THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.12754 of 2011 Dated 10th October, 2011 Between: P.Vamshidhar Rao …Petitioner And Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, rep.by its Commissioner and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mrs.A.Anasuya Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Dr.Y.Padmavathi Counsel for respondent No.3: Smt.Kalpana Ekbote The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in returning the application submitted by the petitioner for construction on the ground that the site is not within the boundaries of respondent No.3-Society as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to have purchased vacant site admeasuring 600 sq.yards forming part of plot No.25/A/3 in Survey No.120/403/1 of Shaikpet Village, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, through document No.2637/09, dated 02.09.2009, from respondent No.3- Society. When the petitioner’s application for NOC from the District Collector was insisted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for processing his application for grant of building permission, he has filed W.P.No.32271 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 22.12.2010, with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to receive his application without insisting on NOC from the District Collector. Accordingly, the petitioner’s application was entertained and by the impugned order, the same was rejected on the ground that the plot in respect of which the application is filed is not covered by the draft layout and that the boundaries do not fall within the approved layout of respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that as the Government was convinced that respondent No.3 was in need of land in addition to Acs.100.00 which was allotted to it and in respect of which layout was sanctioned, it has issued G.O.Ms.No.1013, Revenue (ASN.III) Department, dated 08.11.1991, allotting Acs.4.00 of land and handed over the same to the Person-in- Charge of respondent No.3-Society on 15.11.1991. The Person-in- Charge has submitted a layout for approval in the year 1992 itself along with a “continued map” showing the extent of Acs.4.00 as in continuation of the extent of Acs.100.00 of land. It is the further case of respondent No.3 that registration of the said extent of Acs.4.00 was stalled by the CBCID in view of the pendency of criminal cases and Phase-II layout copy was misplaced by the Society. That under the impression that the revised layout was sanctioned, some plots were sold to its members through registered sale deeds and that subsequent verification revealed that phase-II layout was prepared but not sanctioned and respondent No.3 has applied to respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Layout Regularisation Scheme in respect of Acs.4.00 of land, which was rejected by the latter on the ground that when there is already an approved layout, application under Layout Regularisation Scheme is not maintainable with the advise to file an application for a revised layout. The revised layout application was also rejected by respondent Nos.1 and 2 by stating that the roads shall not be altered. The stand referred to above as taken by respondent No.3 would clearly reveal that the site in respect of which the petitioner made the application for grant of building permission is not part of the approved layout held by respondent No.3 and therefore, the impugned rejection by respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the petitioner’s application for grant of building permission cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. So long as the plot held by the petitioner is not situated in a sanctioned layout, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of building permission. Unless respondent No.3 successfully challenges the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the regularisation application and revision of layout, the petitioner is not entitled in law to seek sanction of building permission from respondent Nos.1 and 2. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.15518 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th October, 2011 VGB