THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition No.9083 of 1999 % 27-11-2008 Between: B.L. Nagi Reddy …Petitioner And The Yemmiganur Municipality, Yemmiganur, Rep. by its commissioner, and others …Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri O. Manohar Reddy ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri S. I. Newton < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.9083 of 1999 ORDER: This case presents an instance, as to how the District Collector, Joint Collector, Kurnool, and the Yemmiganur Municipality have brought into existence a slum in the midst of Municipality, in gross misuse of their powers. Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple in the Yemmiganur Town owned land in Sy.No.317. With a view to pool resources, and obviously to avoid encroachments over the land, it approached the Director of Town Planning, and other Authorities for sanction of a lay-out. The lay-out was sanctioned in the year 1978, and plots were sold by conducting public auction. An extent of 55 cents was left for park and playground in the lay-out. The petitioner purchased Plot No.11. The then Chief Minister of the State, made a visit to the Municipality, on 04-04-1997, and it appears that, he wanted house site pattas to be granted to certain poor persons in the Municipality. On his directions, the Mandal Revenue Officer approached the Municipality, the 1st respondent, to identify any vacant land. The open space left in the lay-out, referred to above, became handy, and he wanted the Municipality to hand over the same for assignment of house sites. The matter was mooted with the Municipal Council, and with great reluctance, it passed a resolution only on 29-10-1997, proposing to address the District Collector, to take a decision, since the matter need de-reservation of the open space, and change of entries in the revenue records. The Joint Collector is said to have accorded such permission, on 09-04-1999 to regularize the encroachments, pending necessary orders from the Government. The petitioner states that even before necessary steps could be taken, the open land was encroached by various persons and a slum has come into existence. He contends that a place, which is earmarked for playground, and which could not be put to any other use, even by the owners of the land; cannot be permitted to be allotted, as house sites. The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit; almost every fact, pleaded in the affidavit is admitted. It is stated that the open place was handed over to the Municipality, and it had to be put to a difference use, on account of the various developments, that are mentioned in the counter-affidavit. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.I. Newton, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The Government issued Lay-out Rules and Building Bye-laws, in exercise of power under various enactments, including the A.P. Municipalities Act, stipulating the norms under which, a lay-out or a building permission can be granted. The emphasis for such an exercise is to ensure that the buildings are not constructed in a cluster, and facilities like, roads and open places are maintained for better environment. While sanctioning a lay-out, conditions are imposed to the effect that the roads and open places are vested in the Municipality. Even this measure is taken, to ensure that the owners do not put such places to other use. The lay-out sanctioned in favour of Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple was fully in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, and a fairly large extent of land, viz., 55 cents, was earmarked for park and playground. Under no circumstances, such an open place can be put to any other use. Even the owner of the land is prevented from using the land, in any other manner. The circumstances stated by the petitioner, that led to the open places being allotted as house sites; are as under: “…The building lines and the street boundary for the respecting streets shall be adopted as shown in the approved layout plan L.P.No.222/78 and when a site abuts more than one street, the building line shall be enforced in respect of all streets…”. A perusal of the sixth paragraph, discloses that all the authorities mentioned therein, either in tandem or on their own way, have contributed for blatant violation of the relevant provisions of law. The net result is that an open place, which was earmarked for playground for children, or a park, was converted into a slum. The Authorities, who were endowed with the responsibility to ensure a healthy growth of township, have become responsible for degradation of the same into an unhygienic habitat. The acts and omissions on their part are despicable and are liable to be deprecated. It is on account of such irresponsible way of functioning, that the unhealthy growth in the various places is taking. Instead of curbing illegal encroachments, or use of land contrary to the relevant provisions of law, the respondents have encouraged the same. This Court takes serious note of such violations. No one can object to the plan of the respondents to provide house sites to the needy persons. For that purpose, suitable sites are to be identified, if necessary, by acquisition, and allotment has to be made after thorough verification of the background of the needy persons. The systematic growth of a township cannot be sacrificed to bring popularity, either to the officials or to the politicians. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and it is directed that the respondents 1 and 2 shall hand over the vacant possession of the land of 55 cents to Sri Anjaneyasway Temple, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and if there are any encroachers over the land, such of them, who deserve allotment of house sites, shall be provided the same, at a different place. The land that is handed over to the temple, shall not be put to any other use, but it shall be under its direct control. In case, the order is not complied with, as directed above, this Court would consider the feasibility of declaring the respondents 1 and 2, by themselves, as encroachers, violators of law, and to pass furthers orders in that context. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.27-11-2008. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Note: Mark L.R. Copies. (B/O) KO*