IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17772 of 2003 Between : Kuralla Somasundara Rao S/o K.Nagaiah R/o 11/191., Eluru Road., Gudivada., Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director., Hyderabad, Country and Town Planning, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Gudivada Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner, Gudivada, Krishna District. 3 Town Planning Officer. Gudivada, GudivadaMunicipality. Gudivada. Krishna District. 4 Smt.Sidda Bathula Lakshmi Neelaveni Gudivada, Councillor, 10th Ward, Gudivada Municipality, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent Municipality in withholding L.P.No.59/2002 approved by the 1st respondent herein on the ground that the 4th Respondent herein made a representation as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and the A.P. Municipalities (Layout) Rules, 1970 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent Municipality to permit the petitioner to proceed further in accordance with L.P.No.59/2002 approved by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2nd respondent- Municipality in withholding L.P.No.59/2002/G, approved by the 1st respondent, as illegal. 2. Petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring Ac.0.92 cents, covered by T.S.No.73/1 in R.S.No.244 of Gudivada. He submitted an application to the 2nd respondent- Municipality, seeking approval of layout, which in turn, forwarded the same to the 1st respondent. Vide letter, dated 24.06.2000, the 1st respondent has granted tentative approval in L.P.No.38/2001. But, subsequently, on the objections of respondent No.4, the petitioner was advised to submit a revised plan. Accordingly, he has submitted the revised plan, which is as per the master-plan, and the Municipality has also forwarded the same to the 1st respondent. Thereafter, L.P.No.59 of 2002 was granted on 24.10.2002, granting tentative approval. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has complied with all the conditions, final approval is not granted, only at the instance of respondent No.4. 3. Separate counter affidavits are filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, while admitting that there is approval with regard to L.P.No.59/2002/G, it is stated that the same has to be implemented by the competent authority i.e. the 2nd respondent-Commissioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that after approval of tentative layout, petitioner has requested the Municipality, to accept the cost of land in lieu of open spaces, for which, the 1st respondent has accorded permission, through his proceedings, dated 05.03.2003. Thereafter, the Municipality, vide its letter in ROC.No.4774/01-G1, dated 07.05.2003, has requested the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,81,440/- towards the cost of open spaces, at the rate of Rs.420/- per square yard. It is also stated that the petitioner has paid the amount as instructed by the Municipality, but however, in view of some objections raised during the ‘Janmabhoomi’ program, again, the 1st respondent was addressed. 4. As much as there is already approval of the tentative layout, and as the petitioner has also paid an amount of Rs.1,81,440/- towards the cost of open spaces, there appears no valid reason in not issuing the final layout. Therefore, if the final layout is not yet approved, there shall be a direction to the respondents to approve and release the final layout as sought by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that such approval and release shall be subject to compliance of all the conditions imposed by the Municipality, while granting approval for tentative layout. 5. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th July 2009. ajr