HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4274 OF 2010 DATED 12th OCTOBER, 2011 BETWEEN T.PV. Satyanarayana and ors …….Petitioners and Chairman and Managing Director, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, and ors ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4274 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order dated 6.7.2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District, in CMA.No. 5 of 2010 confirming the dismissal order and decree dated 22.2.2010 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol, West Godavari District, in I.A.No. 866 of 2009 in O.S.No. 215 of 2009. Heard both sides. Perused the grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Civil Revision Petition and material placed on record scrupulously. The facts which are not disputed, being admitted are as follows: The petitioners are the absolute owners of ABC marked portion of the land shown in plaint plan; that ‘E’ marked portion shown in the plaint plan is reserved site lay out; and that fourth respondent-Gram Panchayat allotted ‘E’ marked site admeasuring Ac.0.34 cents for construction of electrical sub-station for providing adequate power supply and respondents 1to 3 are trying to construct the electrical sub-station by laying foundation stone. It is the specific case of the petitioners that ‘E’ marked portion in an extent of Ac.0.34 cents was classified as reserved site for recreation of the public and as such the same cannot be allotted for construction of electrical sub-station; whereas it is the case of the respondents that ‘E’ marked site was allotted by the fourth respondent-Gram Panchayat for construction of the electric sub-station; that the construction of electric sub- station will not cause any damage to anybody; that the extent of land in ‘E’ portion is sufficient for construction of electric sub-station and that the owners of the layout have executed gift deed in favour of the fourth respondent for ‘E’ marked portion and the roads and as such, the fourth respondent has every right to utilize the ‘E’ marked site for public purpose. Both parties have contested the matter before the trial Court as well as lower appellate Court. The main grievance of the petitioners is that if elelctrical sub-station is allowed to be constructed in between the residential houses, it will cause damage to the public, cattle and also the property of the residents; and that the extent in the ‘E’ marked portion is not sufficient to construct a electric sub- station. They also placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No. 72 dated 20.2.2002 and contended that the fourth respondent-Gram Panchayat has no right over the site reserved for construction of electric sub-station. The said Government Order specifically contemplates that all Nagar panchayats/Municipalities/ Municipal Corporations in the State shall not propose to utilize the reserved open spaces of a layout for the purpose other than the intended original use such as a park, play ground, community structure, urban forestry and similar eco-conservation programmes. The respondents in their counter affidavits stated that the ‘E’ marked portion is a reserved site in the layout and the same was kept vacant and it would not be meant for house sites. They stated that the aforesaid GO is not applicable to the fourth respondent-Grampanchayat. It was further stated that the lay out owners executed a gift deed in favour of the fourth respondent in respect of ‘E’ marked portion for utilization by the public in general and it is not meant for the limited purpose. It was further stated that as per Ex.B.2 there is nothing to show that ‘E’ marked portion is reserved for recretation. Ex.B.6 cogently reveals that the roads and the reserved sites were settled in favour of the fourth respondent for the purpose of utilizing the reserved sites for the benefit of the public. It was their further case that there is no evidence to show that ‘E’ marked site was reserved for the purpose of recreation alone and so far as the construction of electric sub-station, it is for the Electricity Department to take all precautionary measures. Ex.B.6, registered settlement deed executed by the owners of the lay out in favour of the fourth respondent, is the crucial piece of evidence. The recitals in Ex.B.6 shows that all the rights over the reserved site were given to the fourth respondent-Gram panchayat, authorizing it to use the said portion of the land for public utility and public purpose. It does not however indicate that the said site shall only be used for the purpose of parks, play grounds, community structure, urban forestry or any other specific purpose. By virtue of the rights conferred on the fourth respondent-Gram panchayat through Ex.B.6, it passed a resolution under Ex.B.2 allotting the said land for construction of a electric sub-station. As such, there is no evidence to show that the ‘E’ marked portion is a reserved site for the purpose of recreational activity in the light of the narration contained in Ex.B.6. The petitioners placed reliance in C. UMA DEVI VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (2001 (5) ALT 307). That was a case where the Visakhapatnam Municipality converted the well established park into garbage dumping yard. Ultimately while disposing of the Writ Petition this court directed the respondents therein to take appropriate steps for removal of the encroachments in accordance with law and restore the park to its original position and maintain the park. Further reliance is placed in CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD, SALEEMNAGAR VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD (2001 (5) ALT 737), wherein the area which has been set apart as park had been handed over to the first respondent therein for construction and maintenance of the area as a park. The question that arose for consideration in that case was whether the first respondent therein had authority to execute a lease of deed in respect of the land set apart for park. Both the decisions cited supra have no application to the facts of the case. The petitioners ventilated their case that the fourth respondent in collusion with the rice millers who are having rice mills in the Ullamparru village induced respondents 1 to 3 to construct the electric sub-station in ‘E’ marked portion of the plaint plan. Except a mere pleading, no evidence had been produced to prove the same. Unless evidence is adduced on this aspect before the Court below, the same cannot be gone into in the revision petition. The respondents submitted that the construction of sub- station is necessary for maintaining the continued supply of qualitative electricity to cater the needs of the consumers of the area and the petitioners do not have the locus standi to challenge the right of the fourth respondent to use the land in question according to the needs and requirements of the people of that locality. The fourth respondent has not made any promise to the petitioners that they will be allowed to use the land in question as a recreational area. I am of the considered opinion that in the absence of any specific purpose that the fourth respondent is entitled to use the subject land as per the requirement of the denizens of the colony, the construction of sub-station for regulating the qualitative supply of electric energy to meet the needs and necessities of the consumers of the area is certainly an important public need and forms part of the larger public interest. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason to restrain the respondents from erecting an electric sub-station on ‘E’ marked portion of the land shown in the plaint plan. Further, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is also not available to the petitioners for compelling the respondents not to allow the use of the disputed land for construction of an electric sub-station because they have utterly failed to substantiate their plea that promise was, in fact, made by the lay out owners to the effect that the land in question would be served for use as a recreational area. Thus, viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition warranting interference with the well reasoned orders of the Courts below. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 12th October, 2011. Msnro