HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.3524, 3540 of 2010 & W.P.No.4003 of 2011 Date : 29-10-2011 W.P.No.3524/2010 Between : M/s. Pooja Chemicals, Represented by its Proprietor C. Sai Lakshmi, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Industries Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri A. Rajendra Babu (in all the Writ Petitions) Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 4 : -- Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Sri B.P. Mohan, Standing Counsel The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Since these three Writ Petitions raise more or less identical issues, they are being heard and disposed of together. W.P.Nos.3524 and 3540 of 2010 are filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not sanctioning building plans in respect of plot No.128/B for establishment of a chemical and water treatment equipment industry and plot No.178-B for establishment of an industry for manufacture of precision components, job works and engineering fabrication, respectively, at I.D.A. Mallapur, as illegal and arbitrary. W.P.No.4003/2011 is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not registering plot No.102/B, admeasuring 2400 Sq.mts., situated at I.D.A. Mallapur as illegal and arbitrary. Since the issues involved in these Writ Petitions lie in a narrow compass, detailed facts need not be recorded. It will suffice to note that in the first of the two Writ Petitions, plots were allotted and registered in favour of the petitioners, on their paying the sale consideration, by respondent No.2. When the petitioners have applied for permission to construct buildings for establishment of industries, they were declined such permission on the ground that the plots sold to them lie in Green Belt Area under the existing layout and that a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9233/2006 has passed an order dated 28-4-2006 restraining respondent No.2 from making any further allotment from out of the Green Belt Area and also the competent authority and the Mallapur Notified Municipal Industrial Area Service Society are directed not to sanction construction on the plots allotted within the Green Belt Area. For the same reason, respondent No.2 declined to execute regular sale deed in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.4003/2011. Counter-affidavits have been filed in W.P.Nos.3524/2010 and 4003/2011 by the General Manager (Law) of respondent No.2. It is inter alia admitted that the plots in question were falling under the Open Space Area as per the original layout dated 2-9-1987; that subsequently, revised plan for Industrial Park, Mallapur was approved by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) vide L.P.No.5895/MP2/P/G/H/05, dated 12-10-2006 and that as per the said revised layout plan, the plots in question are not falling under the Green Belt Area/Open Space Area, on account of which the petitioners were not allowed to raise the constructions. At the hearing, Sri B.P. Mohan, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, has fairly conceded that the only ground on which the construction permissions were not granted to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3524 and 3540 of 2010 and the sale deed was not executed in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.4003/2011, is that the plots allotted to them fall in the Open Space Area in the original layout. In my opinion, the injunction granted by the Division Bench in W.P.No.9233/2006 will not prevent respondent No.2 from granting the building permissions to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3524 and 3540 of 2010 and executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.4003/2011, as concededly, their plots fall outside the Green Belt Area under the revised approved layout. As such there is no legal impediment for respondent No.2 in acceding to the requests of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3524 and 3540 of 2010 for granting building permissions and also transferring the property by way of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.4003/2011. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petitions are allowed as prayed for. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.26867, 26865/2010 and 4956/2011, filed in the respective Writ Petitions, are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 29-10-2011 AM