HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA Writ Petition No.6673 of 2006 Date : 23-11-2006 Between: Immanni Ramakrishna and others .. Petitioners And The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry and others .. Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA Writ Petition No.6673 of 2006 ORDER:- 1. The petitioners filed the present Writ Petition praying for Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Lr.R.O.C.No.2261/2005-G.1 dated 31-3-2005 of respondent No.1 and the consequential proceedings in Lr.R.O.C.No.4501/04/R dated 15-4-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from the provisions of the A.P.Municipal Corporations Act 1994 and consequently set aside the same and direct R.3 to grant final approval layout for the petitioners lands admeasuring Ac.6.84 cents in T.S.No.463/1, 463/2, 1100/1B, 1100/2B, 1100/5, 1097/1, 1097/2, 1100/3, 1100/4, 1097/5, 1098/4 of Hukumpet village, Hukumpet Gram Panchayat, Rajahmundry (Rural) Mandal, East Godavari District and pass such other suitable orders. 2. Counter affidavits are filed by R.1 and R.4, but wrongly shown as R.3 and the reply affidavit also had been filed. 3. The principal question which had been argued in elaboration by Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao, the Counsel representing the writ petitioners, Sri Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, the learned standing Counsel representing the first respondent and Sri M.Balaji, the learned Counsel representing fourth respondent is whether the lands in question fall within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry or within the limits of Hukumpet Gram Panchayat and to which authority the application for approval of layout to be made and further the Counsel on record incidentally referred to the proceedings in relation thereto. 4. It is stated that the first petitioner had purchased an extent of Ac.2.00 in T.S.No.463/1, 463/2, 1100/B, 1100/2B in Hukumpet village, Rajahmundry (Rural) Mandal, East Godavari District from its owner Medipati Jyothi, vide registered sale deed dated 30-7-2003. It is also stated that first petitioner also purchased an extent of Ac.2.00 in T.S.No.463/1, 463/2, 1100/5, 1097/1 and 1097/2 of Hukumpet village, Rajahmundry (Rural) Mandal, East Godavari District from its owner Tadi Suseela Devi vide registered sale deed dated 4-8-2003. It is further stated that the 2nd petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.2.00 I T.S.No.463/1, 463/2, 1100/3, 1100/4 of Hukumpet village, Rajahmundry (Rural) Mandal, East Godavari District from its owners Medipati Lalitha Kumari and Medipati Swapna under registered sale deed dated 30-7-2003. It is also further stated that the 3rd petitioner also purchased an extent of Ac.1.84 cents in T.S.No.463/1, 463/2, 1100/5, 1097/1, 1097/5 and 1098/4 of Hukumpet village, Rajahmundry (Rural) Mandal, East Godavari District from its owner Medipati Suseela Devi vide registered sale deed dated 30-7-2003. It is also further stated that the petitioners are thus owners of an extent of Ac.7.84 cents in the above survey numbers in the said village and their vendors had purchased this land under registered sale deeds dated 9-5- 1994, 11-5-1994, 10-5-1994 and 12-5-1994 respectively. Further specific stand is taken that the above lands fall within the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent Gram Panchayat and the collection of land revenue and issuance of pass books etc., for these lands are being done by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bommuru and the Adangals also show the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in relation to the said lands and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajahmundry (Rural), Bommuru had even issued title deeds in favour of the petitioners in relation to the said lands. It was further averred in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that initially the Hukumpet village was also included in the erstwhile Rajahmundry Municipality vide G.O.Ms.No.159 M.A., dated 25-3-1995. It is also stated that the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation was created by virtue of powers conferred on the Stage Government by the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act 1994. It is further stated that however vide G.O.Ms.No. 389, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (ELE.II) (M.A.) dt.30-8- 2001, the Hukumpet village was specifically excluded from the purview of the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. Further it was averred in para 6 of the affidavit that as the petitioners intended to develop the above extent of Ac.6.84 cents in T.S.No.463/P, 1027(P), 1100 (P) etc., they applied initially to R.4 Gram Panchayat for sanction of layout and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.28,000/- also by challan to the R.4 Gram Panchayat. It is further stated that the Gram Panchayat in its resolution dated 29-3-2004 noted that the proposal of the petitioners is in accordance with the layout rules and resolved to send the same to the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad (R.3) for approval. It was also further