HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.15889 of 2006 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondents, in not sanctioning the layout for which application was submitted on 05.12.2004 in respect of different survey numbers of Thippapur Village, Vemulawada Mandal, Karimnagar District inspite of expiry of the statutory period prescribed under Rule 5(4) of the Rules, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.35.00 of land in different survey numbers of Thippapur Village, Vemulawada Mandal, Karimnagar District, and to have submitted an application, for sanction of a layout, for carving out building plots in the said survey numbers. It is the petitioner’s case that the gram panchayat had written to the first respondent, vide letter dated 05.12.2004, for approval of the layout; thereafter the gram panchayat, vide its letter dated 24.01.2005, had directed him to pay the layout fees as per rules as his application for sanction of the layout was under approval; as per the directions of the gram panchayat, he had paid the prescribed layout fees through challan No.312 dated 22.04.2006; the District Panchayat Officer, vide proceedings dated 27.03.2006, had also issued a memo to the secretary of the gram panchayat to explain why the layout proposals had not been submitted; he had made a representation on 24.04.2006 to the Sarpanch of the gram panchayat after payment of the layout fees; despite his repeated representations, the respondents were not taking steps to approve the layout; his application for sanction of layout was pending from December, 2004 onwards; and the authorities were taking their own time to process the application. It is his grievance that, unless layout permission was sanctioned, he cannot alienate the building plots which was causing him undue hardship and monetary loss; despite having paid the layout fees in April, 2006, and though three months had elapsed since then, the layout was not approved; and, hence, the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition on 28.07.2006. Counter affidavits are filed both by the Director of Town and Country Planning (first respondent) and the Panchayat Secretary (the executive officer of the third respondent). In his counter affidavit, the Panchayat Secretary would deny the allegation that the gram panchayat had written letter dated 05.12.2004 to the first respondent seeking approval of the layout, and had directed him to pay layout fees as per rules; the petitioner had already sold out many plots stating that the layout had already been approved; he did not make any application to the gram panchayat for approval of the layout; the gram panchayat had issued a public notice on 16.11.2005 to all concerned that the plots could not be sold without the layout being approved, and if any person violated the rules, the gram panchayat would take necessary action against them; as the petitioner had sold all the plots illegally, without layout permission being granted, he had resorted to false allegations; the allegation that the gram panchayat had directed the petitioner to pay the layout fees was false; the petitioner had paid the layout fees through challan No.312 dated 22.04.2006; the second respondent had, vide letter dated 31.12.2005, informed him that, though the petitioner had applied for sanction of layout, no action had been taken under G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002, and had directed him to submit the layout application in the office of the District Panchayat Officer for necessary action; he had informed the second respondent, vide letter dated 24.01.2006, that the petitioner had never submitted any application, to the gram panchayat, for sanction of the layout; again, on 27.03.2006, the second respondent had issued a memo, on the representation made by the ex-sarpanch dated 16.03.2006, that the proposals for sanction of the layout were not received in the office of the District Panchayat Officer, and had directed him to send proposals within three days; he had again addressed letter dated 12.04.2006 to the second respondent informing him that the petitioner did not make any application for approval of the layout till date, and that an application was required to be made for sanction of the layout as per the rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002; under Rule 3, the petitioner had to forward four copies of the site plans drawn to a scale 1:100, and other plans as required under the rules with all particulars required therein; if applications, for sanction of the layout, were not received in the prescribed form and were not accompanied by the documents mentioned in Rule 3, they might be refused; the petitioner did not make any application for sanction of the layout to the gram panchayat till date; while the petitioner had made several representations to the higher authorities, as though he had made application to the gram panchayat in the year 2004, the fact remained that no such application was made; since the petitioner had sold out all the plots illegally, he was resorting to these false allegations against the gram panchayat to satisfy the purchasers of the plots; W.P.No.28057 of 2005 was filed before this Court for not sanctioning the layout; the present Writ Petition was filed suppressing material facts and with ulterior motives; the application to be submitted must be in accordance with the Rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002; after receipt of such application, he would send the same to the authorities and, after following the Rules, action would be taken; and, in the absence of such an application, no action could be taken for sanction thereof. In his counter affidavit, the first respondent would deny the allegation that the petitioner had made an application for sanction of the layout on 25.03.2004. He would assert that neither the third respondent nor the petitioner had submitted any such proposal on 24.01.2005 as alleged; no such proposal was received by his office; the Sarpanch