IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.25909 OF 2003 Dt.10.02.2010 Between: Mohd. Nayeemullah Ahmed and others … Petitioner And The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Rep. By its Vice-Chairman at Begumpet Hyderabad … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.25909 OF 2003 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in approving and releasing the revised layout submitted by respondent No.3 on 17.4.1990, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to regularize/approve the revised layout and to respondent No.2 to grant building permissions for construction of houses as per the revised layout in favour of the members of respondent No.3 – society, in respect of the lands bearing S.Nos.320/1, 320/2, 321, 324, 326 and 326/2 of Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad District. The petitioners are members of respondent No.3 – society. Respondent No.3 entered into an agreement of sale with the general power of attorney of original pattadars in respect of Ac.48.25 gts., in the above mentioned survey numbers. However, the said property along with some more extent was subject matter of land acquisition proceedings. When respondent No.3 approached the State Government for denotifying its land, the State Government issued G.O. Ms. No.232, dt.18.3.1981 wherein while deciding to proceed with the proposed acquisition, the Government made provision for allotment of house sites to the members of respondent No.3 – society subject to the conditions enumerated therein. In pursuance of the said G.O., the acquisition proceedings were proceeded further. In pursuance of the directions contained in G.O. Ms. No.232, respondent No.3 remitted certain amounts towards development of plots and preparation and approval of layout. Respondent No.1 executed sale deeds in favour of the members of respondent No.3 – society in the year 1989 and in pursuance of the sale deeds, plots were allotted on the basis of an approved layout. Finding difficulty in identifying the plots based on the approved layout, respondent No.3 approached the State Government for revision of the layout. The State Government issued G.O. Rt. No.109, dt.28.1.1991 directing respondent No.1 to approve the layout and building plans. The petitioners averred that while building plans were released in respect of certain individual members, respondent No.1 has not approved the revised layout. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. At the hearing, Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, placed before the Court Memo No.15280/M1/2004-8, dt.24.10.2006 issued by the State Government, wherein it is stated as under: “The attention of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority are invited to the subject and references cited. They are informed that the issues pertaining to the layout of Osmania University Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited in Shaikpet (v), Hyderabad have been examined in detail and after careful examination of the matter Government felt that it is necessary to regulate the further developments in the above layout area to prevent unauthorized constructions and financial loss to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. 2. Therefore, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is hereby directed to consider the issue of building permissions in the above layout area as per the layout pattern existing on the ground (copy of the revised layout plan is enclosed) by collecting the necessary building permit fee/charges, proportionate cost of development charges (for the purpose of taking balance developmental works in the layout), proportionate cost of shortfall in open space.” Sri D. Kodandarama Rao, learned Counsel, representing Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation will have no objection to carryout the directions given by the State Government in the above mentioned Memo. Sri M. Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 - Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, submitted that respondent No.3 is liable to pay Rs.1.65 crores as in the year 2002 and that for granting final approval of the layout, the said amount has to be paid by respondent No.3. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.3. However, in the light of the plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed with the above mentioned Memo dt.24.10.2006 issued by the State Government, no specific directions need be issued in this Writ Petition. However, while placing the above mentioned Memo on record, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to respondent No.1 to recover the amounts, if any, due and payable by respondent No.3 in accordance with law and the rights of the petitioners and respondent No.3 in the matter of release of the approved layout shall be subject to the right of respondent No.1 to recover such amounts. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10.02.2010 bnr