 % Dated: 20-08-2008 # Paspueti Sripathi Rao. Petitioner VERSUS $ The Regional Deputy Director of Town & Country Panning, KUDA Compex, Hanamkonda, Warangal District & others. Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. Hari Sreedhar ^Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri G. Elisha. Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4424 of 2005 Between: Paspuleti Sripathi Rao … Petitioner AND The Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, KUDA Complex, Hanamkonda, Warangal District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Hari Sreedhar Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri G. Elisha Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri A. Prabhakar Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4424 of 2005 ORDER:- The petitioner, who is the owner of Ac.2.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.796/1 of Narsampet Village and Mandal, Warangal District, ﬁled this writ petition for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the ﬁnal layout in respect of the said property, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to release the final layout. The petitioner, who succeeded to an extent of Ac.3.23 guntas in Sy.No.796/1 of Narsampet Village through his father-in-law late Ennamsetti Subba Rao, applied to respondent No.2 – Gram Panchayat for sanctioning of a layout in respect of Ac.2.20 guntas out of the extent of Ac.3.23 guntas in the year 1994. As required under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 (for short, ‘the Rules’), respondent No.2 forwarded the proposed layout to respondent No.1 for according prior technical approval. While proposing the tentative layout, respondent No.1 addressed letter dated 02.04.1994 to respondent No.2, wherein the latter was requested to verify the said tentative layout on ground and submit its report. After veriﬁcation, the Executive Oﬃcer of respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 08.04.1994 informed respondent No.1 that the approved tentative layout was veriﬁed on ground and that it was observed that the layout pattern is feasible on the ground. It is also stated therein that the petitioner is willing to accept the tentative layout except some minor changes as indicated in the enclosed letter and sketch and that it was also stated that formation of road work and stone plotting work is completed. Respondent No.2 therefore requested respondent No.1 to approve the ﬁnal layout. A few days thereafter, respondent No.2 changed its stand by passing a resolution on 19.04.1994 to reject the application of the petitioner for sanction of layout on the purported ground that the said land is a public land on which a temple called Mutyalamma Temple, burial ground, dhobi ghat and drinking water well were located. When respondent No.2 sought to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the extent of Ac.3.23 guntas, the petitioner, his father-in-law and his mother-in-law ﬁled O.S.No.93 of 1994 on the ﬁle of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal for perpetual injunction and the said suit was transferred to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad and renumbered as O.S.No.155 of 1996. After contest by respondent No.2, the suit was decreed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad by judgment and decree dated 23.04.1999. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, respondent No.2 ﬁled A.S.No.79 of 1999 on the ﬁle of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal. The said appeal was dismissed on 25.11.2003 and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.155 of 1996 has thus received affirmation. As the ﬁnal layout was not released even after the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner made a representation on 29.12.2004 to respondent No.1 with a request to communicate the ﬁnal layout. Respondent No.1 in turn addressed letter to the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat with a copy marked to the petitioner while enclosing the petitioner’s representation and requesting him to submit a detailed report in the matter for taking further action. While marking copy to the petitioner, respondent No.1 requested him to approach respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat to obtain copy of approved layout LP.No.20/94/WRO. As nothing turned out on the said communication issued by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 did not release the ﬁnal approved layout, the petitioner filed this writ petition. In WPMP.No.5914 of 2005 ﬁled by the petitioner to direct the respondents to release the ﬁnal layout, this Court granted interim direction to release the ﬁnal layout by order dated 21.04.2006. Without complying with the said direction, respondent No.2 ﬁled a vacate stay petition on 23.10.2006. One Polaboina Muralidhar, a resident of Narsampet Village and claiming to be interested in the subject matter of the writ petition, ﬁled WPMP.No.31269 of 2006 for his impleadment as respondent No.3. This application was allowed on 07.07.2008. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondent No.2, all the abovementioned facts have been admitted. It is, however, stated therein that respondent No.2 passed resolution at the special meeting conducted by it on 19.10.2006 requesting the petitioner to submit a revised layout plan as per the Rules and communicated the same to the petitioner on 20.10.2006. It is further stated that there is discrepancy in the boundaries between the plan attached to the application and the registered document No.1585 of 1966 dated 19.11.1966 under which a part of the property was sold by Sri Ennamshetty Subba Rao to the Gram Panchayat, that the 10 percent land to be earmarked as per the layout rules was not properly shown in the plan, that burial ground of the village was included in the layout illegally and that Muthyalamma Temple, Dhobi Khana and well were not properly shown. That therefore the Gram Panchayat passed resolution dated 19.04.1994. It is further stated that if the petitioner submits proper application along with the plan, the answering respondent will consider as per the Rules and send the proposals to respondent No.1 for approval. