HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6433 of 2003 Date : 07.08.2009 Between : Kamatham Narapa Reddy. …..Petitioner And The Director of Country & Town Planning, Government of A.P., Hyderabad & 6 others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6433 of 2003 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not taking action against respondents 5 to 7 for making illegal layout in the land admeasuring six acres in Survey Nos.796, 800 and 801 of Nellore Bit-II village of Nellore town. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he owns an extent of Ac.6.18 cents of land in Survey Nos.804/A, 804/B and 801 part, of Nellore Bit-II Village, Nellore town, and he has obtained a sanctioned layout in respect of the above extent of land, from the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, in L.P.No.66/99. It is stated that after approval of layout in his favour, he has developed the said piece of land by forming roads and leaving open spaces, etc. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondents 5 to 7 also own an extent of six acres of land, which is situated to the East of the land owned by him, in which, they have formed illegal layout, and are selling plots to third parties, without obtaining due sanctioning from the competent authority. It is his grievance that inspite of such illegal action on the part of respondents 5 to 7, no action has been taken by the official respondents. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent- Commissioner, it is categorically stated that when it is brought to their notice about the illegal layout formed by respondents 5 to 7, they have already taken steps by destroying the roads in the layout and it is further stated that they have also circulated pamphlets in the locality on 05.03.2003, informing the general public not to purchase plots in the unauthorized layout formed by respondents 5 to 7, and that they did not grant any permission for construction of buildings in the layout in question. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that in view of the steps already taken, it cannot be said that the official respondents are not taking any steps on the illegal layout formed by respondents 5 to 7. In the counter affidavit, it is also stated that there are orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.902, M.A., dated 31.12.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.113, M.A., dated 01.01.2008, for regularization of unauthorized layouts, and the time stipulated for submission of LRS applications is up to 31st of August 2009. 4. A separate counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 5 to 7, stating that they have already made an application on 15th of March 2003 to the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad, through the Director of Town and Country Planning, for regularization of layout along with the enclosures. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 5 to 7. 6. In this writ petition, though it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondents 1 to 4 are not taking any action on the illegal layout formed by respondents 5 to 7, but from the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent- Commissioner, it is evident that he has already taken necessary steps to prevent sales in the said layout, and also destroyed the roads constructed by respondents 5 to 7 without approval of layout from the competent authority. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7 that they have already submitted an application for regularization of layout, but the same is denied by the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, stating the steps taken by them, it cannot be said that no steps have been taken by the official respondents. Even according to the averments made in the counter affidavit of respondents 5 to 7, there is no approval for the layout and no orders are issued as on today, regularizing the layout. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition, directing the official respondents not to allow any constructions in the unauthorized layout formed by respondents 5 to 7. However, it is made clear that if respondents 5 to 7 make any application for regularization of layout, it is open to the competent authority, to take steps for regularization in accordance with law, by collecting necessary fee. 8. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th August 2009 ajr