THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.32574 OF 2010 DATED: 04.07.2011 Between : Maddina Srinivasulu … Petitioner And 1. Nellore Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Municipal Commissioner and 4 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.32574 OF 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents 1 and 2 in allotting the area reserved for a park in the layout for P & T Employees Co-operative Housing Society, Nellore to the respondents 3 to 5 and in permitting them to construct a building thereupon is arbitrary and illegal. The material available on record shows that the land situated in Sy.Nos.2022-A2, 2023/2 and 2024/2, Nellore was allotted by the Government for housing purpose of the employees of Revenue Department, Zilla Parishad and P & T. A layout was prepared for the said land by the Revenue Department in the year 1969 making provision for 30 feet wide internal roads and setting apart certain open space in Sy.Nos.2024/1 part and 2023 part of Bit-I for the purpose of a park. The petitioner claims to be an occupier of house bearing No.25-1-564, which is situated opposite to the land earmarked in the layout for a park. It is alleged that the respondents 3 to 5 have not only occupied the said land set apart for the purpose of a park but also encroached 10 feet out of the 30 feet wide road and constructed a compound wall. The said fact was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent by the petitioner by making a representation dated 1.11.2010 with a request to remove the said alleged illegal constructions and to restore the 30 feet wide road. Alleging that without considering the petitioner’s representation, the 1st respondent approved the building plan, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the said action of the respondents 1 and 2 is arbitrary and illegal. The Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the 1st respondent stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore reported to the District Revenue Officer during the year 1969, that the vacant space near the rental colony set apart for the purpose of park in S.No.2024/1-P and 2023 of Nellore Bit-I was not at all convenient to be used as park as it was situated at one end of the residential colony and that even the extent was not adequate for locating the park and therefore the same could be conveniently made into 4 plots for assignment in favour of (1) Sri P. Subbaiah Chetty, P.A. to Collector, Nellore; (2) Sri P. Ashok Kumar, Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore; (3) Sri P. Krishna Rao, Huzur Sheristadar, Collector’s Office; (4) Sri K. Viswagnachari, Tashildar, Nellore. On the basis of the said report, the District Revenue Officer, Nellore vide proceedings Rc.C2/117/69, dated 17.10.1969 opined that there was no point in using the said area for a park as it was at one end of the colony and that it would be more convenient to be used for the construction of houses as it was a residential area. Thus the proposals of R.D.O., Nellore were approved and Tahsildar, Nellore was directed to assign the said site to the four officers on realizing market value. Accordingly the Tahsildar, Nellore assigned the site in favour of the said four officers on 25.10.1969 duly reducing the internal roads to 20 feet instead of 30 feet. It is also stated that the respondent No.4 submitted a plan on 1.7.2010 for approval of the proposed construction of ground + first floor in Plot No.184 duly paying the required fee. The said plans which are in conformity with the building rules and zoning regulations as per G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 15.04.2008, were approved vide BA.No.767/2010-G3, dated 29.7.2010. Therefore the allegation that the constructions being raised by the respondents 3 and 4 are illegal is unfounded. The allegation of encroachment into 30 feet wide road has also been denied and it is explained that while converting the park area into plots, the District Revenue Officer had reduced 30 feet road into 20 feet on the Western side of the Plot Nos.165 & 184. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 3 & 4, it is stated that the 4th respondent’s father K. Viswagnachari was allotted 85 ankanams in Plot No.184 on receipt of the market value along with the three other allottees. Having obtained the building permission from the Gram Panchayat, Nellore Bit-I, dated 31.01.1972, the 4th respondent’s father constructed a terraced building and compound wall in the said plot. By virtue of Registered Settlement Deed, dated 13.06.2008, executed by the original allottee K.Viswagnachari, the 3rd respondent obtained title and possession to the said plot. The 4th respondent is the sister of the 3rd respondent. She obtained building permission in BA.No.766/2010/G3, dt. 29.07.2010 and started construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. I have heard Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Hanumantha Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 – The Municipal Corporation of Nellore and Sri M.P. Chandramouli, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 & 4. As noticed above, certain land was allotted by the Government for housing purpose of the employees of Revenue Department, Zilla Parishad and P & T. A layout was prepared by the Revenue Department itself in the year 1969 earmarking area for construction of a temple and to the West of the Temple a small piece of land was set apart for a park. Subsequently some of the revenue employees who could not get the house sites made a representation to the District Collector and pursuant thereto a report was submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 15.10.969 stating that the vacant space earmarked for the purpose of the park was not suitable and it was not also adequate for locating the park and therefore it can be converted into four plots. Accordingly the District Revenue Officer vide proceedings dated 17.10.1969 while approving the proposal submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer for conversion of the portion earmarked for the park into four house plots, issued directions for assignment of house plots to the four officers including the father of the respondents 3 and 4 and the 5th respondent herein. Thereafter an additional plan dated 19.10.1969 was prepared by the Revenue Divisional Officer for the above said four plots which were assigned Plot Nos.165, 166, 184 & 185 and accordingly they were allotted to the four allottees on receiving the market value. It also appears that all the allottees constructed houses in the respective plots long back. Admittedly the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, dated 17.10.1969 and the consequential allotment of 4 additional plots on collection of market value have become final and all the allottees were put in possession of their respective plots long back. Even assuming that the conversion of the land set apart for the park into house plots is erroneous and illegal on any ground whatsoever, it is to be noticed that the said action is being questioned in this writ petition which is filed after a long lapse of about 40 years. In the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in questioning the alleged illegal conversion of open land into house plots, in my considered opinion the petitioner is not entitled to seek the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. In fact, the petitioner could not place before this Court any material to show that the layout in question has been sanctioned by the competent authority. In the absence of a sanctioned layout, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the impugned action of the respondents 1 and 2 is contrary to law. So far as the allegation that the road width was reduced to 20 feet from 30 feet in front of the newly allotted four plots is concerned, it is true that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it is admitted that on the Western side of the Plot Nos.165 & 184 the width of the road was reduced to 20 feet. However it is explained in the counter-affidavit that it was not on account of any encroachment but while converting area set apart for the park into house plots the District Revenue Officer himself had reduced the 30 feet wide road into 20 feet on the Western side of Plot Nos.165 & 184 and the market value was accordingly collected from the allottees. The said fact is also clear from the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Nellore, dated 23.11.1971. Hence the allegation of encroachment into the road portion by the respondents 3 to 5 is unfounded. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 04.07.2011 gbs