IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9067 of 2009 Between: M/s. Matrushri Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Registration No.B-1751, Door No. 31-16-4, Shathavahana Nagar, Kurmannapalem, Gajuvaka, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Secretary A.Jagannadham. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Vice Chairman. 2 The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Commissioner Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 4 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not releasing the lay out plan in respect of an extent of Ac.34.26 cents situated in Syrvey Nos. 8/3P-5, 22/1P to 25/P, 26, 28/2, 29/2, 31/1, 25/3, 6, 7, 8 and 46/1 of Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the proceedings in RC.No.1229/90/L3 dated 15.3.2008 of the 1st respondent and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 9067 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioner herein is a house building society. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.17925 of 2005 dated 10.08.2006 and W.P.Nos.23078 and 27198 of 2007 etc., dated 08.02.2008, the first respondent vide proceedings dated 15.03.2008 released lay out in L.P.No.18/2007 for an extent of Ac.34-26 cents in Sy.Nos.8/3p, 5,22/1p, 2,5,25/p, 26,28/1&2, 29/2, 31/1, 35/3,6,7,8, 46/1 subject to the following conditions to be fulfilled by the petitioner- society. 1. The roads, open spaces etc., should be handed over to the GVMC by the society through Regd Gift Deed. 2. The layout boundary abutting to the Govt. land should be fenced by the society with barbed wire fencing. It was also made clear in the said proceedings that the Commissioner Grater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (for short the Corporation) has to release one set of plans to the society after taking over open spaces, green belt and roads as shown in the plan by way of registered gift deed and after ensuring that the applicant has complied with the conditions specified by the first respondent. The petitioner alleges that though both the conditions prescribed by the first respondent in the proceedings dated 15.03.2008 have been complied with, the second respondent- Corporation failed to release the plans to the petitioner-society without there being any justifiable reason. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent-Corporation in not releasing the lay out plan as arbitrary and illegal. On behalf of the Corporation a counter affidavit has been filed stating that the petitioner made a representation dated 28.01.2009 duly enclosing the gift deed registered as Document No.100/09 dated 27.01.2009 and duly handing over the roads in item No.1 to 47 to an extent of Ac.12.12 cents and open space area to an extent of Ac.0.65 cents to the Corporation. However, on physical verification, it is noticed that the petitioner-society has not properly fenced the Government land. Hence, an endorsement was issued to the petitioner-society on 03.02.2009 directing to properly fence the Government land. In the meanwhile, pursuant to a news item published in a local daily stating that an enquiry was ordered by the District Collector in respect of the petitioner’s lay out and other lay outs, the District Collector was addressed a letter requesting his opinion on the subject. However, since there was no reply from the District Collector, further steps could not be taken. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. As per Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act, 1975, the first respondent-Urban Development Authority alone is the competent authority for proper development of any urban area or group of urban areas. Section 13 makes it clear that no development shall be taken or carried out by any person unless the permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the Authority. Since such permission was already granted by the first respondent, vide proceedings dated 15.03.2008 subject to complying with the conditions specified thereunder, the second respondent Corporation is bound to release the lay out plan, provided the above said two conditions are satisfied. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation shows that the gift deed as required under condition No.1 was already handed over by the petitioner. So far as the fencing of the Government land is concerned, the Corporation states that the Government land was not property fenced. If that be so, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner calling upon to rectify the alleged defects. Though it is pleaded by the Corporation that an enquiry by the District Collector was ordered by the Government, nothing has been placed before this Court to substantiate the same and no counter affidavit has been filed by the District Collector. In the absence of any material to show that the proceedings of the first respondent dated 15.03.2008 are varied or reversed, I am of the opinion that the second respondent-Corporation is bound to act upon the proceedings dated 15.03.2008 without any delay. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to take expeditiously the necessary further steps pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 15.03.2008 and release the lay out plan subject to compliance with the conditions specified thereunder within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. s______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 30-06-2009 KLP