IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25109 of 2002 Between: H.J.S. Plot Holders Association, Rep., by Convenor, Mr. Syed Mahaboob, Ponnur Road, Guntur. … Petitioner AND The Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Haz House, Public Garden Road, Nampally, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B. Parameshwar Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan SC for Wakf Board This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25109 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in planting a board in the middle of the plots to the effect that the layout was not approved, as illegal. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to approve the layout in respect of land admeasuring Ac.13.42 cents in Sy.Nos.1196 and 1197 of Guntur Village. Heard Sri B. Parameshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board, respondent No.1. No one appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner, which claims to be an association of the owners of the plots sold by respondent No.1, filed the present writ petition with the grievance that respondent No.2 had been interfering with the right of its members to enjoy the plots by issuing notice dated 03.03.2001 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short, ‘the Act’). The further grievance of the petitioner association is that when one of its members by name Md. Talha submitted a building plan for its approval, respondent No.3 returned the same vide proceedings dated 12.12.2000 on the ground that the layout of the said land was not approved. While no counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.1, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed separate counter affidavits. The substance of both these counter affidavits is that it is incumbent upon the petitioner association and its members to get the layout approved and that no construction activity can be permitted without approval of such layout. Respondent No.2 averred that as certain developmental activities were noticed on the plots in question, a show cause notice was issued on 03.03.2001 to respondent No.1 calling upon the members of the petitioner association to stop the construction and also informing them that a 100’ master plan road is proposed through the plots. As no explanation was submitted by respondent No.1, an order was passed under Section 42(1) of the Act on 19.04.2001 directing them to remove the unauthorized developments, if any, within seven days. It is further averred that subsequently on 19.06.2001, respondent No.2 called upon respondent No.1 to pay necessary development charges and get the layout approved, failing which necessary action will be taken and thereupon the petitioner association got a legal notice addressed to respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 justified its action in not approving the plan submitted by one of the members of the petitioner association on the ground that in the absence of the approved layout, no building plan can be approved. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that either interference by respondent No.2 or refusal of sanctioning of the plan by respondent No.3 does not suffer from any legal infirmities. It is trite that there is no obligation on the part of respondent No.3, Municipal Corporation, to approve the building plan unless the plot is situated in an approved layout. While the petitioner blames respondent No.1 for the present situation, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate upon the grievance of the petitioner in this regard because that is an inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1. If respondent No.1 failed to get the layout approved, the petitioner can work out its remedies elsewhere. But, this does not entitle the petitioner to claim relief against respondent Nos.2 and 3 either to restrain the former from interfering with the developmental activities without approved layout being in place or to direct the latter to approve the building plans without a sanctioned layout. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested for giving opportunity to the petitioner association to make appropriate representations to the respondents to redress their grievance. It is needless to observe that such an opportunity is always available to the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.31675 and 31676 of 2002 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.03.2009 ES