IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5282 of 2008 Between: B.Satyanarayana S/o.Angaiah R/o.Doolapalli(V) Qutubullapur(M) R.R Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Rep.by its Vice Chairman GHNC Office Behind Pump House SD Road Near Sec-Bad Court Sec-Bad 2 M/s. Ashoka Developer and Builders Ltd 401 Ashoka Chambers Opp.New MLA Quaters Gate Door No.5-9-22/1/1 Adrsh Nagar Hyd-500063 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to declare the inaction of the respondent No.1 in not taking any further action pursuant to their show cause notice dt.4-10-2007 vide No.7567/Mis/MP2/Plg/H/2007 as illegal arbitrary unjust and consequently direct the 1st respondent to cancel the lay out granted vide permit No.5/MP2/HUDA/06 dt.2-2-2006 as ﬁle No.3107/MP2/PLG/H/2005 obtained by the 2nd respondent in respect of the lands situated at Doolapalli(V) Quatubullapur(M) R.R Dist and to take appropriate action under the provisions of A.P Urban Area(Development) Act 1975 to stop unauthorized development in the layout. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.S.N.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M.DHANANJAY REDDY(SC FOR HUDA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. E.AJAY REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by B.Satyanarayana assailing the inaction of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority represented by its Vice Chairman, Secunderabad-1st respondent pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 04.10.2007 vide No.7567/Mis./MP2/Plg/H/2007, issued to M/s.Ashoka Developer and Builders Limited, Hyderabad-2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.34 guntas comprising part of Survey Nos.139.AA/1 and 139/AA/2, situated at Dhoolapalli village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 06.01.2007. The 2nd respondent, who is a developer and builder, obtained the lay out plan from the 1st respondent in respect of the lands covered by Survey Nos.88 to 97, 101 to 104, 106 to 115, 117, 139(P) and 140 of Dhoolapalli village vide Permit No.5/MP2/HUDA/06, dated 02.02.2006 in HUDA ﬁle No.3107/MP2/Plg/H/2005. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent obtained the lay out plan by misrepresenting the facts. He issued a notice to the 1st respondent raising his objections and requested to cancel the lay out plan granted in favour of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to resubmit the revised lay out plan deleting the area claimed by the petitioner and instructed the 2nd respondent not to develop the said area till the approval of the revised lay out plan as per Section 14(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Area (Development) Act, 1975, by issuing a show-cause notice dated 04.10.2007. There being no further action pursuant to the show-notice, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. 1st respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. Sudhir K.Mahon, Chief Planning Oﬃcer of the 1st respondent has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 04.10.2007, a ﬁnal order came to be passed on 18.03.2008 and the same has been communicated to the petitioner 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- Authority. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent applied lay out plan by misrepresenting the facts and therefore, lay out plan obtained by it is liable to be cancelled. 6. A fact remains that the petitioner put on his objections for the approved lay out plan issued in favour of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent considered the objections and passed orders on 18.03.2008 and communicated the same to the petitioner. If the petitioner aggrieved by the ﬁnal order passed by the 1st respondent pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 04.10.2007, he has to work out his remedies in accordance with law. 7. Reserving the said liberty, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:07th August, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}