averred that on 10-2-2005 vide Lr.ROC.No.4501/04/R dt.10-2-2005 R.3 approved the tentative layout and stated that in case the tentative layout is acceptable to the petitioners, they can form roads and plots and submit the demarcated plan as per measurements on the ground and the requirement of plots etc., to R.3 through R.4 for final approval. Further it was stated that on receipt of the information, the petitioners immediately started levelling the land, formation of roads by incurring huge expenditure in this regard. It is further stated that the first respondent came to know of this and began asserting in his correspondence with the 3rd respondent that the Hukumpet village forms part of the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation limits and therefore the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to approve layouts for land within the Hukumpet village and vide letter R.O.C. No.2261/2005-G.1 dt.31-3-2005 directed R.3 not to approve any layout in the above referred T.S.Numbers and also directed that if any layout is under approval the same may be cancelled. It is also stated that basing on this letter, R.3 informed R.4 Gram Panchayat vide Lr.ROC.No.4501/04/R dt.15-4-2005 that the tentative layout issued by it is cancelled and directed it to advise the petitioners to submit layout proposals through R.1 for further action. It is further stated that the R.4 – Gram Panchayat vide Lr.No.5/2005 dt.17-5-2005 requested R.3 to withdraw its cancellation orders and approve the tentative layout granted to the petitioners and another letter dt.2-6-2005 was also addressed by R.4 to R.3 enclosing the Gazette Notification of G.O.Ms.No. 389 dt.29-8- 2001 specifically excluding the Hukumpet Gram Panchayat from the purview of the R.1. It was further stated that in the 1st week of January 2006, the officials of R.1 prevented the petitioners from carrying on the work being done on the above land alleging that the tentative layout sanctioned in their favour was cancelled and then only the petitioners made enquiries and came to know about the cancellation by R.3 on 15-4-2005 as per the instructions of R.1 dt.31-3-2005. It is further stated that the petitioners immediately gave a representation to R.3 on 14- 2-2006 requesting R.3 to revise its cancellation orders dt.15-4- 2005 and approved the layout plan contending that the petitioners’ lands are not covered by the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. It is also stated that R.4 also by letter dt.16-2-2006 informed R.3 that the cancellation of the layout of the petitioners is unwarranted and requested R.3 to revise its cancellation orders dt.15-4-2005. Further it was stated by the petitioners that no prior notice was given to the petitioners before cancellation and even the said cancellation was not communicated to the petitioners till January 2006 and R.3 acting under the dictation of R.1 and cancelling the tentative layout granted in favour of the petitioners cannot be sustained and as per G.O.Ms.No. 389, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, dt.29-8-2001 Hukumpet village stood excluded from the purview of the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation and hence, R.1 cannot contend that the lands in question fall within the limits of R.1. It is also further stated in para 12 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioners came to know that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajahmundry Urban Mandal vide ref.(B) 357/2005 dt.25/4/2005 informed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajahmundry (Rural) Mandal that the lands in T.S.No.442 to 464 and 938 and 939, 1038 to 1044, 1095 to 1100 are situated in Hukumpet Panchayat of Rajahmundry (Rural) Mandal and not Rajahmundry Urban Mandal and he also informed this to R.1 vide Lr.L.Dis.B.357/2005 dt.13-5-2005 and also stated that the Revenue Transactions such as collection of Land Revenue, issue of Pass Books etc., are being attended to by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajahmundry (Rural) only. It is further stated that the R.D.O., Rajahmundry vide ref.B/1669/2005 dt.29-6-2005 informed R.1 that T.S.Nos.440 to 464, 938, 939 and 1038 to 1044 and 1095 to 1100 of Hukumpet village are being administered by the Hukumpet village and Gram Panchayat only and they are not in the purview of the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. Further it was averred in para 13 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that even the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records vide R.C.No.A.1/1267/2005, dt.22-12-2005 addressed to the District Collector, East Godavari District (R.2) stating that Hukumpet village is a Zamindari village, that it was settled in the year 1957 and converted in Ryotwari under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, that while conducting Survey operations, the above T.S.Numbers were recorded as belonging to Hukumpet village in the Settlement Register of Rajahmundry village and he also stated that there is no boundary dispute between Rajahmundry town and Hukumpet village and the petitioners lands are not Government lands as per Revenue