THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 2820 of 2010 Dated: 30.08.2010 Between: Nammi Appala Raju, Visakhapatnam and another. … Petitioners And Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep., by Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 2820 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioners herein claim title in respect of Ac.675.28 square yards of house site in Sy.No.122/2 of Vadlapudi Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam having purchased the same under three registered sale deeds from one Palle Apparao. It is stated that the petitioners made an application along with the plan on 21.12.2009 before the 2nd respondent for permission to construct a group house. The requisite development charges were also paid. It is stated that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 20.01.2010 returned the plans on the ground that the site falls in the reserved open space of L.P.No.35 of 1989. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed stating that the objection raised by the 2nd respondent is factually incorrect and that Sy.No.122/2 is purely private property of the vendor of the petitioners and the same has nothing to do with the layout got sanctioned and regularised by one GPR Prasad in respect of Sy.No. 122/1. It is pleaded that the said GPR Prasad had wrongly included Ac.0.22 cents of land in Sy.No.122/2P while submitting the layout plans and the same was sanctioned without proper verification. Having come to know of the said fact, the vendor of the petitioners made a representation requesting the 1st respondent to delete his land covered by Sy.No.122/2 from the approved layout. Basing on the same, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 16.09.1997 to the developer GPR Prasad calling upon him to produce his title deeds. It appears that no further steps were taken and in the meanwhile the petitioners purchased the land in question from Palla Apparao. Thereafter, when the petitioners made building application, the same was returned on the ground that their site facts in the reserved open space in the approved layout. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Though, the claim of the petitioners cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to make the necessary enquiry into the petitioner’s plea that their land was wrongly included in the layout. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to resubmit the building plans explaining the objection raised by the 2nd respondent that the proposed site falls in reserved open space of L.P.NO.35 of 1989. On such representation, the respondents 1 and 2 shall make necessary enquiry in terms of the proceedings of the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority dated 16.09.1997 and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 30.08.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in 3 days. B/o KLP