IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2296 of 2002 Between: 1 R.Rama Murthy S/o late Siva Narayana R/o Srikakulam. 2 R.Chiranjeevulu, s/o late Siva Narayana R/o Srikakulam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Srikakulam Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENT 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 proceedings Roc.No. 5753/2000/G1, dt: 5-11-2001 issued by the respondent herein without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal by illegal by issuing appropriate writ of Mndamus or any other order or direction Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2296 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings issued by the respondent in Roc.No.5753/2000/G1, dated 05-11-2001, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that they are absolute owners of the land admeasuring Ac.0-7527 cents in T.S.Nos.646/1 and 645/4P situated at Balaga Ward in Srikakulam District. Originally, the said land was earmarked for institutional use. However, pursuant to the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.413, dated 20-07-2000, the said land was converted into residential use. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application before the respondent on 04-10-2000 requesting for grant of layout in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-7527 cents. As the said application has not been disposed of within 150 days, the layout is deemed to have been granted as per Sub-Section 5 of Section 185 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short “the Act”). Further, as per Sub-Section 3 of Section 185 of the Act, it is for the Municipal Council either to grant or reject layout. As the layout was not approved, the petitioners earlier filed W.P.No.20622 of 2001 before this court and the same was disposed of on 04-10-2001 directing the respondent herein to dispose of the application of the petitioners in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order of this court, the impugned order, dated 05-11-2001, has been passed rejecting the application of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the petitioners along with one Smt.R.Narayanamma initially filed an application, dated 12-12-1987, for grant of layout in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1-52 cents in T.S.Nos.646/1 and 654/4 situated at Balaga Ward in Srikakulam District. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, had issued tentative layout with six plots vide letter, dated 10-09-1988, as the remaining land was falling in the earmarked institutional zone and 60’ wide Master Plan road was sanctioned as per G.O.Ms.No.468, dated 30-08-1988. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.9105 of 1991 before this court and the same was disposed of on 23-04-1998 with a direction to consider the change of the land use on the application of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an application on 21-12-1998 for change of the land use for an extent of Ac.1-60 cents and the said application was considered and the Government accorded permission for change of the land use from institutional use to residential use. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted another application, dated 04-10-2000, for grant of layout in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-7527 cents excluding the land admeasuring Ac.0-7673 cents, which was covered in the earlier tentative layout in T.S.Nos.645/4 and 646/1, suppressing the fact of earlier approved tentative layout to an extent of Ac.1-52 cents. The said area has been excluded on the ground that the petitioners in the year 1993 had entered into sale agreement with an unregistered sale deed. In fact, the application of the petitioners, dated 04-10-2000, was forwarded to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, as per Section 185 (3) of the Act. The Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, after conducting enquiry, declined to approve the layout vide proceedings, dated 16-03-2001 and the said rejection order was communicated to the petitioners on 24-04-2001. Therefore, the respondent, after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and also the recommendations of the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, issued the impugned order rejecting the layout application. Admittedly, the petitioners have not questioned the rejection order of the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, dated 16-03- 2001, which was communicated to the petitioners vide Endorsement, dated 24-04-2001. As the petitioners failed to question the rejection order of the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, dated 16-03-2001, which was communicated to the petitioners vide Endorsement, dated 24-04-2001, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as sought for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 15-04-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM}