IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 253 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 9008 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR.C.B.RAM MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: M.DHANANJAY REDDY(SC FOR HUDA) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 253 of 2003. J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 30-9-2002 passed in WP.No. 9008 of 2002 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge disposed of the main writ petition observing that the layout approved by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority shall be subject to the result of OS.No. 10 of 2002 pending on the file of the Court of District Judge, Sanga Reddy, Medak district. 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of this writ appeal, the first appellant M. Laxmi Narsamma died and Appellant No.2 is brought on record, as per orders dated 30-2-2005 passed in WAMP.No. 3993 of 2003. 3. The main writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in not granting layout under layout permit No.39/MP-2/HUDA/2001, dated 18-12-2001 in respect of survey No.332 in an extent of Ac:6-22 which is a part of the total extent of Ac:19-00 situated at Ameenapur village of Patancheruvu Revenue Mandal, Medak district, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently to direct the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority to cancel the layout permit to the extent of Ac:6-22 guntas in Survey No.332. 4. The facts of the case are that the first appellant’s husband Sri Chandra Reddy was the pattedar and possessor of a larger extent of land in various survey numbers including survey No.332 in an extent of Acs:19-00. Her husband, Chandra Reddy died on 27—5-1980 leaving behind him the first appellant and his two sons as legal heirs. The first appellant got 1/3rd right along with her two sons, who are entitled to a similar extent each. The first appellant filed OS.No.4 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Sangareddy, Medak district seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share against her sons. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 22-2-2001 and subsequently an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for division of the properties, who filed his report on 6-8-2001. Thereafter, in the said suit, a final decree was passed in IA.No. 479 of 2001, under which the entire properties of late Chandra Reddy were divided into three shares and one such was allotted to the first appellant. In that one of the item is the land in survey No.332 in an extent of Ac:6-22- guntas allotted to the share of the first appellant and the Bailiff in pursuance of the orders of theCourt delivered the said extent along with other items on 27-12-2001 to her. Thereafter, execution petition was also terminated in view of the delivery of the property affected by the bailiff. In the meanwhile, the two sons of Chandra Reddy, sold the entire extent of Ac:19-00 in survey No.332 under various sale deeds to various purchasers. In the said process, the third respondent acquired an extent of Ac:1- 00 from the purchasers of the sons of late Chandra Reddy under a sale deed dated 14-8-2000. Subsequently, the third respondent submitted apoplication for conversion of the land use, as the lands under survey No.332 were shown in the master-plan in the recreation zone. In pursuance of the said application made under section 12 of the AP Urban Areas (Development) act, 1975, a preliminary notification was published on 13-6-2001 calling for the objections. Pursuant to the said notification, a final notification was also issued on 17-7-2001, which was published in the gazette on 02-8-2001. Thereafter, the layout plan was applied by the third respondent along with others for an extent of Ac:13-00 in sy.no.332, including the land of the writ petitioner and the first respondent approved the layout by proceedings dated 18-12-2001. Aggrieved thereby, the first appellant filed the writ petition to declare the action of the first respondent in not granting layout under layout permit No.39/MP-2/HUDA/2001, dated 18-12-2001 in respect of survey No.332 in an extent of Ac:6-22 which is a part of the total extent of Ac:19-00 situated at Ameenapur village of Patancheruvu Revenue Mandal, Medak district, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently to direct the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority to cancel the layout permit to the extent of Ac:6-22 guntas in Survey No.332. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that while granting layout, the concerned authorities have not followed the prescribed procedure laid down under A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, which prescribes a notice and enquiry. When final decree proceedings were taken up and the share to the extent of the appellant-writ petitioner was divided and she was given possession, if the concerned authorities granted layout it should be subject to the right of the owner and layout cannot be granted without notice to the real owner, as the said layout was tainted with fraud and misrepresentation. The learned counsel further submitted that the concerned authorities have violated the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act and the said mandatory procedure vitiates the very grant of layout. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned standing for HUDA and also the learned counsel for third respondent, Sri Raghuram and Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy and on perusing the material available on record, it appears that in the main writ petition, the appellant-writ petitioner has not questioned the conversion of the land use from recreation to the residential zone and more so under the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 there is no provision to consider such claims or objections which were filed after the approval of layout. The learned single Judge after having heard both sides has rightly observed that if the writ petitioner succeeds in the suit that she has got right and title to a part of the land in respect of which layout was granted to the extent of Acs:6-22 guntas in survey No.332 of Ameenapur village of Medak district to that extent the layout has to be set aside or the approval even if it continues it will not have the effect of permitting the third respondent and others to proceed with the layout and develop the land. If the appellant-writ petitioner succeeds in the main suit then the third respondent may not be entitled for the layout to the extent of declaration of title of the appellant-writ petitioner. Under the above circumstances, we are the of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 7. With the above observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. _____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR. 01-5-2009 I s L