THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 5773 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent in attempting to forcibly take possession of the petitioners’ land to an extent of 300 square yards in survey No.22 of Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam, which is a triangular site shown to have been ear- marked for shops, the title and possession of which is retained by the petitioners without alienating to the respondent Corporation even as per the approved lay out T.P No.35/1970, which is relied upon by the respondent and to make constructions around it without following due process of law, without issuing any notice or passing any orders, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the said property by the petitioners except under due process of law. 2. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: Petitioner Nos.1 to 3, and father of petitioner No.4, are sons of late Karri Veeranna, who owned and possessed a vast extent of landed property in Venkojipalem Village, Visakhapatnam. The said Veeranna sold an extent of Ac.16-00 cents of land out of the total extent of Ac 22-44 cents to one Smt Gottumukkala Appala Narsamma under registered sale deeds, dated 11.04.1943 and 05.08.1943, and other sale deeds. The purchasers of the above extents of land converted the land into an unauthorized layout and sold away the same as plots and as such they are not in possession and enjoyment of the property. They sold the land in small pieces without getting any lay outs approved. The petitioners being the successors to the property of Karri Veeranna continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the properties including the remaining property in survey No.22 of Old Venkojipalem in an extent of Ac 6.22 cents. When there was a threat of laying road through the property by the respondent-Corporation by Gottumukkala family, the petitioners got issued a telegraphic notice to the respondent-corporation and further when there was forcibly and illegally laying the road on 04.04.2008 through the petitioners property, they filed Writ Petition No.14826 of 2009 before this Court seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus complaining against laying of road in survey No.22 of Venjojipalem, Visakhapatnam, and for seeking removal of such road or on payment of compensation. In the said Writ Petition, the respondent-Corporation filed counter-affidavit stating that there is an approved layout in T.P.No.35/1970 in respect of Survey No.22 said to have been approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. W.P.No.14826 of 2009 was filed without regard to the disputed property, which was shown as ‘road’ and that such road was there, and they only renovated the road. For the first time, the respondent-Corporation put forth such an alleged layout. Immediately the petitioners made investigation and sought certified copy of the proceedings relating to the said alleged layout by approaching VUDA authorities, pertaining to the alleged T.P.No.35/1970 under Right to Information Act. The Public Information Officer, Office of the Town & Country Planning, A.P. Hyderabad, in his letter, ROC No.5908/2009/V. Cell/RTI, dated 25.07.2009 informed them that the file pertaining to the said T.P.No.35/70 is not available with them and the related files bearing Dis.No.15380/70/D5 were closed and destroyed upto the year 1987. The lay out copy of T.P.No.35/70 is available with them and furnished a copy of it to them. It is clear that there is no approved plan since such an authentic copy is not available even with the respondent-corporation. 3. Respondent – Corporation filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners filed W.P.No.14826 of 2009 before this Court complaining against the alleged road formation in an extent of 2600 square yards in Survey No.22 of Venkojipalem. In the said writ petition, the respondent filed counter contending that the road referred by the petitioners is a layout approved road and that the petitioners with a malafide intention equipped themselves with a required information for filing the writ petition. The Directorate of Town & Country Planning made available a copy of T.P.No.35/70 to the petitioners, which itself speaks that layout is approved for the land under reference. The layout owner Sri G.Ramachandra Raju sold the plots to different individuals as per the layout leaving the roads and common areas as per approved layout. As per the approved layout 6% of the total land is earmarked as open space in three different pockets. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the triangular site to an extent of 300 square yards in survey No.22 of Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam is earmarked for shops and the title vests with the owner; that the respondent - Municipality has no authority to take possession forcibly in respect of site in question and hence, he prays to issue a direction not to take possession of the land forcibly to an extent of 300 square yards in Survey No 22 of Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation contended that as per the layout, 6% of the total extent of the layout approved shall be given to the Municipality; that if this land comes within 6% of the total extent of Ac 9.60 cents, the petitioners have no right and hence, such a direction cannot be issued. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The layout has been approved by Director of Town and Country Planning. The layout owner, Sri G.Ramachandra Raju sold the plots to different individuals leaving the roads as per the approved layout. It is not in dispute before this Court that as per the approved layout, 6% of the land is earmarked as an open place in three different pockets. Therefore, if the present site to an extent of 300 square yards falls within any one of the three pockets, the respondent-Corporation has to take decision after giving notice to the petitioners. Admittedly, no such notice is given to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation to take appropriate action if the respondent - Corporation comes to a conclusion that this site falls under any one of the three pockets left as per the approved layout after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J OCTOBER 31, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 5773 OF 2010 Between: Karri Atchibabu and others. …PETITIONERS AND Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following :