of Thippapur Gram Panchayat had submitted a letter dated 05.12.2004 which was received in his office on 17.03.2006; the said letter was examined and the Sarpanch was requested, vide office letter dated 07.09.2006, to submit the layout proposal, along with ownership documents i.e. layout pan, topo detailed plan and panchayat resolution; no such proposal was received till date; the sarpanch had written letter dated 15.05.2006; without submitting the layout proposal, the petitioner had requested the first respondent to sanction the layout; and, unless and until a proper proposal was received through the competent authority, the first respondent could not examine the feasibility of sanctioning the layout. The first respondent would deny that the petitioner had made an application in December, 2004 or that the authorities did not take any action or that they were taking their own time to process the application. The first respondent would state that, since the petitioner did not submit the application even till date, he could not take advantage of the deeming provision under Rule 5(4) of 1973 Rules. Sri M.Rama Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit, placing reliance on the alleged letter dated 05.12.2004 addressed by the Sarpanch of the gram panchayat to the first respondent, that it was evident therefrom that the petitioner had submitted an application on 25.03.2004; the Sarpanch, vide letter dated 24.01.2005, had informed the petitioner that his layout plan was under approval for which he was liable to pay layout fees, and he was directed to pay the layout fees for grant of approval as per the rules; the District Panchayat Officer, vide letter dated 27.03.2006, had directed the Panchayat Secretary to explain why action had not been taken in respect of the memo issued by the office of the second respondent dated 31.12.2005, and to submit the layout proposals within three days; and that the petitioner had informed the Sarpanch and the Secretary, vide his letter dated 24.04.2006, that he had paid the layout fees vide challan No.312 dated 22.04.2006, and had enclosed a copy thereof; once the gram panchayat acknowledged that the petitioner had submitted an application, the delay in processing the said application was by the respondents, and the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of the deeming provision under Rule 5(4) of the Rules; the petitioner’s responsibility ended with submission of the application and, since the factum of an application having been submitted had been acknowledged by the Sarpanch of the gram panchayat, the petitioner had complied with the requirements of the Rules in submitting his application, and he could not be faulted for taking advantage of the deeming provision in the absence of necessary approval being accorded, or the application being rejected by the authorities concerned within the time stipulated. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (xvii) of Section 268(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), the Government made the ‘Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) which came into force from the date of its notification in the gazette. The said Rules were notified in G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26.02.2002, and they apply to all gram panchayat areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Rule 3 thereof relates to application for layout permission. Under Sub-rule (1) thereof, every person who intends to undertake or carry out layout or development work shall apply in writing to the Executive Authority of such intention in the form prescribed in Annexure-A appended to the rules. Under Sub-Rule (3), the application for permission is required to be accompanied by: (i) A site plan drawn to scale of not less than 1:1000 showing all physical details of the land, boundaries of the land, the surrounding existing layouts/lands, and existing approach road to the land where the layout is proposed; (ii) A Layout Plan (in required number of copies) drawn to a scale of not less than 1:500 showing boundaries of land, proposed number of building plots with dimensions and area of each plot and its uses as per these rules, alignment and width of the proposed streets/roads, dimensions and areas of open space provided according to these rules; (iii) A statement of the details and dimensions of each plot, percentage of area under open spaces, roads, amenities and plotted area; (iv) High Tension/Low Tension Electricity Lines, water-mains, sewer lines, telephone and telegraph lines, alignment and right-of-way of National/State Highways/Major/Minor District Roads passing through the layout site; (v) Certificate of Undertaking in prescribed form jointly by owner and qualified Surveyor/Engineer (appended at Annexure-A), for carrying out the development works as per standards; (vi) Copy of the ownership documents of the plot/property/land concerned together with a Non-Encumbrance Certificate from the Registration Department; (vii) Certificate of demarcation of site by Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records Department; (viii) Layout scrutiny charges and inspection charges as prescribed in the Personal Deposit Account of Direction of Town and Country Planning; (ix) A Security Deposit as prescribed by the Government for the due fulfillment of the conditions imposed or in lieu of such deposit, a security in the shape of land of such extent equivalent in the value of cash deposited in the area covered by the layout shall be mortgaged through a registered mortgage deed in favour of Gram Panchayat or in the form of bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of security deposit in the form prescribed in Annexure-D appended to the rules; Under Sub-Rule (4), the owner of any land or groups of owners/developers who intend to sub-divide or layout the land into building plots in the Revenue Survey Nos. area of the Village, i.e., outside the Gram Kantam or settlement area shall:- (a) apply to the Executive Authority for