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3 in support of his implead application, he has inter alia stated that the writ petitioner has not set apart 1/3rd of the land for the purpose of amenities such as breathing place/green land apart from laying of roads, that the Gram Panchayat is not taking care and interest in the general public, that the petitioner is never in occupation of the land in Sy.No.796 and that the petitioner is seeking to convert the graveyard into house sites and also included the land set apart for drinking water well, water shed and Muthyalamma Temple. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.1, it is stated that his oﬃce approved the tentative layout and communicated the same to the Panchayat Secretary, Narsampet on 02.04.1994, that after receiving letter dated 08.04.1994 from the Executive Oﬃcer communicating the feasibility of the said tentative layout, his oﬃce approved the ﬁnal layout LP.No.20/94 dated 13.04.1994 and communicated to the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2 for taking further action and that in response to the petitioner’s letter dated 29.12.2004 his oﬃce informed him to obtain a copy of the approved layout from respondent No.2 as the Executive Oﬃcer is the competent authority as per G.O.Ms.No.377 dated 10.12.1972 and respondent No.1 is only a suggesting authority. In the reply aﬃdavit ﬁled by the writ petitioner, he averred that in the suit ﬁled by him he ﬁled IA.No.503 of 1994 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for noting down the physical features in respect of the suit schedule property, that the Advocate Commissioner, after inspection of the suit schedule property, ﬁled a detailed report along with a sketch, that respondent No.2 did not ﬁle any objections either to the Advocate Commissioner’s report or the sketch prepared by him and that the allegation that the burial ground, Muthyalamma temple, Dhobi Khana and well were not properly shown, was not proved. He further stated that after he gave notice on 25.09.2006 to implement order dated 21.04.2006 passed by this Court, respondent No.2 sent letter dated 20.10.2006, wherein it is stated that the committee passed resolution to stop the release of the layout to the petitioner on the ground that there are irregularities in the layout plan and asking the petitioner to submit a fresh plan. From the facts narrated above, it is quite evident that the only ground on which respondent No.2 withheld release of approved layout plan is existing of a temple, dhobi ghat, drinking water well, burial ground etc., in the layout submitted by the petitioner. A perusal of the judgment in O.S.No.155 of 1996, which was decreed in favour of the petitioner and ﬁled along with the writ petition, shows that on the same reasons respondent No.2 passed resolution dated 19.04.1994. One of the pleas raised by respondent No.2 in the said suit was that the petitioner misled respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat by mentioning Sy.No.769/1 in his application for sanctioning of layout, which was marked as Ex.B2. The petitioner and other plaintiﬀs pleaded that Ex.B2 was not the application ﬁled by the petitioner and that respondent No.2 ﬁled a fabricated application showing as if the same was ﬁled by the petitioner. The civil Court recorded the ﬁnding that the body of Ex.B2 was not in the handwriting of the petitioner and the manner in which the application was written showed that on a blank signed paper of some person other than the petitioner, the same was written. The civil Court also recorded a speciﬁc ﬁnding that the petitioner applied for sanctioning of layout for land in Sy.No.796/1 and further held that respondent No.2 failed to prove existence of Muthyalamma temple, Burial ground and drinking water well in the suit property and that there is no valid reason for the respondents to reject the application of the petitioner for approval of the layout. Rule 11 of the Rules envisages that the District Town and Country Planning Oﬃcer is the competent authority to accord technical approval for the layouts in the villages with 10,000 or more population. Under Rule 11 (2), on receipt of application for layout approval, the Executive Authority after calling for necessary information from the applicant, shall forward the proposals to the District Town and Country Planning Oﬃcer wherever necessary the layout plan and full particulars within a period of 10 days from the receipt of the particulars from the applicant. The District Town and Country Planning Oﬃcer shall within 30 days after furnishing of all the particulars forward the tentatively approved layout to the Executive Oﬃcer, Gram Panchayat concerned. The Executive Oﬃcer of the Gram Panchayat may submit a report within 15 days after laying the Water Bound Macadam (WBM) roads by the applicant as per the speciﬁcations appended at Annexure-B of the Rules. The concerned District Town and Country Planning Department shall inspect the site and approve the layout within 15 days. If the demarcated tentative layout is in accordance with the tentatively approved layout and with the Rules, he shall communicate the technical clearance for ﬁnal approval of the layout to the Gram Panchayat concerned. Under Rule 11 (3) of the Rules, the Executive Oﬃcer shall within 15 days of receipt of the technical approval from the District Town and Country Planning Oﬃcer communicate to the applicant such conditions and modiﬁcations subject to which the layout will be considered for