IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23735 of 2002 Between: Vijaya Sree Nager (Judges Colony) Welfare Association, Regd. No.837/2001, having it's Office at Plot No.88, Vijaya Sree Nagar, Vanasthalipuram-500007. Rep. by its President B. Sudharshan S/o. Ramaiah, L.B. Nagar Muncipality, R.R. District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Municipality Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Sub Registrar, Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Natubai B. Amin S/o. Bhailal Bhai Aminged R/o 15A, Kushboo, 6th N.S. Road Juhus Chom, Villeparley, Mumbai. 5 Mayur Bhai N. Amin S/o Natubai AB. Amin R/o 15A, Kushboo, 6th N.S. Road, Juhus Chom, Villeparley, Mumbai. 6 Smt. Kamala Bei P. Petal W/o. Purushhathathem Bhai V. Patel R/o. Mahaprabhumarvery Road, Malad, Mumbai. Rep. by GPA Holder shanthi lal S/o. Adithya Bhai and M. Chandall Naik, S/o. Venkateshwaram Naik Both are R/o. Mansoorabad, R.R.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 order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not taking effective steps to Protect the open land ear marked for public amenities in sanctioned lay out Dated 5-9-1980 for the lands bearing Sy.Nos.32,33,34 & 35 part Mansoorabad 5th ward L.B. Nagar Municipalities as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to develop this open land for public amenities as for the representation dated 2-9-2002, submitted by the petitioner- Association. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. V. Raghu Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. R. Ramachandra Reddy, S.C. for M.C.H Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: G.P., Municipalities and Urban Development Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6: Mr. C.V.R. Rudra Prasad The Court made the following Order: The petitioner-welfare association seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not taking effective steps to protect the open spaces covered in the approved layout dated 05-09-1980 for the land covered by Sy.Nos.32, 33, 34 and 35 part of Mansoorabad village, L.B. Nagar Municipality, Ranga Reddy District as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Respondents 4, 5 and 6 were the original owners and possessors of land admeasuring about Ac.47.30 guntas situated at Mansoorabad village in the erstwhile Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. They developed the land by converting the same into residential plots and obtained approval from the competent authority as required under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Building Rules, 1972 framed under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. As per the approved layout, in the aforesaid land, there was approval or 531 plots leaving 9 open spaces. The 9 open spaces which were left in the approved plan were shown between Plot Nos.477 and 476, 459 and 460, 384 and 385 and by the side of Plot Nos.375, between Plot Nos.367 and 368, 384 and 413, 508 and 509 and between 516 and 517. 3. The grievance of the petitioner-association in this writ petition is that though the open spaces which were covered in the approved layout vests with the first respondent-corporation, the original owners are trying to convert the same into plots so as to transfer them to third parties and in spite of the same no action is being taken by the respondent authorities to protect the said open spaces. 4. The Commissioner of the then L.B. Nagar Municipality has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that as per the approved layout of the Gram Panchayat, there are 9 open spaces and the said open spaces were identified and boards were erected showing the same belong to the Municipality, with a warning for prosecution against trespassers. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the unofficial respondents are trying to convert the said open spaces into plots and sell the same to third parties. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the first respondent will develop the open spaces depending upon the need and demand of the members of the colony, as per the norms and standards. A separate counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 4 to 6, wherein it is admitted that in the layout which was approved, out of the land admeasuring Ac.47.30 guntas, owned by them, 9 plots were shown as open spaces. It is their case that as H.T. Electric lines are passing through the said plots, as such, they were not saleable; thus they continue to be the owners of the said open spaces. It is also stated that they have sub-divided the said open spaces into 16 plots and gave power of attorney to Sri Shantilal Christ and Sri M. Chandulal Naik to deal with the said plots. Further the counter affidavit states that the open spaces are not vested either in the erstwhile Gram Panchayat or the successor-first respondent Municipality; as such the Municipality cannot develop the said open spaces into parks or playgrounds. The counter affidavit also states that as much as they continue to be the owners of the said open spaces, there is no illegality in taking steps for converting the said open spaces into plots and the same is not prohibited by law. 5. When the matter was listed on the earlier occasion, this court directed the first respondent to verify the present status of the open spaces which are shown as open spaces in the approved layout. After making inspection, an affidavit is filed by the Assistant City Planner, Circle 3, L.B. Nagar of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. In the affidavit, it is stated that during the inspection it was noticed that there were altogether 9 open spaces in the colony and out of the same 4 open spaces have been surrounded by a compound wall and the remaining 5 open spaces are kept open. It is also stated that no constructions have come up in any of the open spaces except in the one where a Government building is constructed long back. 6. Heard Sri V. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned standing counsel for the first respondent and Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad appearing for respondents 4 to 6. 7. In view of the pleadings on record, the only question which falls for consideration is whether the unofficial respondents, respondents 4 to 6, can be permitted to make use of open spaces which are shown in the approved layout by the then local authority, i.e. Gram Panchayat. It is not in dispute that respondents 4 to 6 were the original owners of the land to an extent of Ac.47.20 guntas covered by Sy.Nos.32, 33, 34 and 35 part. They have divided the said area into residential sites and sought approval of layout by dividing the said area into 531open plots and 9 open spaces. It is also not in dispute that after approval of the layout by the Gram Panchayat, the plots were sold to various purchasers constructions have come up on the said plots. The grant of layout in a Gram Panchayat is governed by the statutory rules, namely, The Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Buildings Rules, 1972 framed under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. Under Rule 3 of the said Rules, while making a layout, it is obligatory on the part of the owners to leave open spaces for common purpose. Although it is not in disputed by the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 that in the approved layout, 9 pockets of land were shown as open spaces, but, they plead that they continue to own the said open spaces, so as to utilize the same for conversion into house sites. As much as the layout is already approved and the total land is carved out into 531 plots, on approval of such layout, it is not open for respondents 4 to 6 to claim any ownership and rights overt he said open spaces which are forming part of the approved layout. Once a layout is approved, wherein certain areas are left as open spaces, on approval of such layout, the open spaces, roads etc., shown in such layout shall vest with the local body. After approval of the layout, having acted upon the said approval, it is not open for the owners to convert the open spaces into further plots. Such open spaces are meant for providing lung space for the plot owners. Though in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 6 it is stated that open spaces were further divided into plots, it is unexplained on what basis the said open spaces were converted into plots. Such action on the part of respondents 4 to 6 in seeking to convert the open spaces covered by approved layout into plots in absence of any permission from any competent authority is wholly illegal. In view of approval of the layout, having sold the approved plots, the plea of respondents 4 to 6 that they continue to be the owners of the open spaces, also, cannot be accepted. Though it is also stated that the petitioner-association was putting up structures and foundation stone was also laid, but, from the additional affidavit filed by the Assistant City Planner of the first respondent-corporation, it is evident that all the open spaces are vacant except one open space where a school building has come up. Having regard to the stand of respondents 4 to 6, it is a clear case where they, having obtained layout by leaving open spaces, are trying to sell away such open spaces by converting the same into house sites illegality and without authority of law. As much as it is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that boards have been erected showing that the said open spaces belong to the Municipal Corporation and further four of such open spaces have been encircled with compound wall, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to take all possible steps to protect the said 9 pockets of open spaces which are covered by the approved layout dated 05-09-1980 and to prevent any structures either by respondents 4 to 6 or any third parties claiming rights through them or also by the members of the petitioner- association. It is needless to observe that such open spaces shall be developed by the first respondent-corporation in a phased manner in due course of time. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. July 29, 2009 MRR