HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.2191 of 2010 August, 2010 Between :- G.David Prabhakar .. Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No.2191 of 2010 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 3rd respondent dt.22-12-2009 rejecting the proposals submitted by the petitioner for constructing a building in plot No.696 bearing Municipal No.36-104/10, Defence Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, is arbitrary and illegal. It is pleaded by the petitioner that vide G.O.Ms.No.1100, dt.16-7- 1964, the 4th respondent – Society was granted permission to make plots for house-sites to Defence personnel in Sy.No.218/1 of Malkajgiri village, and pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent having divided the land into plots, sold the same to various members of the society. One V.Venkataramana was allotted plot No.696 admeasuring 350 sq.yards under registered document dt.27-12-1979. The said Venkatarama after obtaining the necessary permission constructed a house as per the sanctioned plan which was given door No.36-104/10, Defence Colony. The petitioner herein purchased the said house from Venkataramana under a registered sale deed in the year 2008. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased another extent of 225 sq.yards of land abutting plot No.696 from the 4th respondent – society under a registered sale deed dt.28-5-2008. As the petitioner wanted to construct a new house by utilizing the entire extent of 575 sq.yards i.e., 350 sq.yards in plot No.696 and the adjacent open land of 225 sq.yards purchased by him from the 4th respondent – society, he submitted the construction proposals to the 3rd respondent along with Demand Draft for Rs.2,74,015/-. However, the 3rd respondent under the impugned letter dt.22-12-2009 while rejecting the petitioner’s proposal for construction of house on the total extent of 575 sq.yards, called upon the petitioner to submit fresh proposals restricting the area to an extent of 350 sq.yards covered by plot No.696. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. It is contended by the petitioner that as the adjacent open area to an extent of 225 sq.yards was purchased by him from the 4th respondent – society under a registered sale deed for valid consideration, the objection raised by the 3rd respondent under the impugned letter is unwarranted and unjustified. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had allotted an extent of Ac.112.03 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.218/1 of Malkajgiri village vide G.O.Ms.No.1100, Revenue Department, dt.16-7-1964 for the house-sites of the members of the 4th respondent – society and the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, approved the layout vide layout No.26/65, dt.8-11-1965 with 660 plots each consisting of 350 sq.yards. The said layout was subsequently revised, vide layout No.328/66 dt.20-1-66 and was approved by the then Gram Panchayat, Malkajgiri, wherein 660 plots were increased to 1093 by reducing the reserved open space earmarked for public purpose from Ac.59.17 guntas to Ac.10.05 guntas. Though it is not disputed that 225 sq.yards of left over space purchased by the petitioner from the 4th respondent – society is part and parcel of the approved lay out, it is contended that and in view of Rule 10-A of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Layout) Rules, 1965, the said open space shall automatically stand transferred free of cost and shall vest with the Corporation free from all encumbrances. It is also stated that the 4th respondent – society cannot alienate the said open space abutting the approved plot No.696 without obtaining the necessary approval from the competent authority. Heard the learned Counsel representing both the parties. Rule 10-A of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Layout) Rules, 1965 reads as hereunder:- “All the roads and open spaces such as parks and play grounds earmarked in accordance with these rules in a lay out, which is approved by the Corporation shall automatically stand transferred to free of cost; and vest with the Corporation free from all encumbrances. After such vesting, the Corporation shall maintain all such open spaces or the purposes for which they have been earmarked.” As per Rule 10-A, all the roads and open spaces such as parks and play grounds earmarked in a lay out approved by the Corporation shall automatically stand transferred free of cost to the Corporation and it shall vest with the Corporation free from all encumbrances. In the instant case, the 225 sq.yards of land situated adjacent to plot No.696 is admittedly earmarked as open space under the approved layout. By virtue of Rule 10-A, such open place automatically vests with the Corporation free from all encumbrances. In the circumstances, it is not open to the 4th respondent – society or anybody else to use such open space for any other purpose without obtaining the permission from the Corporation. It is not disputed before this Court that the 4th respondent – society before alienating the said open space of 225 sq.yards did not obtain the approval or consent of the Corporation. Hence, the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the building proposals submitted by the petitioner and asking him to confine the plan to an extent of 350 sq.yards covered by the approved plot No.696 cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel representing the Corporation, the left over piece of land purchased by the petitioner under the registered sale deed dt.28-5-2008 is not an approved plot and therefore the 4th respondent – society is not empowered to sell the same. Hence, no valid title can be said to have passed on to the petitioner in respect of the open space abutting plot No.696. In the circumstances, the impugned letter cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ G.Rohini, J 27th August, 2010 smr