THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.309 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of Ac.1.47 cents of land in Sy.No.1997/1 of Anantapur Revenue Village. The master plan prepared for the town, proposed 80 feet wide road, which was to pass through the land of the petitioner. It appears that a Committee, constituted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.256, Municipal Administration, dated 28-05-1986, discussed with the owners of the land, that were to be affected on account of laying of the road, and the petitioner was issued a notice dated 15-09-1987, requiring him to hand over the effected portion of the land. The petitioner insisted that unless compensation is paid, he would not part with the land. As a matter of precaution, he filed O.S.No.462 of 1987 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Anantapur, for injunction against the Municipality. The suit is said to have been decreed, after contest. When the Municipality tried to proceed with the work upon the land, in spite of the decree, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18593 of 1995. An interim order was passed on 17-08-1985. Still, a road was laid on the land of the petitioner. Therefore, he filed Contempt Case No.674 of 1995. Obviously to purge the contempt, the Municipal Council came forward with a proposal to provide alternative land to the petitioner. The contempt case was closed, recording the undertaking of the then Municipality. The Municipal Council passed a resolution dated 31-07-1998 proposing to allot 56 cents of land in lay-out plot No.600/82. Since the approval of the Government is necessary, the matter was forwarded to the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, the Municipal Council was upgraded into Municipal Corporation, the 3rd respondent herein. Through memo dated 21-11-2006, the 1st respondent has disapproved the proposal by taking the view that the petitioner is not entitled for being provided with alternative land, at all. Taking note of the same, the Corporation issued endorsement dated 15-12-2006, informing the petitioner that he is not eligible for any compensation. The petitioner challenges the endorsement. It is pleaded that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, apart from constituting contempt of Court. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, a detailed counter- affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent. He stated that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the land covered by the road has vested in the Municipal Corporation, and that the petitioner himself sold plots in remaining part of the survey number, showing the road. According to him, the petitioner, in fact, is under obligation to surrender some more land towards open spaces. The Corporation also filed counter-affidavit on the same lines. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for respondents 1 and 2, and learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, for the 3rd respondent. The facts relevant for the purpose of this case have been mentioned in brief, in the preceding paragraphs. The then Municipality had acted in utter disregard of law. It has not only flouted the decree for perpetual injunction, suffered by it, but also an interim order passed by this Court, in favour of the petitioner. When Contempt Case was filed, the Council came forward with an offer, to provide alternative land to the petitioner and in view of the same, the Contempt Case was closed. On its part, the Council passed a resolution, proposing to offer the alternative land to the petitioner. Since the approval of the Government was necessary, the matter was taken up with the respondents 1 and 2. It appears that the then Secretary, who issued memo, dated 21- 11-2006, remained totally oblivious of the various developments, that have given rise to the resolution of the Municipality. He felt as though he can set at naught, the orders passed by this Court, or the consequences flowing from them. In a way, he has flouted the orders of this Court, though not directly. Ignoring for a while that there exist any orders of the Court in favour of the petitioner, it is just ununderstandable as to how the Municipality or the Government can take over the land of the petitioner for formation of road, without paying any compensation. If there is any master plan for a town or city, and if the local authority intends to form the road, as per the master plan, there are various methods, in which the required land can be taken over for that purpose. The first is that, if the effected land belongs to Government, no problem as such exists. Secondly, if the owner of the land, through which the road is proposed, applies for a lay-out, the local authority can insist that the portion of the land to be effected by the road, must be left free of cost, and on approval of the lay-out, the land would vest in the Municipality or Corporation, free of encumbrances. In case no lay-out is applied for, by the owner of the land, road can be laid by acquiring the effected portion, only by initiating the proceedings in accordance with law, or through negotiations, or by paying compensation. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner did not submit any application for lay-out. Therefore, the question of the effected portion of the land vesting in the Municipality did not arise. As a matter of fact, respondents 2 and 3 insisted on the petitioner to submit a lay-out, long after the road was formed and the proceedings were initiated by the petitioner against them. The approach of the respondents towards the petitioner is despicable and warrants a serious view. They have acted in arbitrary, capricious and highhanded manner, vis-à-vis the petitioner. They have successfully defeated the rights of the petitioner, though he was successful before the Civil Court in obtaining the decree, way back in the year 1988, and before this Court, in obtaining an interim order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is directed that the respondents 2 and 3 shall accord approval for the resolution dated 31-07-1998, passed by the erstwhile Municipal Council of Anantapur; and the land allotted to the petitioner shall be handed over to him by the 3rd respondent, within three months from the today. In default, this Court would consider the feasibility of re-opening the Contempt Case No. 674 of 1995. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.07-03-2011. KO