THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 13097 OF 2009 Date of disposal: 22.6.2010 Between: P. Malakondaiah …Petitioner and The Government of A.P., represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and others …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 13097 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is filed in public interest questioning the inaction of the respondents 1 to 6 in not taking any action against the respondent No.7 for illegal construction being taken up by him on the land admeasuring Ac.1-03 guntas in S.No. 15 of Ammaguda village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy distict, which, according to the petitioner, is earmarked for public purpose. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for respondent No.4. The allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition state that the petitioner is a resident of the locality and is also organizing secretary of SC, ST, BC and Minority Welfare Association, having registration No. 255 of 2009. He submitted that the Government had allotted land to the Defence Housing Society in S.No. 218/1 of Ammaguda village. Adjacent thereto in S.No. 15 house sites were allotted to SC, ST, BC and Minority communities of the same village and that the allottees have constructed their houses on their respective plots. He contended that there is an open space earmarked for play-ground and community hall in S.No. 15 and in the said open land admeasuring Ac.1-03 guntas, though reserved for the aforesaid public purpose, the respondent No.7, who has hand in glove with the respondents 3 to 6, has been making constructions. He further alleged that he had made a number of representations to the respondents 1 to 4, but no action has been taken by the respondents 1 to 6 and, therefore, he has approached this court by filing the present writ petition. Along with the affidavit, photostat copy of lay out of S.No. 15 is filed and the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that to the extreme south an open space is left for public purposes in the lay out on which illegal constructions were being taken up. Some photographs are also filed along with the copy of representation dated 12.3.2009 by a Member of Parliament addressed to the Collector, Ranga Reddy district. In the said representation it is alleged that the open land left for public purpose is trying to be occupied by the respondent No.7 and for which action was requested. This Court directed notice to the respondents on 10.3.2009 and in response thereto, the respondent No.4 has filed a counter affidavit. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said counter affidavit are important and they are extracted below, “6. In fact, the alleged extent of Ac.1-03 guntas of land is not comprised in Sy.No. 15 of Ammaguda village and the same is comprised in Sy.No. 218/1 of Malkajgiri village, which is adjacent to S.No. 15 of Ammaguda village. Apart from that it is part and parcel of approved layout i.e., layout No. 26/65 sanctioned by Director of Town and Country Planning and subsequently revised sanctioned by the then Gram Panchayath, Malkajgiri vide layout No. 328/66 relating to Defence Housing Cooperative Society. 7. It is further submitted that plot Nos. 401, 405 and 399 of Defence Housing Cooperative Society are covered by the said Layout No. 26/65 approved by Director of Town and Country Planning and they are belonging to the respondent No.7 herein. The respondent Corporation has not so far sanctioned any building permission in favour of 7th respondent herein in respect of plot Nos. 401, 405 and 399 of Defence Housing Cooperative Society as he did not apply for it. Hence, those plots are still lying vacant. The respondent Corporation will not permit any construction activity in the said plots unless the 7th respondent will obtain necessary permit to that effect from the respondent Corporation.” After hearing learned counsel for both the sides, we find that though the counter affidavit was filed as early as on 18.3.2010, after duly serving the same on the petitioner’s counsel, no reply affidavit has been filed. Further the averments made in the counter affidavit clearly show that S.No. 281 of Malkajgiri village comprises of Ac.112-03 guntas which was divided into 660 plots under approved layout permit No. 26/65 dated 3.11.1965 by the Director of Town and Country Planning. Subsequently under revised layout No. 328/66, dated 20.1.1966 the said plots were increased to 1093 and Ac.10-05 guntas of open space was earmarked for public purpose. So far as S.No. 15 is concerned, regarding which the complaint was made in this writ petition, it was mentioned that it comprises in S.No. 218/1 of Malkajgiri village and it is part and parcel of approved lay out No. 26/65, referred to above. It was specifically stated that plot Nos. 401, 405 and 399 covered by the aforesaid layout No. 26/65 of Defence Housing Cooperative Society belongs to the respondent No.7 as per the records. However, the respondent No.7 has neither applied for any building permission nor taken up any construction. The said plots are still lying vacant. In view of that, therefore, the primary allegation of the petitioner that the respondent No.7 was taking up constructions in S.No. 15 is found to be incorrect. The respondent No.4 has further stated that there is no question of the respondent No.7 being hand in glove with the respondents 3 to 6 and that the respondent No.4 will not permit any construction activity in the said plots, unless the respondent No.7 obtains necessary permission therefor. In view of the said categorical statement of the respondent No.4, therefore, neither the factual allegations made in the affidavit by the petitioner are correct nor the apprehension expressed by him has any factual foundation. We are also of the view that this writ petition has been filed without any due verification of the fats and it is neither bona fide nor is espousing any genuine public interest. The writ petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) which shall be paid by the petitioner to the District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy district within eight weeks from today and in event of the petitioner not depositing the costs, the District Legal Services Authority shall recover the costs by executing this order as decree of Court. _____________________ JUSTICE V. V. S. RAO ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt. 22.6.2010 KR