THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3993 of 2009 June 30, 2010 Between: Dr.L.Venkata Ramana, S/o.Lakshmanna … Petitioner And The District Collector, Anantapur And others ... Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3993 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a medical doctor by profession. He is owner of land in survey No.254/P of Anantapur town. He made application to the second respondent for approval of layout. He also requested to fix market value of small portion admeasuring 208 Sq.yards (Acs.0.043 cents) so that he can himself buy the land. Be it noted, as per Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Layout) Rules, 1970 (Layout Rules, for brevity), the said extent has to be kept as open land for common public purpose. Be it also noted, under Rule 10(3) of the Layout Rules, if the area covered by layout is fairly small, the Municipal Council with the concurrence of Director of Town Planning (DTP) can dispose of the small portion subject to certain conditions. Further, on 28.4.2003, along with layout for approval, petitioner also executed a deed of settlement transferring 208 Sq.yards of land to Anantapur Municipality in compliance with Rule 10(2) of Layout Rules. Petitioner obtained certificate of market value from the Sub Registrar, Anantapur, which is to the effect that value of 208 Sq.yards at Rs.945/- per Sq.yard. The Municipal Council, after receiving request of petitioner, passed a resolution on 24.7.2003 to obtain concurrence of DTP and dispose of the land. By a communication dated 10.9.2003, DTP communicated ‘No Objection’ for the proposal of Municipality on condition of petitioner paying market value as fixed by the District Collector under Rule 10(3) of Layout Rules. The matter was then referred to the District Collector on 01.5.2007. By impugned communication dated 21.7.2008 addressed to the Commissioner of Anantapur Municipal Corporation, District Collector recommended market value at Rs.2,500/- per Sq.yard for Acs.0.043 cents (208 Sq.yards). Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking invalidation of the decision of District Collector and for a consequential direction to release the layout by fixing the market value as per the certificate issued by the Sub Registrar. The fourth respondent alone filed counter affidavit. It is stated that after receiving the request of Commissioner, the matter was referred to third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). On his instructions, fourth respondent inspected the site and informed that as per the sales statistics for the preceding three years, market value ranges from Rs.537/- to Rs.2002/- depending upon proximity to the main road and that the cost of the land is Rs.72,000/- per cent. The Tahsildar also reported that the average market value is Rs.1,274/- per Sq.yard. The report of the Tahsildar was forwarded to the District Collector who issued the impugned order. The counsel for petitioner, Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) and the Standing Counsel for Anantapur Municipal Corporation made their submissions. In the light of these submissions, the only point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Collector suffers from any illegality or irregularity. The Layout Rules framed under Section 326(2)(s) read with Section 185 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, are comprehensive. Rule 10(1) of Layout Rules mandates that five per cent of gross area of layout with not more than eight plots for gross Hectare shall be kept as open space subject to a maximum of 10%. As per Rule 10(2) of Layout Rules in case the area for open space in the layout for which approval is sought is in a master plan or town planning scheme, the owner of the layout shall transfer such percentage of layout area to Municipality. Rule 10(3) of Layout Rules is relevant, which reads as under. Rule 10 (3) Irrespective of the fact, whether an area lies in a notified or sanctioned Town Planning Scheme or the area covered by Master Plan, if the area of land covered by a layout is fairly small say less than half hectare in extent, the owner in such cases also should set apart and transfer such extent as prescribed under sub-rule (1) of the total extent to the Municipality. But the Council is at liberty to dispose of such land with the concurrence of the Director of Town and Country Planning provided it does not form part of compact block of open space which could be carved out with the neighbouring layout areas to any body at the rate fixed by the District Collector: Provided that the rate so fixed by the District Collector shall not be less than the registration rate fixed by the Registration Department for the said localities and utilise the amount so realised for acquisition and development of a larger piece of land required for community facilities in the locality as may be decided by the Council with the approval of the Director of Town and Country Planning. The above sub-rule is in the nature of exception to the general rule in Rules 10(1) and 10(2) of Layout Rules that layout owner earmarks certain percentage of gross area as open space and transfers the same to Municipality. As per Rule 10(3) of Layout Rules, if the land covered by layout is fairly small, the owner in such cases should set apart and transfer such extent as prescribed under Rule 10(1) of Layout Rules to the Municipality. But the Municipal Council may with the concurrence of DTP dispose of such small area at the rate fixed by the District Collector. The necessary guidance for the District Collector in fixing the market value is contained in the proviso to Rule 10(3) of Layout Rules to the effect that the District Collector shall fix the rate which shall not be less than the registration rate fixed by the Registration department for the locality. When the matter was initially heard on 16.6.2010, this Court directed the Assistant Government Pleader to produce before this Court the basic values from 2001 to 2007 in respect of land comprised in survey No.264/P. Indisputably petitioner submitted layout for approval some time in July 2003 and the DTP accorded approval for disposal of the land in favour of petitioner on 10.9.2003. Therefore the appropriate basic value to be applied can be one which existed in 2003-2004. Curiously, the District Collector lost sight of this and relied on the report submitted by the Tahsildar through RDO while fixing the market value at Rs.2,500/- per Sq.yard. In that view of the matter, the District Collector failed to appreciate the purpose of Rule 10(3) of Layout Rules and also failed to take into consideration the basic value fixed by the Registration department. The law mandates that the value fixed by the District Collector shall not be less than basic value. Therefore, though the basic value is the bench mark, in appropriate cases, the value for the purpose of Rule 10(3) of Layout Rules can be little higher. If there is a wide range in the price of the market sales during that period the rate has to be fixed in a rational manner keeping in view the basic value of Registration department for the extent which petitioner sought to de-reserve. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Collector, Anantapur, to reconsider the issue and fix the market value for the purpose of Rule 10(3) of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Layout) Rules, 1970, keeping in view the observations made herein above. This exercise may be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 30, 2010 NOTE: Dispatch order copy by 07.7.2010. (By order) YS