THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 25688 OF 2002 Dated 27th November, 2009 Between: S. Showkath Ali ………Petitioner And Anantapur Municipality, rep., by its Commissioner, Anantapur, Anantapur District ………..Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Challa Dhanamjaya The Court made the following ORDER: In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is two fold viz., (1) that the respondent is proposing to utilise more land than what was conveyed under a gift deed by the petitioner and (2) that the proposed sale of the land gifted by the petitioner in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Layout) Rules, 1970 (for short, ‘the Rules’) is for the purposes other than for which the gift has been executed. As regards the first plea of the petitioner, it has been categorically stated in the counter affidavit by the Commissioner of the respondent – Municipality that the respondent has never demarcated the sub-divided plots of the dereserved open site situated in L.P Nos. 182/80 and 318/83 to specify boundaries for the successful bidders who have purchased the sub-divided plots in public auction and that they are not utilising any land over and above 13 cents which was gifted by the petitioner. In view of this categorical assertion of the respondent, the grievance of the petitioner on this count does not survive. With regard to the second contention, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 419, dated 13-08-1996 permitting the municipalities to convert uneconomical sites not immediately required into residential plots and dispose of the same by public auction with the prior approval of the Joint Collector and that, therefore, open site of 13 cents which was gifted by the petitioner towards open space is proposed to be sold. Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Rule 10 (4) of the Rules which prohibited the municipalities from using the transferred lands for any purpose other than for which it was so transferred. He however conceded that the petitioner failed to question G.O.Ms.No.419, dated 13-08-1996 under which the respondent has proposed to sell the open land transferred by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. Unless the petitioner challenges the said G.O and succeeds therein, the respondent cannot be prevented from proceeding with the proposed sale. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to question the above mentioned G.O., if he is so advised. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 32442 of 2002, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 27th November, 2009 ks