IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17891 of 2008 BETWEEN: The Allottees and Residential Welfare Association MIG, II A, 33, Gullalapalem, VUDA Colony, Visakhapatnam., rep by its President Mr. M.Narayanaiah …Petitioner AND The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep by its Secretary And two others …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17891 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a welfare association of allottees in VUDA Colony, Visakhapatnam. The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Association - the first respondent, prepared the layout at Gullalapalem Village, Visakhapatnam District and allotted nearly 485 plots under different categories. As provided for under the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975, and the rules made thereunder, open area for schools, market complex, parks etc., were earmarked. The 3rd respondent was allotted a site in the said layout for the purpose of construction of a school, way back in the year 1981. For one reason or the other, the construction did not come up. The allotment was cancelled in the year 2000. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.No.1201 of 2000. The writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. It was stated that on the basis of an order passed by the Civil Court through the medium of Lok Adalat, the allotment was restored, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 1st respondent with a request to allot that very plot to them, for construction of an old-age home etc., This writ petition is filed alleging that the 1st respondent did not take the welfare of the residents into account and has not allotted the plot, though it is available. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that though with some delay, the 3rd respondent has since constructed a school building and the school is being run in it. It is also stated that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to, and the existing school cannot be converted into old-age home. The 3rd respondent stated in her counter affidavit that the delay in constructing school building was on account of various factors, not in her control. The cancellation of allotment is said to have been set aside through an award dated 28.06.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat in O.S.No.2567 of 2001. It is also stated that the Municipal Corporation has accorded permission to construct on 25.01.2008 and that the school is since been constructed. The 3rd respondent alleges that there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner in coming forward with the request to allot the site, nearly three decades after the original allotment. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. The first is about the restoration of allotment of the layout in favour of the 3rd respondent, and the second is about non- allotment of plot in its favour. Inasmuch as the very plot is claimed by the petitioner, there is an apparent overlap of both these aspects. The allotment of the site for construction of a school building in favour of the 3rd respondent took place way back in the year 1981. Neither the petitioner, nor any other individual or agency raised any objection for that. The school could not be constructed almost for a period of two decades. The respondent cancelled the allotment in the year 2000. The 3rd respondent availed certain remedies and ultimately, the allotment was restored in the year 2003. This was followed by the grant of permission by the Municipal Corporation and construction of building. It is not in dispute that a school is being run in the building constructed on the allotted site. At this length of time, the petitioner cannot complain about the initial allotment or subsequent restoration in favour of the 3rd respondent. Except the aspect of delay in construction, no other infirmity is being pointed out. A vague allegation is made across the Bar to the effect that the building is being put to other uses. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the allotment of site in favour of the 3rd respondent or construction of building thereon. The Petitioner claims to have made a representation to the 1st respondent for allotment of the very site for construction of old-age home, police station, post office etc., The question of considering the same does not arise. If any vacant site is available and if the 1st respondent is satisfied about the impending necessity or legality thereof, the request of the petitioner can be examined. The 3rd respondent also must ensure that the school is not put to any other use. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that: a. The allotment of site by the 1st respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent and construction of building thereon, does not warrant any interference by this Court; b. The 3rd respondent shall not put the building constructed on the site to any other use other than for running a school; and c. In case the petitioner makes an application for allotment of site for the public purpose and if a vacant site is available in the layout, the 1st respondent shall consider the same on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY December 05, 2009 BVV