HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 3419 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner purchased plot No.18 carved out of Sy.No.264/1 of Anantapur Revenue village admeasuring Ac.0.06 cents through sale deed dated 26/02/1969. The Anantapur Municipality/the first respondent herein intended to lay 30 feet road in that area. The total extent of the plot of the petitioner was to be affected. Instead of acquiring that land, it proposed to give equal extent of alternative site at a different place. The petitioner agreed for that, and the road was laid in the year 1996. The petitioner went on making representations for providing the alternative site. The first respondent identified plot No.1 admeasuring Ac.0.05.3 cents which is part of open space left in Layout Plan No.142/93. The Municipal Council passed a resolution on 31/10/1996 for transferring the said plot to the petitioner. The proposals were submitted to the second respondent for approval in the year 1997. Certain objections were raised by the second respondent through its letter dated 11/12/1998. The doubts expressed by the second respondent were clarified by the first respondent through their proceedings dated 25/02/1999. Ever since then, nothing happened. The petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to transfer the plot earmarked for her. The first respondent did not file any counter-affidavit. In his counter, the second respondent has admitted that correspondence for transfer of the plot in favour of the petitioner was ensured. The only objection raised by them is that the open land is earmarked for developing urban forestry etc., and that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. Heard Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for second respondent. The generosity shown by the petitioner to help the first respondent to lay a road has proved to be a misplaced one. Without insisting on payment of compensation or immediate handing over of alternative site, the petitioner parted with the possession of Ac.0.06 cents of site purchased by her way back in the year 1996. The road was laid immediately, and ever since then, the public is using it. On its part, the Municipality, no doubt, passed a resolution promptly and submitted the proposals. The doubts entertained by the second respondent were also clarified. Still, nothing. Normally, this Court would be reluctant to direct the Municipalities to part with the open spaces that are left in layouts. The plot earmarked for the petitioner is indeed part of open space of L.P.No.142/93. However, a perusal of the proceedings, dated 25/02/1999, addressed by the first respondent to the second respondent disclose that as many as 11 plots were carved out of the open space, on finding that there is no possibility of construction of a school building. Out of them, 5 were put to public auction and sold away. It has also referred to, two instances of the Government permitting allotment of plots carved out of open spaces to the displaced persons. Through G.O.Ms.No.534, M.A. (J2) dated 03/10/1998, Government permitted allotment of 15 cents of open space of L.P.No.292/80 in favour of K.Venkatanarayana. Similarly, through G.O.Rt.No.285 dated 18/04/1998, one Smt.V.Bharathi was allotted 7.5 cents of open space of L.P.No.104/95. When such is the case, there was absolutely no basis or justification for the respondents in not handing over the site earmarked for the petitioner. She is an old lady of about 70 years. She has to make lot of endeavour to construct a house thereon. The matter cannot brook any further delay. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to forthwith, not later than 15 days from today, handover the possession of Ac.0.05.3 cents of land forming plot No.1 carved out of open space of L.P.No.142/93. The other formalities of conveyance of title, if any, to the petitioner shall be undertaken soon thereafter. In case the petitioner submits an application for permission to construct house, the same shall be considered on the basis that the petitioner has proper title over it even if the rest of the formalities for conveyance of title are not completed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 10th June, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. B/o. SKM