necessary layout permission as prescribed in sub-rule (1) and in accordance with these rules; (b) carryout the layout development works as per specifications and standards appended in Annexure-B of these rules before disposing the plots. Rule 4 stipulates the minimum requirement for approval of layout. Rule 5 stipulates the required specifications and conditions therefor. Under Sub-rule (1) thereof, the owner of a site shall undertake the works under the supervision of the Executive Authority with the Surveyors after intimation of the layout approved by the Executive Authority. Rule 6 deals with Sanction or refusal of permission. Under Sub-rule (1), the layout proposals, with plans/drawings and specifications, may be sanctioned with or without modifications or directions as are deemed necessary or refused by the Executive Authority within (i) 90 days from the date of application in case of layout application; (ii) any application, with all the required particulars not disposed of within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt in the Gram Panchayat Office, shall be deemed to have been sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of these rules; and (iii) however, any construction or development of layout carried out under deemed provisions cannot be in contravention of any of the layout and building rules. As is evident from Rule 3(1) of the Rules, an application seeking layout permission has to be made to the Executive Authority in the form prescribed in Annexure-A of the Rules. The rules do not define ‘Executive Authority’. However, Section 2(12) of the Act defines ‘Executive Authority’ to mean the Panchayat Secretary appointed to each Gram Panchayat. Section 2(28A) of the Act defines ‘Panchayat Secretary’ to mean ‘Panchayat Secretary’ appointed under Section 30. Section 30 provides for appointment of an executive authority for certain gram panchayats. Under sub-section (1) thereof, a whole time or a part-time Executive Authority shall be appointed by the Commissioner for any gram panchayat or for any group of contiguous gram panchayats which may be notified in this behalf. The application seeking approval of the layout is, therefore, to be made to the Panchayat Secretary. As noted hereinabove, the Panchayat Secretary, in his counter affidavit, has denied receipt of any such application. Likewise, the Director of Town and Country Planning (first respondent) has also denied any such application as having been submitted. While the petitioner is said to have submitted his application on 25.03.2004, the Sarpanch of the gram panchayat had addressed a letter to the first respondent on 05.12.2004 (more than eight months after the date of the application). It is evident from the counter affidavit of the first respondent that the letter dated 05.12.2004 was received in the office of the first respondent only on 17.03.2006, more than a year and four months after the said letter is said to have been sent. The Sarpanch is also said to have informed the petitioner, vide letter dated 24.01.2005, of his being required to pay the layout fees. It is the petitioner’s admitted case that the layout fees was paid vide challan No.312 dated 22.04.2006, which is more than 15 months after the Sarpanch had requested him to make such payment. One other interesting fact, as is clear from the counter affidavit of the third respondent, is that the third respondent had issued a public notice on 16.11.2005 informing the public at large that the said plots could not be sold without approval of the layout and, if any person violated the rules, the gram panchayat would take necessary action. The counter affidavit refers to the Sarpanch, who addressed the letters dated 05.12.2004 and 24.01.2005, as the Ex-sarpanch. When these facts are noted in the light of the public notice dated 16.11.2005, the contention of the first respondent, and that of the Panchayat Secretary, that no such application was filed by the petitioner cannot be ruled out. The layout fees, on which great stress is laid by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, was paid more than four months after the public notice dated 16.11.2005, and more than a month after the first respondent received the letter of the Sarpanch dated 05.12.2004 in their office on 17.03.2006. As noted hereinabove, the layout application is required to be made in the prescribed proforma, along with several enclosures, including plans etc. While the learned Counsel for the petitioner would assert that this application would form part of the record, and must be available in the office of the gram panchayat, no such application has been filed by him along with the material papers annexed to the Writ Petition nor is any such copy produced by him before this Court. In the light of the categorical denial by respondent Nos.1 and 3 that no such application has ever been submitted to them, the question of the petitioner taking advantage of the deeming provision under Rule 6(1) (ii) of the Rules does not arise. It is only if an application is made to the Executive Authority (Panchayat Secretary) under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, in the prescribed proforma along with all the documents prescribed stipulated therein, and such an application has not been disposed of within 90 days on its receipt by the gram panchayat’s office, would the deeming provision come into operation. In the absence of any cogent material, other than the letters of the Ex-sarpanch; in the absence of a copy of the application being placed before this Court, and in the light of denial by respondent Nos.1 and 3 that they received the application, I see no reason to grant the relief sought for. Sri M.Rama Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner would make an application afresh seeking layout approval. I have no reason to doubt that, if such an application is made, respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall consider the same in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:21.10.2010 usd