approval indicating the estimated cost of development and the amenities. Under sub-rule (4) of Rule 11, the applicant shall within 10 days after receipt of communication, communicate to the Executive Authority of the Gram Panchayat his agreement in form prescribed in Annexure- E appended to the Rules with an additional non- returnable deposit of the sum equivalent to 5% of the provisional estimated cost of works to be executed by the Gram Panchayat. Under sub-rule (6) of Rule 11, if the reply is not received from the applicant within 10 days, the original application shall be treated as having lapsed. Under sub-rule (7) of Rule 11, all the roads and open spaces such as parks and playgrounds earmarked in accordance with the Rules in a layout, which is approved by the Gram Panchayat shall automatically stand transferred free of cost and vest with the Gram Panchayat free from all encumbrances. The facts of this case reveal that the technical clearance for ﬁnal approval of the layout was communicated by respondent No.1 to the Executive Oﬃcer of respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 13.04.1994. This was preceded by the Gram Panchayat resolution dated 07.03.1994 based on which the Executive Oﬃcer reported feasibility of the layout on ground vide his letter dated 08.04.1994. After receipt of the technical clearance for ﬁnal approval of the layout, respondent No.2 refused to sanction the layout vide its resolution passed in the special meeting on 19.04.1994. The same reasons, which are now put-forth by respondent No.2, namely, existence of temple, dhobi ghat, burial ground and drinking water well were made the basis for the said resolution and in the civil suit ﬁled by the petitioner, the said reasons were conclusively rejected and the said judgment was confirmed in appeal. In the face of these admitted facts, it is incomprehensible as to how respondent No.2 could legitimately pass another resolution during the pendency of this writ petition with almost identical objections. When once respondent No.2 exercised its power under Rule 11 (3) and refused to approve the layout, the said action having been disapproved by the civil Court, it is not permissible for respondent No.2 to pass resolutions again and again evidently with a view to frustrate the eﬀorts of the petitioner to get the layout approved. If there were any valid objections, the same would have been raised by respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat while sending its report on the tentative approved layout sent by respondent No.1 to it. Far from raising any objections, respondent No.2 passed a resolution to convey no objection to the tentative layout. It made a total Volta face within a few days thereafter and started raising the objections regarding the existence of the temple, burial ground etc. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that the earlier resolution dated 29.11.1993 was passed by mistake of fact and that the ﬁnal technical approval by respondent No.1 was not in accordance with the tentative approval forwarded by him to respondent No.2 in respect of which it reported feasibility. This being the admitted position, while there was no warrant at all for passing resolution dated 19.04.1994, there can be no justiﬁcation whatsoever to pass a fresh resolution on 19.10.2006. In this context, the timing of the said resolution is worth noticeable. After the suit ﬁled by the petitioner was decreed in April 1999 and the appeal ﬁled by respondent No.2 was dismissed on 25.11.2003, there was a complete lull on the part of respondent No.2. Even after respondent No.1 addressed letter to the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2 on 22.01.2005 with a request to submit a detailed report on the representation of the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat has not taken action either to approve the layout or to reject it. As noted above, this Court, on 21.04.2006, granted interim direction to respondent No.2 to release the approved layout. Four months thereafter, when respondent No.2 received notice from the petitioner, they claimed to have passed a resolution on 19.10.2006. These undisputed facts would clearly demonstrate that respondent No.2 was making all-out efforts to see that the petitioner’s application for ﬁnal approval is rejected on one or the other ground. At the hearing, Sri Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that neither he has record nor the copy of the purported resolution dated 19.10.2006. I did not therefore have the advantage of perusing its contents. As held hereinabove, the power of respondent No.2 to stipulate conditions and suggest modiﬁcations having already been exhausted with resolution dated 19.04.1994 passed by it, which was the subject matter of O.S.No.155 of 1996, respondent No.2 is not entitled to pass another resolution as it has claimed to have done on 19.10.2006. Considering the facts in their entirety, I have no hesitation to hold that malice in law is writ large in the action of respondent No.2, which successfully prevented the petitioner from obtaining the ﬁnal approval for more than fourteen years. Respondent No.2 has thus indulged in abuse of its powers, persecuting the petitioner with prolonged litigation. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 shall forthwith initiate proceedings under Rule 11 (4) of the Rules and within two weeks of the petitioner complying with the conditions contained in sub-rule Nos. (4) and (5) of Rule 11 of the Rules, it shall release the approved layout. For subjecting the petitioner to prolonged litigation and agony, respondent No.2 shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner. Cartridge As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.5914 of 2005 and WVMP.No.2030 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.08.2008 ES LR copies to be marked.