IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8557 of 2002 Between: Hanja Bai & another. ..... Petitioners AND Amalapuram Municipality, Amalapuram, rep., by its Commissioner, East Godavari District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M.V. Suersh Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S. Nageswara Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8557 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 02.06.2001 and resolution dated 16.06.2001 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. The petitioners claim to be purchasers of a part of the land forming part of approved layout bearing L.P.No.107 of 1999 dated 08.11.1999, from respondent Nos.3 and 4. They have felt aggrieved by proceedings dated 02.06.2001 issued by respondent No.2 and the resolution passed by respondent No.1 on 16.06.2001 purporting to implement order dated 02.06.2001 passed by respondent No.2. Proceedings dated 02.06.2001 passed by respondent No.2 is in the nature of a letter addressed by him to respondent No.1, municipality, wherein it is mentioned that as the applicant has not fulfilled the conditions mentioned in proceedings dated 08.11.1999, he requested respondent No.1 to cancel the layout approved in L.P.No.107 of 1999. In the proposals placed before respondent No.1 for passing a resolution, it is mentioned that by proceedings dated 02.06.2001, respondent No.2 cancelled the layout and that respondent No.1 was requested to publish such cancellation. In the resolution part, the counsel has placed on record the proceedings of respondent No.2. Sri M.V. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is totally misconceived because respondent No.2 has not cancelled the layout, but merely requested respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the layout. He further submitted that respondent No.1 completely misunderstood proceedings dated 02.06.2001 issued by respondent No.2 and proceeded on the premise that he has already cancelled the layout. Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that despite repeated notices issued to respondent Nos.3 and 4, they have not complied with the conditions, subject to which the layout was sanctioned and therefore respondent Nos.1 and 2 had no other option than cancelling the layout. A careful analysis of the proceedings issued by respondent Nos.2 and 1 reveals that while respondent No.2 requested respondent No.1 to cancel the layout for non-fulfillment of the conditions, subject to which the layout was approved, respondent No.1 understood the same as having the effect of cancellation of the layout. In my considered view, respondent No.1 has not properly understood the scope and purport of communication dated 02.06.2001 issued by respondent No.2. As already observed hereinabove, respondent No.2 merely requested respondent No.1 to initiate action for cancellation of the layout proceedings. The said proceedings did not have the effect of cancellation of the layout. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by declaring that so far the layout has not been cancelled either by respondent No.1 or respondent No.2, however, respondent No.1 is entitled to act on communication dated 02.06.2001 issued by respondent No.2. Before cancelling the layout, respondent No.1 shall give notices to the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4 and after giving them an opportunity of personal hearing, it shall pass appropriate orders on communication dated 02.06.2001 issued by respondent No.2. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.10631 of 2002 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.02.2009 ES