IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9111 of 2004 Between: 1. S.Nageswara Rao, s/o Gangaraju, R/o A.P.Housing Board Colony, Lala Cheruvu (V), Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. 2 K.S.Prakash Rao, s/o Narayana, R/o A.P.Housing Board Colony, Lala Cheruvu (V), Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. 3 K.Janardhana Rao, s/o Veeriah, R/o A.P.Housing Board Colony, Lala Cheruvu (V), Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. 4 A.S.Sarveswara Rao, s/o Ramachandra Murthy, R/o A.P.Housing Board Colony, Lala Cheruvu (V), Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. 5 D.Rama Krishna, s/o Venkat Rao, R/o A.P.Housing Board Colony, Lala Cheruvu (V), Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. 6 Y.V.Krishna Swamy, s/o Satyanarayana, R/o A.P.Housing Board Colony, Lala Cheruvu (V), Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. 7 S.V.V.Satyanarayana Raju, s/o Subba Raju, R/o A.P.Housing Board Colony, Lala Cheruvu (V), Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. 8 P.V.N.Surya rao, s/o Ramasarma, R/o A.P.Housing Board Colony, Lala Cheruvu (V), Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. 9 Smt.H.Kameswaramma, w/o Kasipathirao, R/o A.P.Housing Board Colony, Lala Cheruvu (V), Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. 10 J.Satyanarayana Murthy, s/o Guru Murthy, R/o A.P.Housing Board Colony, Lala Cheruvu (V), Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. 11 V.V.Pankala Rao, s/o Nagabhushana Rao, R/o A.P.Housing Board Colony, Lala Cheruvu (V), Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. ..... Petitioners AND 1 A.P.Housing Board, rep., by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board, Tadepalligudem, W.G.District. 3 The Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board, Rajahmundry. 4 The Director of Town & Country Planning, Govt., of A.P., Hyderabad. .....Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in making constructions in the area earmarked for park in Sy.No.473 of Palacharla Village, Lalacheruvu Panchayat, Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to make any constructions or allot the area earmarked for park in Sy.No.473 admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.18 cents situated in Palacharla (V), Lalacheruvu Panchayat, Rajanagaram (M), E.G.District. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9111 of 2004 ORDER: Petitioners are residents of Lalacheruvu Housing Board Colony, Rajanagaram. They ﬁled writ petition seeking a direction to respondents not to construct houses in the land admeasuring Acs.2.18, earmarked for park, comprised in survey No.473 of Palacharla village. They contend that in the layout plan No.352/1981, in respect of Acs.139.00 of land in survey Nos.471 to 474 and 490 to 492 acquired by Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, the area was shown as park area, and therefore, construction is not permissible. They placed reliance on decision of Division Bench of this Court in P. Venkateswarlu v Govt. of A.P.[1]. The Executive Engineer (Housing), Tadepalligudem, ﬁled detailed counter aﬃdavit enclosing layout plan No.352/1981 as well as revised layout plan No.4/2001. It is the case of Housing Board that construction was taken up in the area reserved for houses and that open space/park area is kept intact. After hearing learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, and perusing two layout plans, this Court is convinced that writ petition is ﬁled on a misconception. Housing Board is constructing houses in the space earmarked for housing in revised layout plan No.4/2001 and construction is not made in open space. Therefore petitioner’s contention is incorrect. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 22, 2008 YS To 1 A.P.Housing Board, rep., by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board, Tadepalligudem, W.G.District. 3 The Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board, Rajahmundry. 4 The Director of Town & Country Planning, Govt., of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 Two C.C.s to Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 6 Two C.D. copies. [1] 2001(6) ALD 533 (DB)