Settlement Registers and are Zeroiti lands under the occupation and enjoyment of the petitioners and he also specifically stated that R.1 had not produced any notification stating that the Hukumpet village or Gram Panchayat forms part of the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation and therefore its claim that they fall under its limits cannot be accepted. It was further stated that notwithstanding the above material, R.3 wrote to R.4 vide Lr.D.Dis.No.4501/04/R, dt.22-3-2006 stating that R.2 had taken a view that the petitioners lands fall within R.1’s jurisdiction and therefore requested R.4 to advise the petitioners to approach R.1 for approval of layout. It is also stated that these proceedings dt.22-3-2006 of R.3 and its decision cancelling the tentative layout granted to the petitioners dt.15-4-2005 and the instructions dt.31-3-2005 of R.1 to R.3 to cancel the approved layout of the petitioners are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act 1994 apart from being violative of principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners approached this Court praying for the reliefs referred to supra. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent specific stand was taken that the lands in question fall within the jurisdiction of the first respondent – Corporation and the writ petitioners wrongly approached the 3rd and 4th respondents and obtained tentative layout. Further specific stand was taken that the Hukumpet is a Gram Panchayat having revenue village in its jurisdiction and it does not have Town Survey numbers and it will consist of only Revenue Survey Numbers and the above said lands are under Town Survey Numbers and the petitioners suppressed this fact and obtained the tentative layout. It was stated that the first respondent has no knowledge about the various sale deeds by virtue of which it is stated that the petitioners purchased the properties in question. Further specific stand was taken in para 5 of the counter affidavit of R.1 that the T.S.No.463/1, 463/2, 1100/1B, 1100/2B, 1100/5, 1097/1, 1097/2, 100/3, 1100/4, 1097/5 and 1098/4 of Ward No.1, Block 15, Rajahmundry town are under the jurisdiction and administration of the 1st respondent Corporation. It is stated that if any boundary disputes arise in between two local bodies, the 2nd respondent is the District authority to finalize the said dispute. It is also stated that the Town Survey Records available in the 1st respondent – Corporation, reveals that the lands had been notified as Town Survey numbers since 1923 and as such the petitioners have no right to say that the administration of the lands is within the Hukumpet Gram Panchayat. It is further stated that the said lands are just abutting the 4th respondent – Hukumpet Gram Panchayat. It is further stated that the 4th respondent proceeded may be on the opinion that the lands fall within their jurisdiction but the same had not been confirmed. It is also further stated that the issue has been placed before the District Collector – 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent had called for remarks from Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Kakinada, East Godavari District, who in turn had submitted the report dt.3-2-2006 in R.O.C.No.A5/2/2006, after conducting the detailed enquiry to the 2nd respondent “stating that the said T.S.Nos. lands are under the jurisdiction of Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation as per the field measurement records of Hukumpet village and Rajahmundry Town” and in view of that there is no boundary dispute also. It is also further stated that in pursuance of the said report, the 2nd respondent informed the same to the 3rd respondent. Further in para 6 of the counter affidavit, it was pleaded that it is a fact that the Government had included the Hukumpet village in erstwhile Rajahmundry Municipality in 1995 but subsequently excluded the same and this issue does not have any relevance to the subject matter. It is also stated that the lands in Town Survey Numbers are under the administration of the 1st respondent Corporation and hence the writ petitioners wrongly approached the 3rd respondent and obtained alleged tentative layout for reasons best known to them only and the said approval is not valid as far as the administration control is concerned. It is also stated that the 4th respondent Gram Panchayat would not entertain such type of applications and it should be advised to the individuals to approach the proper authority and the process of application by the 4th respondent does not confirm to any administration right over the above mentioned T.S.Numbers. Further it was averred that the petitioners obtained tentative layout by suppressing the true facts and several other factual details also had been denied. It was also further pleaded in para 8 of the counter affidavit of R.1 that the 4th respondent Gram Panchayat had taken administrative action on the lands where it has no jurisdiction and the same was confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his letter Dis.No.H/6/3500/205, dt.4-3-2006, and the Deputy Director, Survey & Lads Records clearly stated in