THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.282 of 2008 Date: 17.01.2008 Between: Sri Rajarajeswari Estates, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. … Petitioner AND Tirupathi Urban Development Authority, Rep., by its Vice-Chairman, Tata Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.C. Krishnan Counsel for the respondent : Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION. No.282 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in dismantling the roads and pillars, which were laid by the petitioner’s firm in Sy.Nos.306/2, 306/1 and 307/6 over an extent of Ac.2.14½ cents situated at Tummalagunta Group, Chiguruvada North Kandriga Village Accounts, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims to have purchased the abovementioned extent of land on 21.11.2007 and it started laying roads by fixing stones. It is averred that the officials of the respondent visited the site on 04.01.2008 and threatened to remove the stone pillars and destroy the roads, which were already formed. The petitioner further averred that even if it has laid unauthorized plots, it is entitled to get regularization under G.O.Ms.Nos.901 and 902. Heard Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the petitioner has not obtained sanctioned layout for undertaking the activities such as laying roads, erecting stone pillars etc. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 it is incumbent upon any developer intending to form layouts to apply for and obtain sanction of layouts. No specific pleading is raised in the writ petition to the effect that the petitioner made any such application. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing, however, submitted that after filing the writ petition, the petitioner made an application and that the same is pending. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent stated that as the petitioner started developing the land unauthorisedly and without applying for and obtaining any sanction of the layout, the respondent issued a notice in the first week of January, 2008 calling upon it to stop further activity. He stated that he has no instructions on the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an application was made by the petitioner for sanction of layout. Since admittedly the petitioner has not obtained the sanction for preparing and developing a layout, he cannot proceed with the laying of the roads and undertaking any developmental activity. If the respondent has interfered with any of such activities on the part of the petitioner, no exception can be taken to it. However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed that an application has been made for sanctioning of layout after filing of this writ petition, the respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the same, if already received by it, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the petitioner shall neither proceed with any further work nor the respondent shall destroy or remove any work, which was already undertaken by the petitioner. If either the petitioner has not made an application for sanctioning of the layout or the respondent rejects the application made by the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.293 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.01.2008 Note:- Issue CC in four days. B/o. ES