IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.18515 of 2001 Between: 1 Kokkula Yellappa S/o Sri Ramaiah R/o 5-4-93, Thasil Office Road, Sricilla, Karimnagar District. 2 Gowda bhoomaiah S/o Sri Basavaiah R/o 8-2-112, Gopal Nagar, Sricilla, Karimnagar District. 3 Adepu Parbhakar S/o Sri Venkataiah R/o 9-1-45, Nehru Nagar, Sricilla, Karimnagar District. 4 Gaddam Vittal S/o Sri Narayana R/o 6-4-47/1, Nehru Nagar, Sricilla, Karimnagar District. 5 Yelle Laxminarayana S/o Sri Rajaiah R/o Subash Nagar, Sricilla, Karimnagar District. 6 Bommana Krishna Rao S/o Sri Malla Rao R/o 12-5-80/44, Tarakarama Nagar, Sricilla, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Narsimha Chary R/o Sircilla, Karimnagar District. 2 Commissioner/Municipal Council, Sircilla Municipality, R/o Sircilla, Karimnagar District. 3 Director, Town & Country Planning Office, Officer at A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. 4 Collector, Karimnagar District, At Karimnagar . .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue notice, call for the records, quash and set-aside the resolution no.156, dt: 7.3.2001 in file No.41/832/90 to an extent approving the lay-out on the file of the 2nd respondent together with consequential proceedings if any taken by the respondent No.2 to 4 and to grant such other relief or reliefs as the petitioner's are found entitled to in law by issuances of Writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case or else the petitioners herein will be put to great hardship and suffer irreparable loss. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.18515 of 2001 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is the ex-gram panchayat member of Sircilla, the 2nd petitioner is a businessman, the 3rd petitioner is a Ex- Municipal Councilor, the 4th petitioner is a Co-op. member and petitioners 5 and 6 are the Municipal Councilors of Sircilla and they question the resolution passed by the 2nd respondent in File No.G1/832/90, dated 07-03-2001, to the extent of approving lay-out and consequential proceedings, if any taken by respondents 2 to 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent herein namely Narasimha Chary submitted a draft lay-out to the 2nd respondent in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.8-37 gts., in Sy.Nos.646, 650, 651, 668 and 671 situated at Gandhinagar, Sircilla, Karimnagar District, for making house plots. It is stated that in the draft lay out submitted by the 1st respondent, he has not shown the land earmarked for roads, play grounds, educational institutions etc., but the 2nd respondent forwarded the same for its approval to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent mechanically approved the same in the month of December, 2000 and forwarded to the 2nd respondent. On receipt of approval from the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent placed the lay-out for final approval before the committee of ward members on 07-03-2001. Out of 26 ward members, 17 members voted for approval of lay-out in favour of the 1st respondent, while 9 ward members, including the petitioners herein, objected for approval of layout in favour of the 1st respondent with specific reasons submitted in the descending note. Therefore, the resolution passed by the Municipal Council, dated 07-03-2001, approving the lay-out in favour of the 1st respondent is illegal and arbitrary. A counter has been filed by the 3rd respondent stating that the Director of Municipal Administration has approved tentative layout in the year 1991 by providing 33’-0” wide roads as per the rules in force, at that time, and 10% of the open space to an extent of Ac.8-53 cents. The department has approved final lay-out in L.P.No.89/2000, basing of the feasibility report of the Municipal Commissioner, Sircilla and the Regional Deputy Director of Town Planning, Warangal, to an extent of Ac.6-25 cents as per the ground position. Thus, I am of the opinion that the contention of the petitioners that final layout was approved with a descending note, pursuant to the impugned resolution, dated 07-03-2001, is incorrect and untrue. When the matter has been placed for discussion before the Municipal Council for approval of the final lay out, majority of the members i.e., 17 have voted for approval of the resolution and 9 voted for rejection of the resolution relating to approval of final layout 89/2000. Admittedly, any proposal of the tentative layout cannot be sent without there being any approval of the Municipal Council or the gram panchayat, as the case may be. It is stated that the tentative layout was approved in the year 1991 and the final layout has been made vide L.P.No.89/2000. If that be so, final lay-out 89/2000 has not been questioned by any of the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in the absence of questioning final lay-out L.P.No.89/2000, questioning the legality and validity of the said approval of the final lay-out No.89/2000 by the Municipal Council once again is not permissible. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 01-08-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MN} Thus, I am of the opinion that the contention of the petitioners that final layout was approved with a descending note, pursuant to the impugned resolution No.156, dated 07-03-2001, is incorrect and untrue. Approval or rejection of the lay out was not made by Resolution, dated 07-03-2001. Admittedly, any proposals of the tentative layout cannot be send without there being any approval of the Municipal Council or the gram panchayat, as the case may be, at that time. It is stated that the tentative layout was approved in the year 1991 and the final layout has been made vide L.P.No.89/2000. It is only at the instance of the petitioners and some others, the matter has been erroneously placed for discussion before the Municipal Council and however, majority of the members i.e., 17 have voted for approval of the resolution and 9 voted for rejection of the resolution relating to the approval of the final layout No.89/00. The final lay-out 89/2000 has not been questioned by any of the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in the absence of questioning final lay-out L.P.No.89/2000, the question of resolving the legality and validity of the said resolution No.156, dated 07-03-2001 in File No.G1/832/90, and the consequential proceedings does not arise. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.