his report dt.3-2-2006 that the lands in question are part of the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. It was also further stated that the title of the property does not change the petitioners claim and it is only the dispute of administration control over the lands in question. It was also further stated that the Gazette notification in G.O.Ms.No. 389, dt.29-8-2001, pertains to inclusion and exclusion of the Hukumpet Gram Panchayat in Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation and hence it is not relevant to the land administration in the specified Town Survey Numbers. While answering paras 11, 12, 13 to 16 it was stated that it is the administrative matter between two local bodies and basing on the information the layout has been cancelled by rectifying the mistake. It is also stated that the 3rd had addressed a letter in D.Dis.No.4501/C4-R, dt.23-3-2006 to the 4th respondent asking to inform the petitioners to approach the 1st respondent and after issuing the notice only the 3rd respondent took the appropriate steps for cancelling the layout and hence the allegation of not issuing the prior notice is denied as baseless. It is further stated that the G.O.Ms.No.389 M.A., dt.29-8-2001 is inclusion and exclusion of 4th respondent Gram Panchayat and it does not pertain to land administration in T.S.No.463/1, 463/2, 1100/1B, 1100/2B, 1100/5, 1097/1, 1097/2, 1100/3, 1100/4, 1097/5 and 1098/4 of Ward No.1, Block 15 of Rajahmundry town and the same is confirmed by the 2nd respondent. It is also further stated that the 1st respondent Corporation earlier had forwarded a layout proposal in Rc.No.G1/1364/1971 dt.25-6-1971 in T.S.No.1099/P1 in Ward No.1, Block 15, for laying the road and the Director of Town and Country Planning, A.P., Hyderabad had approved layout pattern in L.P.No.71/71 and the same is incorporated in the Master Plan of Rajahmundry, which clearly establish the administrative control over the lands in question and hence the contentions of the petitioners are false. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Sarpanch of Hukumpet Gram Panchayat, though shown as R.4 in the Writ Petition specified as “counter affidavit filed by R.3”, may be by mistake, it was stated that Hukumpet village was included in Rajahmundry Municipality vide G.O.Ms.No. 159, dt.25-3-1995, but subsequently vide G.O.Ms.No. 389, M.A., and Urban Development (ELE-II (M.A.) dt.29-8-2001 as published in A.P. Gazette it was excluded from the purview of the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. Further it was stated that in the said counter affidavit that it is true that the writ petitioners applied for sanction of layout to R.4 for an extent of Ac.6.84 cents in T.S.No.463/P, 1027(P), 1100 (P) etc., and also paid a sum of Rs.28,000/- by challan to R.4. It is further stated that the 4th respondent vide resolution dt.29-3-2004 after noting that proposed layout plan of petitioners is in accordance with layout Rules resolved to send the same to R.3 for approval. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent initially approved tentative layout. Thereafter the petitioners started work by leveling land, laying roads etc. It is also further stated that the first respondent appears to have issued letter of R.3 stating that lands for which tentative layout was granted forms part of Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation and sought for cancellation of layout of petitioners. It was further stated in para 5 of the counter affidavit that R.3 vide Lr. ROC.No.450/04/R, dt.15-4-2005 intimated the 4th respondent that the layout tentatively issued stands cancelled as the lands forms part of the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation limits and this respondent immediately upon knowledge of the same vide Lr.No.5/2005 dt.17-5-2005 requested R.3 to withdraw its cancellation orders and approve final layout as the lands fall within the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent. It was also further stated that another letter was also issued on 2-6-2005 by this respondent to R.3 enclosing the Gazette notification of G.O.Ms.No. 389, dt.29-8-2001 which specifically excluded Hukumpet Gram Panchayat from the Rajahmundry Municipal limits. Specific stand is taken that the approval of layout had been sought for by the petitioners would lie within the territorial limits of R.4. 7. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners substantially reiterating the same stand as pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Further specific stand was taken in para 5 of the reply affidavit that the petitioners are concerned with T.S.No.463/1, 463/2, 1100/1B, 1100/2B, 1100/5, 1097/1, 1097/2, 1100/3, 1100/4, 1097/5, 1098/4 of Hukumpet village. It is stated that the Town Survey and Resettlement Register of Rajahmundry Town clearly indicates that T.S.No.463 and 464 D fall not in the said Rajahmundry Town but in Hukumpet village. It is also stated that as per certificate Ref.No.C/282/7/2005, dt.13-7-2006 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajahmundry Rural, Bomuru to the 1st petitioner, T.S.Nos.1100/1B, 100/2B, 1100/5, 1097/1, 1097/2, 1100/3, 1100/4, 1097/5, 1098/4 were carved out of T.S.No.464/D only subsequently and these survey numbers are continuing in the No.3 Adangal of Hukumpet village only and are not found in the No.3 Adangal of Rajahmundry Urban and the revenue records establish the same and thus the lands in these survey numbers fall in the jurisdiction of Hukumpet village only and not in the jurisdiction of Rajahmundry Town/Municipal Corporation. It is also further stated that the respondent No.2 may be directed to produce the said records. It is further stated that the said Town Survey and Settlement Register of Rajahmundry Town was prepared on 5-7-1935 under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act 1923 and is binding on all including the Municipal Corporation. It is also stated that in view of the said entries in the Town Survey and Settlement Register prepared on 5-7- 1935 the manuscript of Town Survey Register prepared in the year 1923 being relied upon by the Municipal Commissioner of Rajahmundry claiming jurisdiction over the above lands has no basis and stands superseded by the final notification issued on 5-7-1935 under the A.P.Survey and Boundaries Act 1923. It was further stated that as a matter of fact, the question involved is as to whether the lands in question fall within the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent or the first respondent and for that reason only, when the Collector, E.G. District, Kakinada requested the Asst. Director of District Survey and Land Records, through his letter dated 6-7-2005 to make survey to find out whether the land in question fall within Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation limits or the Hukumpet Gram Panchayat, the Asst. Director, District Survey and Land Records through his letter dated 22- 12-2005 rightly pointed out that the dispute is not a boundary dispute and the issue to be settled is whether the lands in question are within the Municipal Corporation Limits of Rajahmundry or within the limits of Hukumpet Gram Panchayat. It is further stated that in view of the same, the contention of the first respondent that R.2, the District Authority is competent to finalize the dispute has no basis at all. It is also further stated that the contention of the first respondent that as per the Town Survey records available with it, the lands are notified as T.S.No’s since the year 1923 and the petitioners have no right to say that the administration of the land is with Hukumpet Gram Panchayat, is untenable for the reasons set out above. It is also further stated that the 4th respondent acted correctly in acting on the petitioners’ request for layout as it alone has jurisdiction over the land in question and the report dt.3-2-2006 of the Regional Deputy Director, Rajahmundry, relied upon by the first respondent stating that the lands are within the jurisdiction of first respondent has no basis at all. It is further stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry enquired the matter with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajahmundry Urban and Rural and informed to the Commissioner in Ref.B-1669/05 dated 29-6-2005 confirming that the scheduled lands are not under the purview of the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent has again referred the matter to the Regional Deputy director of Survey and Land Records under the influence of the 1st respondent to get the adverse report on the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat by suppressing the records. It is also further stated that the Regional Deputy Director is not the competent authority to decide the issue as per the Acts and Laws in force. It is also stated that the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records had relied upon the unauthenticated town survey register of 1923 and he has not examined the reasons why for all the previous years 1st respondent had not filed any objection to the notification issued on Settlement Officer of village No.66, Rajahmundry in 1935, or the remarks offered against the subject lands in the settlement Register. It is further stated that as and when a notification is issued on the survey settlement operations in 1935, it supersedes any preexisting survey such as the one of 1923 being relied on by the 1st respondent. It is also further stated that the Regional Deputy Director failed to examine the revenue records or Panchayat records viz., Settlement Register of V.No.66, Rajahmundry, adangals of Rajahmundry and Hukumpet villages together with the tax collection particulars over the petition scheduled lands. It is further stated that this reveals the total lack of knowledge of the Deputy Director regarding use of available revenue records and that no reliance can be placed on the proceedings of the Regional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records. Further it was stated that the Pattedar Pass Books and other revenue records of the above lands are being maintained under A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act 1989 only by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajahmundry (Rural) who has jurisdiction over Hukumpet village and